acquisition review quarterly — fall 2002 · 2011-05-14 · acquisition review quarterly — fall...

Acquisition Review Quarterly — Fall 2002

274

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 2002 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2002 to 00-00-2002

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE A Lean Sustainment Enterprise Model for Military Systems

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Naval Undersea Warfare Center,1176 Howell St,Newport,RI,02841

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Acquisition Review Quarterly?Fall 2002

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

24

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

A Lean Sustainment Enterprise Model for Military Systems

275

OPINION

A LEAN SUSTAINMENT ENTERPRISEMODEL FOR MILITARY SYSTEMS

Mario Agripino, Tim Cathcart, and Dennis Mathaisel, Ph.D.

As existing weapon systems age and the costs and cycle times on themaintenance, repair, and overhaul of these systems increases, variousorganizations within the U.S. Department of Defense are conducting indepen-dent studies to help the system become more efficient. Current research effortson maintenance repair and overhaul operations focus on individual elementsof this “sustainment” system. However, to more effectively solve the sustainmentproblem, research should be conducted on the whole enterprise, from rawmaterial suppliers to final product delivery. To accomplish this objective, theauthors developed a new “lean” framework for military systems sustainment.The goal of this model is to minimize non–value-added activities throughoutthe entire enterprise.

• Increased life extension of existingweapon systems due to delays in newsystem acquisition.

• Unforeseen support problems associ-ated with aging weapons systems.

• Material shortages because of dimin-ishing manufacturing resources andtechnological obsolescence.

As sustainment costs increase, there isless funding available to procure replace-ment systems. An analysis conducted bythe DoD (Gansler, 1999) concluded that,unless mission requirements and the op-erational tempo are reduced, or there aresignificant increases in the budget, theoperational maintenance cost portions of

S ince 1990, the Department of De-fense (DoD) has reduced its budgetby 29 percent. This reduction has

greatly impacted weapon system acquisi-tion and in-service support (Cordesman,2000). Reduced budgets have forced themilitary branches to extend the life of cur-rent legacy systems with significant reduc-tions in acquisition of replacement sys-tems. In addition, current weapon systemsare faced with escalating operations andmaintenance costs. These “sustainment”costs are due to:

• Increased operational tempo.

• Increased mean time between mainte-nance (MTBM) cycles due to increasedoperational requirements.


276

the budget will equal the total current (netpresent value) budgets by the year 2024(Figure 1). This chain of events has beenillustrated and characterized in Figure 2as the DoD death spiral. To waive off thisdeath spiral, DoD must find innovativesolutions to support legacy systems thatare cost effective and flexible. The DoDmust economically manage these systemlifecycles in order to address obsolescenceand modernization issues without degrad-ing readiness, cost, and performanceobjectives.

Along with DoD budgets, the defenseindustry sector has shrunk dramatically.

In order to effectively compete in a sig-nificantly smaller market, the industry hasseen a large number of corporate mergers.With the restructuring of the new indus-try base, many of the supply chain net-works no longer exist. Second and thirdtier supply chain businesses have gone outof production. The defense industry sectoris changing, and their associated supplychain network is eroding rapidly.

With over 60 percent of the total air-craft system life-cycle cost associated withoperations and aircraft maintenance, andas aircraft systems age, there is great op-portunity to optimize sustainment costs

Figure 1. DoD Budget Profile

(Note: From Dr. J.S. Gansler, USD(A&T), Acquisition Reform Update, January, 1999.)

Steady State FundingRequired to Support QDR

Force (Demand)

Acquisition Shortfall

DoD Budget(Supply)

Operation & Support

Substantial Defense "Strategy-Resources"Mismatch Already Exists

QDR Force Is Not Affordable780

520

260

0

FY 1

999

Dol

lars

- Bi

llions

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Fiscal Year


277

(Blanchard & Fabrycky, 1998). With somedegree of success, industry and govern-ment partnerships have been formed toattempt to address these issues. Examplesinclude the U.S. Army’s ModernizationThrough Spares program (Kros, 1999),Agile Combat Support (Eady, 1997), theLean Aerospace Initiative (2001), the LeanSustainment Initiative (2001), and FlexibleSustainment (Performance-Based Busi-ness Environment, 1997). These initiativesfocus on three primary areas:

1. Modernization through commercialoff-the-shelf technology solutions(technology refresh and technologyinsertion).

2. Manufacturing, production, and logis-tics methods (Just-In-Time, Lean, andAgile initiatives).

3. Modernization of the industrial base(the Flexible Manufacturing System,Material Resource Planning Systems,and Advanced Manufacturing Tech-nologies).

