Innovations in Sustaining Weapons Systems DAU Acquisition Community Symposium RDML Jack Prendergast Vice Director of Logistics (J-4) Joint Staff 15 April 2008 How can we establish a Life- Cycle systems approach to Link acquisition to sustainment Manage our systems as fleets cradle to grave Use life-cycle sustainment metrics during development Agenda Sustainment Key Performance Parameter (KPP) Background Definitions Applicability Guidance Observations Why We Needed A KPP Material availability and reliability at best value were not adequately designed into systems Serious risks to programs over time: Breach of Nunn-McCurdy thresholds Costs more than anticipated to own Failure to achieve availability expected by the warfighter Lack of consistent guidance across all services and programs addressing reliability, availability, and maintainability KPP exists to provide PMs and the acquisition process, and logistics a framework to assess sustainment Background JROC Memorandum , Aug 06 Identified need for KPP process to address sustainment issues Memorandum from OSD AT&L, Mar 07 Mandate to establish sustainment KPP process CJCS-M C, Operation of JCIDS (May 07) mandated implementation of: KPP for Materiel Availability KSA for Materiel Reliability KSA for Ownership Costs JCIDS: Joint Capabilities Integration Development System Definitions Material Availability (KPP): Measures the percentage of the total inventory of a system that is operationally capable (ready for tasking) of performing an assigned mission, at a given time, based on materiel condition. Material Reliability (KSA): Measures the probability that the system will perform without failure over a specified interval. Ownership Cost (KSA): Provides balance to the sustainment solution by ensuring that the Operations and Support (O&S) costs associated with Materiel Readiness (e.g.. maintenance, spares, fuel, support, etc.) are considered in making program decisions. Ultimately based on O&S Cost Estimating Structure elements or (number of operational end items) (total number of end items ac q uired) (uptime) (uptime) + (downtime) Mean Time Between Failures operating hours number of failures during operating period Applicability Sponsors must develop KPP and supporting KSAs for JROC Interest programs involving materiel solutions Sponsors who determine KPP does not apply must explain why it is not appropriate. JS-J4 must concur in this recommendation for JROC Interest documents Sponsor will determine KPP applicability for non JROC interest programs Source: CJCSM C, 1 May 07 Guidance Sustainment KPP Guide Posted in various electronic knowledge centers (i.e.. AKSS, KMDS)(i.e.. AKSS, KMDS) Provides key considerations for programs in the development of their rationale Will be incorporated into upcoming revision of CJCSI 3170 What the Guide Provides Defines Pre/Post Milestone B applicability Analytic methods are not directed, but must withstand critical review Supporting data must provide sufficient detail to validate methods Way Ahead: Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Cost (RAM-C) Rationale Report Handbook AT&L led effort to rewrite DoD RAM-C Rationale Book from 1985 Describes the metrics in depth and more importantly the relationship between them Observations Over 33 programs reviewed since August 2007 J4 serves as the POC for PMs, OSD, and JS stakeholders regarding KPP issues Analytical data is normally available in other program documents J4, OSD-ATL, and other stakeholders assist with repackaging of data Processes requiring further refinement Evaluation of network and software centric/dependent programs Testing of KPP metrics KPP implementation = delivery of a better weapon system to the warfighter at best value NamePositionPhone/ Lt Col Tom MillerDivision Chief, Maintenance Division J-4 (703) MAJ Eric McCoy Action Officer, Maintenance Division, J-4 (703) Points of Contact Guide to Sustainment KPP: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=191656&eid=18073&lang=en-US DISCUSSION Backup Slides JCIDS: Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System JCA: Joint Capability Area FCB: Functional Capabilities Board JCB: Joint Capabilities Board JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight Committee DAWG: Deputies Advisory Working Group Lexicon FCB JROC: * Charters Functional Capability Boards (FCBs) * Directs FCB efforts & Identifies the FCB lead FCBs: * Milestone Decision Authority Co-chairs * Bring all stakeholders together for common review and issue resolution * Prioritize/assess capability gaps and proposals Command & Control Maj Gen Hostage JFCOM J-8 Battlespace Awareness BG Grunhauser JS J-2 Force Protection Maj Gen New JS J-8 Net-Centric BG Basla JS J-6 Joint Training Mr Bonnet JS J-7 Tri-chair Force Application Brig Gen Feest JS J-8 Force Management Ms Disbro JS J-8 Focused Logistics RDML Prendergast VJ4 Mr Hall, AT&L Joint Logistics FCB Key Functions Evaluate issues and provide input to the JROC and JCB Provide assessments of capabilities issues to support PPBE activities Ensure that analyses leverage the expertise of DOD components Assist the JROC and JCB in overseeing materiel and non- materiel capabilities development within JCIDS Participate in the development of joint concepts Authority FCBs make recommendations but do not, by themselves, approve or disapprove proposals being vetted for the JCB or JROC FL FCB Current Topics Joint Heavy Lift ICD Joint Precision Air Drop CPD C-130 Avionics Modernization Program CPD Common Vertical Lift Support Platform CDD Mobile Landing Platform CDD Delivering Integrated Joint Logistics Capabilities to the Joint Force Commander J4/MXD reviews documents in KMDS Applicable documents are forwarded to AT&L (MR&MP) for analysis MR&MP provides a recommendation to J4 based on the rigor of the rationale provided for the KPP and KSAs J4/MXD contacts sponsor if there are comments requiring adjudication to limit nonconcurs Staffing Process General Criteria Are the KPP/KSA attributes stated in terms that reflect the range of military operations that must be supported and the joint operating environment intended for the system? Are there compatibility or interoperability attributes to guide the acquisition community in making tradeoff decisions between the threshold and objective values? Is each KPP/KSA supported by an operationally oriented analysis that takes into account technology maturity, fiscal constraints, and the timeframe the capability is required? Does the supporting analysis reflect analytical insights identified by the CBA used to develop the ICD? Material Availability KPP Measures the percentage of the total inventory of a system that is operationally capable (ready for tasking) of performing an assigned mission, at a given time, based on materiel condition. Also indicates the percentage of time that a system is operationally capable of performing an assigned mission and can be expressed as (end items ready for tasking)/(total end items procured). Evidence of a comprehensive analysis of the system and its planned use, including the planned operating environment, operating tempo, reliability alternatives, maintenance approaches, and supply chain solutions leading to the determination of the KPP value Reliability KSA Measures the probability that the system will perform without failure over a specified interval. Reliability metric established at the system level Provides criteria for defining relevant failure Ownership Cost KSA Provides balance to the sustainment solution by ensuring that the Operations and Support (O&S) costs associated with Materiel Readiness Sources of baseline cost data, cost estimating relationships, and cost models identified Consistency with the assumptions and conditions being used for materiel availability and materiel reliability