The Level of Repair Analysis · Web view2012/12/12 · Includes Admin Lead Time, Procurement Lead Time, Repair Turn Around Time and other variables that influence supply chain responsiveness

LOG 211 Supportability Analysis Student Guide

Lesson 10: The Level of Repair Analysis

Content

Slide 10-1. Lesson 10: The Level of Repair Analysis

Welcome to Lesson 10 on the Level of Repair Analysis.

January 2013Final v1.3

1 of 61


Topic 1: Introduction

Content

Slide 10-2. Topic 1: Introduction

2 of 61 January 2013Final v1.3


Content

Slide 10-3. The Acquisition Life Cycle – Where Are You? What Influence Do You Have?

The Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) can be performed as either a non-economic or an economic analysis. The non-economic LORA is performed to assess and influence design from a Supportability standpoint and typically occurs in the Technology Development Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase of the Life Cycle Management Framework. The economic LORA is performed to identify the most economic repair alternative for components and typically occurs in the Engineering & Manufacturing Development phase of the Life Cycle Management Framework.

Where are you?

While the LORA, like other Supportability analyses, is iterative, it typically occurs after Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Analysis and after the Maintenance Task Analysis (MTA). The LORA then refines the MTA outcomes by adjusting the preliminary SM&R codes to recommended SM&R codes that increase Operational Availability or Affordability. The LORA’s outcomes provide a baseline for a Trade-off Analysis weighing Operational Availability against Affordability.


3 of 61

Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction

PDallosta, 02/24/14,

Slide 10-3 page 10-3 update to TMRR


Updated TMRR


Content

What influence do you have?

The non-economic LORA addresses the Supportability of the design by focusing on the technical feasibility of the conducting maintenance/repair. It identifies the appropriate maintenance levels and the support alternatives that are affected or deemed not feasible, without the consideration of cost. As such, the non-economic LORA enables you to assess and influence Supportability in the design.

Any recommendations resulting from the non-economic analysis should be economically evaluated to determine its economic value.

The economic LORA quantifies the most cost effective maintenance concept for the design, again considering the impact of Reliability and Maintainability on both performance and Product Support. In that regard, an economic LORA influences how you design the both the system and the support strategy, and provides a baseline for comparison in an economic trade-offs of the mature design vs. Operational Availability (Ao) and Total Maintenance Cost.

What’s in it for me?

By understanding the LORA analysis steps, trade-offs and report strategy, you can assure the best possible analysis is provided to frame alternative Product Support Strategies for the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP). This analysis provides you a valid and traceable alternative assessment methodology.



Content

Slide 10-4. Non-Economic & Economic LORA

Two Kinds of LORAs

A non-economic LORA is used to analyze only high-order concepts that constrain the system, such as safety or maintenance policy compliance, to assess the Supportability of a design.

Non-economic LORAs address technical issues relative to the feasibility of repair, such as if an item or sub-item should be replaced and/or repaired, given consideration of all aspects of the maintenance task. These considerations include features that reflect Supportability, to include fault diagnostic techniques, modularity and accessibility requirements. Other considerations may include constraints imposed by the operational environment, as well as the existing Product Support structure.

The outcome of the non-economic LORA with respect to Supportability is an assessment of the inherent Supportability of the design, and a path ahead to identify and incorporate design changes/functionality that enhance Supportability.

An economic LORA, which is the focus of this lesson, is used to analyze the impact of different repair alternatives on Operational Availability and Cost. The results of this analysis are used to inform Supportability decisions such as determining at which maintenance level it is most cost-efficient to perform a repair task.