Figure 2. DoD Death Spiral

(Note: From Dr. J.S. Gansler, USD(A&T), Acquisition Reform Update, January, 1999.)


278

“These leanconcepts providea set of tools andan overridingphilosophy onhow to transform‘lean manufactur-ing’ into a ‘leansustainmentsupply chain.’”

However, these initiatives focus onindividual elements of the sustainmentsystem, not the whole enterprise. Thequestion arises: Are these efforts coordi-nated? Organizations have the mind setthat if it was not invented here it has novalue. Therefore, the results of indepen-dent efforts often are not used by organi-zations other than those that are the targetof the investigation. These projects over-lap, and in many cases multiple initiativesare conducted on the same research areas(General Accounting Office [GAO] Report,1998).

One approach to the problem is to turnto the “lean” principles for guidance.Using these concepts, the idea is to de-velop synergies along the whole supply

chain, from the originalequipment manufacturerto the customer. Theselean concepts provide aset of tools and an over-riding philosophy onhow to transform “leanmanufacturing” into a“lean sustainment sup-ply chain.” However, inorder to effectively coor-dinate these efforts, andto bring military sustain-

ment into the lean paradigm, a new frame-work or model for the whole enterpriseneeds to be developed. In this paper, theauthors develop this lean framework/model for military systems sustainment.The goal in the model is to minimize non–value-added activities throughout the entireenterprise.

The paper begins with a brief introduc-tion to the lean philosophy, follows witha characterization and analysis of the cur-rent military sustainment system, and then

proposes a new lean sustainment enter-prise model for how sustainment shouldbe structured. Finally, the paper concludeswith a brief description of an initiative (theU.S. Navy and Air Force Cartridge Actu-ated Device/Propellant Actuated Device[CAD/PAD] program) that has some ele-ments of the proposed lean sustainmentmodel. This example is used to illustratethat the proposed model is realistic, andthat it can be implemented.

BRIEF BACKGROUND ON “LEAN”

“Lean” was first defined in 1990 in abook, entitled The Machine That Changedthe World (Womack, Jones, & Roos,1990), which documents how the Toyotaautomobile production system becamemore efficient. Now other industries, in-cluding the aerospace and pharmaceuti-cal sectors, are applying the concepts(Liker, 1997). Several characteristics are:

• Lean is a dynamic process of changedriven by a systematic set of principlesand best practices aimed at continu-ously improving the enterprise.

• Lean refers to the total enterprise: fromthe shop floor to the executive suite,and from the supplier to customer valuechain.

• Lean requires rooting out everythingthat is non–value-added.

• Becoming lean is a complex business.There is no single thing that will makean organization lean.

Lean can mean “less” in terms of lesswaste, less design time, less cost, fewer


279

organizational layers, and fewer suppli-ers per customer. But, lean can also mean“more” in terms of more employee em-powerment, more flexibility and capabil-ity, more productivity, more quality, morecustomer satisfaction, and more long-termcompetitive success (Nightingale, 2000).In short, lean is focused on value-addedactivities.

How does an enterprise know if it islean? Benchmarking oneself against bestinternal operations, external direct com-petitors, external functional best opera-tions, or generic functions regardless ofindustry, can be one measure of the rela-tive value of one’s leanness. In addition,appropriately chosen metrics are the per-formance characteristics that are used toassess whether or not an enterprise is lean.Examples might include reducing cycletime, lowering costs, minimizing waste,and improving quality. Some of the dem-onstrated metrics used to measure im-provements in production/manufacturingas a result of applying these lean conceptsinclude (Lean Aerospace Initiative, 2001):

• Labor hours: 10 to 71 percent improve-ment.

• Costs: 11 to 50 percent improvement.

• Productivity: 27 to 100 percent im-provement.

• Cycle time: 20 to 97 percent improve-ment.

• Factory floor space: 25 to 81 percentimprovement.

• Travel distances (people or product):42 to 95 percent improvement.

• Inventory or Work in progress: 31 to98 percent improvement.

• Scrap, rework, defects or inspection:20 to 80 percent improvement.

• Set up time: 17 to 85 percent improve-ment.

GM Framingham Toyota Takaoka

Assembly hours per car

Assembly defects per 100 cars

Assembly space per car

Ave. inventory of parts

31

130

8.1

2 weeks

16

45

4.8

2 hours

Figure 3. Example of Mass Production vs. Lean Production

(Note: From World Assembly Plant Survey, International Motor Vehicle Program, MIT,http://web.mit.edu/ctpid/www/impv.html)


280

• Lead time: 16 to 50 percent improve-ment.

To illustrate the benefits of being lean,Figure 3 shows the distinction betweentraditional mass production measures ofperformance for a General Motors plantin Framingham, Massachusetts against thelean production measures involved in aToyota Takaoka.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CURRENTMILITARY SUSTAINMENT SYSTEM

The current military sustainment sys-tem can be characterized as comprisingfour major elements: (1) Supply Support,(2) Intermediate/Depot Maintenance andOperational Support, (3) Integrated

Logistic Support (ILS), and (4) the In-Ser-vice Engineering process. This currentmodel, shown in Figure 4a, illustrates thecoordination among these sustainmentorganizations.

Referring to Figure 4a, the Supply Sup-port function consists of the supply chain,supply system, and the Government In-dustry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP).The supply chain is comprised of the ven-dors (V) and suppliers (S) that provideconsumable materials and refurbishmentservices to the supply system and depot.The item manager has overall responsi-bility for inventory management, handledthrough Inventory Control Points (ICPs).Inventory locations are referenced as Des-ignated Stock Points (DSPs), which main-tain spares and consumable inventories.

Figure 4a. Current Military Sustainment Model

(Acronyms are defined in Appendix)


281

The Intermediate and Depot Mainte-nance functions consist of those mainte-nance organizations responsible for keep-ing weapon systems in a serviceable con-dition. The Designated Overhaul Point(DOP), also known as an organic militarydepot, performs maintenance that includesservicing, inspection, test, adjustment-alignment, removal, replacement, reinstal-lation, troubleshooting, calibration, repair,modification, and overhaul of weaponsystems and components (Jones, 1995;Blanchard, Verma, & Peterson, 1995).

Maintenance data and failure analysisis provided to the In-Service EngineeringProcess. Intermediate maintenance orga-nizations provide operational support ser-vices at the customer’s base of operations.Depot maintenance organizations performmaintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO)services to the weapon system and its as-sociated components. The depot procuresconsumable materials from the supplysystem and commercial sources.

The Integrated Logistics Support func-tion is a composite of all support consid-erations including “system design forsustainability” and the logistics infrastruc-

ture that is necessary to ensure effectiveand economical support of a systemthroughout its existing life (Blanchard,1998). The primary objective is to achieveand maintain readiness objectives. Logis-tics includes all of the support elementsnecessary to sustain the weapons system,including such elements as training andsupport; packaging, handling, storage, andtransportation (PHS&T); and computerresources/support.

The In-Service Engineering Process, atthe top of Figure 4a, is responsible formaintaining the system configuration ofthe product and identifying post-produc-tion support plans (PPSP) and productimprovements associated with the opera-tion, maintenance, and integrated logisticsupport of all weapon system supportelements. Other responsibilities includethe evaluation, definition, and testing ofsolutions to possible PPSP problems usingsystems engineering processes in aneffective and expeditious manner tosupport required readiness objectives forthe remainder of a weapon system’s lifecycle (International Council on SystemsEngineering [INCOSE], 1998).

Figure 4b. Military Sustainment Model Supply Chain (6 Levels)


282

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENTMILITARY SUSTAINMENT MODEL

To illustrate the inefficiency and com-plexity of the current military sustainmentmodel, Figure 4b shows the system fromthe perspective of the distribution chan-nel and the supply chain. In that figure,the distribution channel on the left in-cludes the processes necessary to providea “Ready for Issue” (RFI) spare part tothe war fighter, including the technicalmaintenance services provided by themaintenance sustainment organizations.