5 of 61

Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction


Slide 10-4 page 10-5 Update to TMRR


Content

LORA tools such as COMPASS (system level) or COMPASS LITE (sub-system level), enable the LCL to:

Validate LORA input data is accurate and complete; the COMPASS tool performs this function through the Front End Analysis

Quantify the impact of a variable on meeting Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) requirements and cost constraints; the COMPASS tool performs this function through the Sensitivity Analysis

Identify the most economic repair alternative given Organizational (Field) and Depot repair alternatives and their costs; the COMPASS tool performs this function through the Optimizer Analysis

Evaluate the impact, in terms of Operational Availability (Ao), cost, and manpower and spares distribution, of implementing original maintenance policy constraints instead of least-cost maintenance recommendations; the COMPASS tool performs this function through the Evaluator Analysis

Additionally, COMPASS allows for more targeted analysis by holding all variables constant while changing a single variable to evaluate the variable’s impacts, including:

Whether system design meets Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability requirements and cost performance objectives

The cost difference of using different items (and their associated RAM and cost attributes) or sustainment strategies

The LORA model is extremely sensitive to:

Reliability, measured as Mean Time between Failures (MTBF) Support equipment cost and location Labor hours, measured as Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) Supply delays, measured as Mean Logistics Down Time (MLDT), which

includes MTTR plus supply and transportation delays

If the most accurate and current version of these variables are loaded into the LORA tool, the tool’s LORA modeling will provide valid, verifiable and repeatable insight into significant issues, such as achieving the desired Operational Availability at an affordable cost.

A good working relationship between Systems Engineers and Life Cycle Logisticians (LCLs) is essential to the success of the LORA process. Effective communications regarding Supportability requirements and the Supportability Analysis process between the Systems Engineering and Product Support Management Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) will ensure that technical and cost analyses are conducted and the results are incorporated into the design.



Content

Slide 10-5. ASOE Model

The scope of the LORA’s role in the Supportability Analysis is revealed through examination of the breadth and depth of the input variables. The following Supportability elements from the Affordable System Operational Effectiveness (ASOE) Model factor into the LORA:

1. Technical Performance, which is comprised of Functions and Capabilities from the Capability Development Document (CDD) requirements

2. Supportability, which is the strategy and timing for achieving Availability requirements, is defined by Reliability, Maintainability, and Support features

3. Operation & Support (O&S) Cost elements of Life Cycle Cost / Total Ownership Cost, which, although it factors into the LORA, is also is influenced by the LORA through trade-off recommendations and approvals


7 of 61


Content

Better Buying Power (BBP)

As the ASOE model reflects, the LORA evaluates Technical Performance, Supportability, and Cost, which are the key “cost drivers” of Affordability. The LORA and the Supportability Trade-off Analyses, support the Product Support Manager’s investigation of areas that drive up cost, and are used to evaluate design changes and support concepts/strategies to eliminate or significantly reduce these “cost drivers.”

The Better Buying Power Guidance requires programs to establish an affordability target. This target is not only acquisition costs, but also must include operation and support cost in the affordability calculation. The LORA calculates Total Maintenance Policy Cost and includes repair costs, sparing, holding, transportation, requisition and cataloging. Although it does not comprise all Operation and Support costs, LORA modeling efforts represent a verifiable and repeatable estimate that is needed in the affordability calculation of Better Buying Power and Affordability.

You will learn more about BBP in Lesson 11: Trade-off Analysis.



Content

Slide 10-6. LORA Lesson Approach

Content

Slide 10-7. Topics and Objectives


9 of 61


Topic 2: Overview of the LORA

Content

Slide 10-8. Topic 2: Overview of the LORA



Content

Slide 10-9. Purpose of the LORA

The LORA’s output is recommended Source, Maintenance, and Recovery (SM&R) codes representing the most economical outcome for the maintenance level at which components are restored to an operational status. Factors that play a role in modeling to a successful availability and cost include:

Item reliability Maintenance Facility (Shop) location and density Labor force allocation (shared repair assets) Task complexity (technician skill requirements and task duration) Supply chain delays

The result of the running the LORA tool and getting outputs are SM&R code recommendations, which require approval by the Lead Logistician and concurrence with the Systems Engineering lead to be implemented.

Once SM&R code recommendations are approved the MTA must be updated for new task codes, task steps, skill codes, support equipment, and facility impacts.