The supply channel on the right includesthe processes necessary to replenish theRFI stock inventory required to supportthe distribution channel. This process in-cludes replenishing the consumables, themaintenance, repair, and overhaul of RFIspares, and the associated lower level sup-ply chain activities. Note that there areseven levels for the distribution and sup-ply chain. Another perspective of thiscomplexity is illustrated in Figure 4c,which places the item manager in the cen-ter of the complicated supply channel anddistribution channel activity. Such a model

Figure 4c.Military Sustainment Model Distribution and Supply Channels


283

is good for the support of large, slowlychanging platforms and systems, but itpossesses negative characteristics.

• It is a 7-tier sustainment system.

• It contains uncoupled processes.

• It has fragmented organizational struc-tures.

• It possesses uncoordinated supplier anddistribution channels.

• It is a push, not a pull, oriented sys-tem, which violates one of the funda-mental principles of lean.

• The model is not responsive in today’smaintenance, repair and overhaulenvironment.

The complexity of the channels in Fig-ures 4b and 4c indicates there is an op-portunity to integrate many of the systemfunctional elements to effectively meetsupply system and fleet requirements con-currently. The proposed Lean SustainmentEnterprise Model is a new framework thatis based upon the lean paradigm.

THE PROPOSED LEAN SUSTAINMENTENTERPRISE MODEL

In order to achieve a truly lean ap-proach, some organizational structureswithin the current military system mustbe integrated. The proposed Lean Sustain-ment Enterprise Model (LSEM) calls forthe consolidation and integration of thefollowing sustainment functions: In-Service Engineering, Integrated Logistic

Support, Intermediate/Depot Mainte-nance, Operational Support, and SupplySupport. This realignment of the militarysustainment system mirrors a commercialMRO operation. The goal is to achieve sig-nificant customer service levels while re-ducing total ownership costs. The new or-ganizational framework allows close co-ordination between the operational com-munity and the supporting sustainmentnetwork required to meet evolvinglifecycle support requirements.

The proposed enterprise model is illus-trated in Figure 5a. Thekey attribute of thisframework is that it is or-ganized around threeprimary sustainmentstructures: OperationalSustainment, Sustain-ment Engineering, andMRO operations. Thesethree structures are con-solidated into one Life-Cycle Support Facility, shown in the cen-ter of Figure 5a. The three structures arenot explicitly illustrated in Figure 5a; theywill be explained later. Rather, the authorschose to use the traditional acronyms(such as ILS [Integrated Logistic Sup-port]) within each structure so that a di-rect comparison can be made between thisnew framework and the current militarysustainment model. The supply chain thatfeeds this new facility is illustrated in Fig-ure 5a to the right of the facility; and theOperational (O) Level and Intermediate(I) Level Maintenance activities that ben-efit from the Facility are illustrated on theleft (as the Operational Support function).

Within the Life-Cycle Support Facility,there exist the traditional ILS functions,such as training; packaging, handling,

“In order toachieve a trulylean approach,some organiza-tional structureswithin the currentmilitary systemmust beintegrated.”


284

shipping, and transportation (PHS&T);and the computer resources (CR), amongothers. These functions are now part ofwhat the authors call the first structure,the Operational Sustainment structure.New information systems technologiesallow many of these stand-alone ILS ele-ments to be combined and integrated intoa net-centric environment. Sophisticatedinteractive technical manuals are rapidlyevolving to include training and elaboratediagnostics capabilities.

Advances in both enterprisewide andspecialized logistics engineering applica-tions software packages are being de-signed with open architectures that wouldallow an integrated digital environment.These advances in information technologypotentially could eliminate many tradi-tional logistic infrastructure bureaucraciesthat were established during the Cold War.Operational sustainment processes mustbe reengineered to effectively use thesenew technologies and applications.

Figure 5a. The Lean Sustainment Enterprise Model

OPERATIONALSUPPORT

"O"LEVELMAINT.

ISEM

MRO

ILS

TRAINING

PHS & T

CR

ST & E

MANPOWER

TD

FACILITIES

MP

PTD

LSAR

PBL

TD

MODELS

FAILURE ANALYSISMRB

MAINT. DATAREQUISITIONPIECE PARTSMAINT. KITS

MAINTENANCE DATAREQUISITIONPIECE PARTSMAINTENANCE KITSNRFIRFISYSTEM RFISYSTEM NRFI

ITEMMANAGER

ICP

DSP

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

OEM

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT LIFE-CYCLE SUPPORT FACILITY SUPPLY CHAIN

"I"LEVELMAINT.


285

The second structure within the life-cycle facility, Sustainment Engineering,provides engineering services to the otherstructures, primarily the MRO structure.The Sustainment Engineering structureuses an Integrated Systems EngineeringManagement (ISEM) framework to main-tain such traditional functions as provi-sioning technical documentation (PTD),product baseline (PBL) maintenance,technical data (TD) packages, and engi-neering models. Intelligent engineeringanalysis software tools could provide

system engineers the capability to moni-tor and correct operational sustainmentproblems, such as technology obsoles-cence, aging systems, reliability perfor-mance degradation, and maintenance en-gineering management. System effective-ness management practices are used toautomate and monitor sustainment tech-nical performance measures for rapidproblem identification and resolution tominimize cost and mission readinessimpacts.

Figure 5b.Lean Sustainment Enterprise Model Supply Chain (3 Levels)

"O" LevelMaintenance

DOP Vendor

Distribution Channel Supply Channel

NRFIRFIParts


286

The third structure, the MRO structure,provides spares and material support to thewarfighter. The MRO organization struc-ture will include inventory managementand supply chain management responsi-bilities, which is why it directly connectsto the Supply Chain structure in Figure5a. The MRO structure could performremanufacturing services using new leanproduction concepts, such as Just in Time(JIT), single piece flow, and Kanban-basedpull production systems. Many institutionsusing these lean concepts, including theLean Aerospace Initiative (2001), have ob-

served significant cycle time reduction andincreased service level performance. Interms of inventory management, the tradi-tional military logistics infrastructure des-ignates the ICP organization to performinventory and asset management. TheDSP organization performs warehousingand transportation coordination servicesfor the ICP. These services are now con-solidated in the new MRO structure to mini-mize cost and streamline asset movement.These responsibilities are routinelycolocated in most commercial MROs.

Figure 5c.Lean Sustainment Enterprise Model Distribution and Supply Channel


287

From the perspective of the supplychain, Figures 5b and 5c for the proposedmodel are analogous to Figures 4b and 4cfor the current model. Note that with thenew model there are just three levels tothe supply chain, not seven as in the cur-rent model. The new model also placesthe DOP, the depot performing the main-tenance functions, in the center of the sup-ply channel and distribution channel ac-tivity. The intent is to have the right partbe available at the right place at the righttime.

BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES TO THELEAN SUSTAINMENT ENTERPRISE MODEL

The proposed Lean Sustainment Enter-prise Model provides for the remanu-facturing, refurbishment, modification/up-grade, testing, failure analysis, inventorycontrol/management, and configurationcontrol of a system and its associated criti-cal subcomponents in one integratedenterprise. Fast depot operations, empha-sizing low cost availability with variablevolume capacity, allows for standardizedproduct production and refurbishment us-ing focus shops, central purchasing, cen-tral distribution, and central processing.The integrated model should result in sig-nificant cost savings and improved cycletime performance; and it should outper-form a conventional depot, because it in-tegrates the operational system with in-ventory control and the in-service systemsengineering functions.

The intent is that the right part will beavailable at the right place at the right time.Logistics Delay Time (LDT), a key metricfor leanness, should be reduced as leadtimes and turnaround times are decreased

to an absolute minimum in order to obtainlow cost, high quality, and on-time mate-rial availability. The LSEM has the poten-tial to reduce the cost of inventory and thecycle time of material refurbishment. TheLSEM also offers considerable improve-ments to accommodate product redesignsand material sustainment efforts, whichare required to ensure that the useful eco-nomic system life will be much longerthan that of traditional weapon systems.

Systems Effectiveness Management inthe proposed LSEM is a proactive ap-proach to quickly identify and resolve sus-tainment problems.With over 60 percent ofthe total system life-cycle cost associatedwith operations andmaintenance, there isgreat opportunity to op-timize sustainment costs(Blanchard & Fabrycky, 1998). The sys-tem effectiveness management approachin the Lean Sustainment Enterprise Modelintegrates failure data with knowledge-based decision models for quick resolu-tion of sustainment problems. Early iden-tification of “out of specification” perfor-mance problems of the sustainment sys-tem can be used to trigger Sustainment En-gineering actions.

The traditional military sustainmentmodel is based upon systems design char-acteristics and performance specifications.During the system design and manufac-turing development phases, reliability-based provisioning and inventory modelsare developed to support the initial field-ing of these systems. After several yearsof operations, these models are updatedwith historical usage data to reflect thechanges of the system as it ages. But, in-

“The intent is thatthe right part willbe available atthe right place atthe right time.”


288

service failures occur with greater fre-quency. This increase in system mainte-nance quickly created stock-out conditionsin the supply system. Supplier problemsalso increased over time due to changingtechnology and business cycles. However,in the proposed LSEM all levels of sys-tem maintenance are monitored, includ-ing depot level failure analysis and logis-tics performance measures. Failure dataare loaded into system engineering mod-els for analysis. The analysis provides thebasis for product and process improve-ments and provides a what-if systemanalysis tool for simulation-based trade offstudies.

In the LSEM, initial system deploy-ments are sufficiently sustained becausethe initial support infrastructure and re-source requirements are accurately com-puted based upon reliability-based systemeffectiveness analysis. This analysis is ef-fective during early deployment, but itbecomes less efficient as the system ages.Thus, real-time data collection and analy-sis are required to manage the sustainmentsystem efficiently. To effectively collectthe necessary data required for a systemeffectiveness management process, thesustainment system must be completelyintegrated, as is suggested in the LSEM.The sustainment enterprisewide informa-tion system needs to be fully integrated toestablish an effective system sustainmentmanagement process.

The new systems effectiveness manage-ment approach would allow the Sustain-ment Engineer to quickly identify anyproblem area and to conduct root causeanalysis. All data sources for the analysiscan quickly be assessed from this infor-mation system. With the simulation-baseddecision trade-off tools and failure data

integrated, as it is in the LSEM, the sus-tainment engineer is provided with pow-erful tools for continuous systems engi-neering process improvement. This ap-proach provides an effective life-cyclemanagement methodology to fully inte-grate both the Sustainment EngineeringProcess with normal sustainment opera-tions and maintenance. This integrated ap-proach provides greater efficiencies inorganizational coupling and real-timefeedback for enterprisewide continuousimprovements.

However, the Lean Sustainment Enter-prise Model is not without its challenges.Possible barriers include the amount ofintegration required between the Depot,In-Service Engineering, Inventory Con-trol, and Supply Chain management.Close coordination and integration is man-datory to fully benefit from the concept.Special skills will need to be developedto perform the many new tasks. The levelof understanding that is needed to success-fully maintain and operate the LSEM willneed to be reviewed and addressed in anyimplementation planning, but the intent isnot to translate the opportunity into a jobreduction program. Existing personnel,and their skill sets, are in short supply andare just as important as in the old model.So personnel reductions are not recom-mended in the new paradigm.

Another challenge is that the In-ServiceEngineer must ensure that ordering times,shipping times, fill rates, maintenanceturnaround times, as well as other metricsrealistically portray the impact and inter-action of the supply, transportation, main-tenance, and procurement systems. Deter-mining the range (number of differentitems) and depth (quantity of each item)of spares to be procured and stocked must


289

be constantly evaluated and adjusted toprovide a lean operation.

A CASE STUDY:THE JOINT CAD/PAD PROGRAM

To illustrate that the proposed model isrealistic and that it can be implemented,the authors searched for an ongoing ini-tiative that has some elements of theLSEM. While no current initiative fullyreplicates the proposed LSEM, there aresome excellent examples. One such caseis the U.S. Navy and Air Force CAD/PADprogram.

In 1998, the U.S. Navy and U.S. AirForce began a unique management experi-ment — a joint program to manage thesustainment of the Cartridge ActuatedDevice/Propellant Actuated Device(CAD/PAD). The CAD/PAD devices areexplosive items used in aircraft escapesystems and other applications. CAD/PADs all have defined service lives andmust be replaced periodically. The jointprogram was born when visionary man-agers in the two Services saw the greatervalue of consolidating their previouslyseparate activities and built the trustneeded to overcome the risks of doingbusiness in a new way. The key attributesof the program are:

• Operation as a joint integrated productteam/competency aligned organizationwith the Service affiliation of teammembers transparent to users.

• Assumption of responsibility by theU.S. Navy, as lead Service, for an im-portant factor (the escape system) in

the operational readiness of aircraft inall Services.

• Employment of jointness in the sustain-ment phase of the life cycle, rather thanthe more traditional developmentphase.

• Use of best practices and continuousimprovement with a strong emphasison supporting the customer.

• Management of a commodity, ratherthan a weapon system.

• Creation as an initiative from the work-ing level, rather thana directive from thetop.

The Joint Programteam consists of operat-ing elements at the In-dian Head Division, Na-val Sea Systems Com-mand, Hill Air ForceBase in Utah, Rock Is-land Arsenal, and theNaval Inventory ControlPoint in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Asmall, jointly-manned program office,reporting to the Conventional Strike Weap-ons Program Manager (PMA-201) withinPEO (W), manages the program.

In April 2001, the Joint Program re-ceived the David Packard Excellence inAcquisition Award, given for great innova-tion and results in acquisition. The Awardrecognizes the Program’s reengineering ofthe process for resupplying CADs andPADs to U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corpsusers in the field. The old process was bothlabor and paper intensive, requiring up to

“In April 2001,the Joint Programreceived theDavid PackardExcellence inAcquisitionAward, given forgreat innovationand results inacquisition.”


290

four months from order to delivery. Thereengineering team developed an “877”phone system that maintenance personneluse to order directly from the stock pointat Indian Head, Maryland, a commonpractice in the commercial world. Thetelephone operator is able to validate needin real time using computerized mainte-nance records. Shipments are accom-plished, in most cases, by an overnightcommercial carrier, which allows for au-tomated tracking. Actions by intermedi-ate personnel have been greatly reducedand the average cycle time is reduced from210 days to 7 days.1

Minimizing duplication, optimizingjoint resources, and applying the best prac-tices of each service have all resulted innumerous savings, estimated by the Pro-gram at $825,000 per year. Included in thisfigure are the savings from combined pro-curements of items that are common totwo or more services, reducing the num-ber of contract actions required and in-voking economies of scale. Adoption of aNavy computer system for materiel plan-ning will lead to more precise require-ments determination and budget justifica-tion for Air Force needs. Under this sys-tem, the Navy has been able to defendsuccessfully its annual request for procure-ment funds by predicting very accuratelythe readiness impact on specific aircraftof any reductions. The transfer of severalformer Air Force civilian personnel to theNavy will help preserve the technical andmanagement capability to serve Air Force

users. Personnel costs are included in theprice of overhaul services for weapon sys-tems and unit components.

CONCLUSION

Reduced DoD budgets are forcing themilitary to rethink how to manage the lifecycle of the military systems. Initiatives,such as the U.S. Army’s ModernizationThrough Spares program, Agile CombatSupport, the Lean Aerospace Initiative, theLean Sustainment Initiative, and FlexibleSustainment, present potential solutions tothese budget problems; but they focus onindividual elements of the sustainmentsystem, not the whole enterprise. In orderto take maximum advantage of the funda-mental principles of being lean, a changein the military organizational structure isnecessary. The change calls for the inte-gration of the In-Service Engineeringprocess, the Inventory Control Points, andthe maintenance, repair and overhaul(MRO) functions to insure that a total sys-tems engineering approach is used effec-tively in solving all parts of the problem.In other words, the synergistic effects ofone solution can be magnified by othersolutions in the chain. In utilizing a pri-vate industry type of approach, the authorshave developed a Lean Sustainment Enter-prise Model to provide the necessary frame-work to conduct research into develop-ment of this whole system approach tolean sustainment for military systems.


291

Mario Agripino holds a B.S. from Charter Oak State College and isan Advanced Studies Program Fellow at the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology (MIT). He has been employed at the Naval UnderseaWarfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island for 21 years. Agripino was aresearcher for MIT’s Lean Sustainment Initiative. His teachingexperience includes courses in acquisition, program management, andsystems engineering at the division and the Naval War College.

(E-mail address: [email protected])

Tim Cathcart received a B.S. from Southern Illinois University and isan Advanced Studies Program Fellow at the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology (MIT). Tim has been employed at the Naval UnderseaWarfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island for 20 years. Cathart was aresearcher and program coordinator for MIT’s Lean SustainmentInitiative. He teaches acquisition program management and systemengineering courses at the division and the Naval War College.


Dr. Dennis Mathaisel is an associate professor of ManagementScience at Babson College and is a Research Scientist at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He holds the Doctor ofPhilosophy degree from MIT. His research interests focus on thesustainment of complex and aging systems and new techniques forthe optimization of air transportation systems. Mathaisel is a privatepilot and an owner of a Cessna 182 aircraft.



292

ENDNOTE

1. A comment by a maintenance super-visor is typical. Petty Officer FirstClass Jeanna Saccomagno said, “Inthe past we had a full time persondoing this. Now it takes 10 minuteseach month.” This saves the Fleet over45 work years per year.


293

REFERENCES

Jones, J. (1995). Integrated Logistic Sup-port Handbook, New York: MacGrawHill.

Kros, T. C. (1999, September). Modern-ization through spares: An analysis ofimplementation at the U.S. Army Avia-tion and Missile Command. Retrievedfrom http://www.nps.navy.mil/code36/krostc.html.

Lean Aerospace Initiative. (2001). Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology.Retrieved from at http://lean.mit.edu.

Lean Sustainment Initiative. (2001). Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology.Retrieved from http://www.leansustain-ment.org.

Liker, J. (1997). Becoming lean. Portand,OR: Productivity Press.

Nightingale, D. (2000). Integrating thelean enterprise. MIT Presentation.Retrieved from at http://lean.mit.edu.

Performance-Based Business Environ-ment. (1997, January 23). Flexiblesustainment guide. Revised July 2,1999. Retrieved from at http://d s p . d l a . m i l / s u s t a i n m e n t /flexguide2.pdf.

Supporting Expeditionary AerospaceForces. (2000). An Integrated Strate-gic Agile Combat Support. Retrievedfrom http://www.rand.org/publica-tions/RB/RB58

Blanchard, B. S. (1998). Logistics engi-neering and management. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Blanchard, B. S., & Fabrycky, W. J.(1998). Systems engineering andanalysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Blanchard, B. S., Verma, D., & Peterson,E. L. (1995). Maintainability. NewYork: Wiley-Interscience.

Cordesman, A. H. (2000, October). Trendsin U.S. defense spending: The size offunding, procurement, and readinessproblems. Washington, DC: Center forStrategic and International Studies.

Government Accounting Office (GAO)Report. (1998). Challenges facingDoD in implementing defense reforminitiatives. Washington, DC: Author.

Gansler, J. S. (1999, January). Acquisitionreform update. Washington, DC:Office of the Secretary of Defense,Acquisition & Technology, U.S.Department of Defense, USD(A&T).

International Council on Systems Engi-neering (INCOSE). (1998). Systemsengineering handbook. San Fran-cisco, CA: San Francisco Bay Chap-ter of the INCOSE.


294

Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990).The machine that changed the world.New York: Rawson/MacMillan.


295

APPENDIX

ACRONYMS

CI Configuration Item

CMP Configuration Management Plan

CR Computer Resources

CSA Configuration Status Accounting

D-Level Depot Level Maintenance

DOP Designated Overhaul Point

DSP Designated Stock Point

GIDEP Government and Industry Data Exchange Program

ICP Inventory Control Point

I-Level Intermediate Level Maintenance

ILS Integrated Logistic Support

ILSP Integrated Logistic Support Plan

ISEA In-Service Engineering Agent

ISEM Integrated Systems Engineering Management

LSEM Lean Sustainment Enterprise Model

LSA Logistics Support Analysis

LSAR Logistics Support Analysis Record

MP Maintenance Plan

MRB Material Review Board

MRO Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul

NRFI Not Ready for Issue

O-Level Operational Level Maintenance

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

PBL Product Base Line

PHS&T Packaging, Handling, Shipping, and Transportation

PPSP Post Production Support Plan

PTD Provisioning Technical Documentation

S Supplier

RFI Ready for Issue


296

SEMP System Engineering Master Plan

SSP Supply Support Plan

ST&E Special Tools and Test Equipment

TD Technical Data

TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan

ULSS Users Logistics Support Summary

V Vendor


297

acquisition review quarterly — fall 2002 · 2011-05-14 · acquisition review quarterly — fall...

Documents