11 of 61


Content

It is important to understand LORA terminology:

Policy refers to the Maintenance Concept found in the Strike Talon CDD. Although policy is normally associated with Agency or Office of the Secretary of Defense Policy Memoranda, the term as used in a LORA denotes compliance with Maintenance Concept constraints, such as a two echelon Organizational to Depot support system.

Task refers to any maintenance action; may involve removing and replacing a component, and then repairing or discarding the failed component.o Discard refers to any maintenance action that involves discarding

the failed component as its final disposition.o Remove & Replace is a type of task that involves a technician

removing a failed component and replacing it with an operational component.

o Repair is a type of task that involves maintenance actions other than discard. These actions often include overhaul activities and the use of piece parts, skilled technicians, and special tools.



Content

Slide 10-10. The Role of the LORA in Supportability Analysis

Inputs to the LORA include the following:

System Definition describes the support environment by setting boundaries such as:o Number of maintenance levels, also called “repair echelons”o Number of shops at each maintenance levelo Diagnostic capabilities/equipmento Use of contractor repair

Reliability and Availability requirements and policy constraints specified in the:o Maintenance Concepto Capability Development Document (CDD)o Capability Production Document (CPD)

Reliability data derived from the outcomes of supporting analyses such as:o Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) Modeling, Prediction,

Allocation and Analysiso Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)o Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)o Reliability Centered Maintenance Analysis/Condition Based

Maintenance + (RCM Analysis/CBM+)o Maintenance Task Analysis (MTA)—provides preliminary Source,

Maintenance, and Recovery (SM&R) designations The financial costs and time delays inherent in the supply chain


13 of 61


Content

LORA outcomes include: Recommendations for the most economic maintenance level in terms

of adjusted SM&R codes, task codes, and assigned manpowero Manpower is comprised of the required skill level and the workload

rate or resource allocation Refinements to the Logistics Product Data Refinements to subsequent MTAs Updated Supportability Planning, that influences:

o The Product Support Analysis Evaluates the performance of the Supportability Analysis to

ensure all the appropriate analyses were conducted, including the LORA

o The Product Support Package (PSP) Documents the analyses and recommendations that drive

optimal repair alternatives, which are then designated and approved as the Product Support Strategy and incorporated into the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP)

Supportability Analysis, comprised of the sub-analyses discussed in this course, is iterative across each Life Cycle phase. As each analysis, such as the LORA, is performed, Supportability recommendations are refined and become inputs for other analyses. For example, the MTA is a predecessor analysis to the LORA and Trade-off Analysis occurs as a result of LORA modeling.



Content

Slide 10-11. The Maintenance Concept & the LORA

The Maintenance Concept is a broad statement of the concept, policy and planned approach that defines the maintenance levels and their capabilities, and the maintenance actions to be performed at each level in support of a system.

In the CDD, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) / Key System Attributes (KSA) address performance. The Maintenance Concept provides policies based on these KPPs / KSAs; the LORA model treats these policies as constraints.

The LCL can choose to implement or relax these constraints, or compare models (with vs. without policy constraints). In this way, LCLs can quantify the cost of implementing all or portions of the Maintenance Concept strictly in terms of cost and Availability outcomes.


15 of 61


Content

Relevant metrics used to assess whether LORA determinations meet the minimum requirements specified in the Maintenance Concept under the following KPP / KSAs and key metrics are:

KPP Availability, evaluated from two perspectives -o Materiel Availability (AM): Used to evaluate the availability of

systems at the Service level by calculating the percentage of weapons systems that are operational out of the total number of weapons systems produced; expressed as number of operational systems/total population of systems

o Operational Availability (AO): Used to evaluate the availability of systems at the field unit level by calculating the percentage of time that a system or group of systems are operational; expressed as Uptime/(Uptime-Downtime)

KSA Reliability (RM) metric:o Mean Time between Failures (MTBF) – Operating Hours/Number of

Failures in an intervalo Specific criteria must be specified for defining operating hours and

what constitutes a failure KSA Operation & Support Cost metric:

o Unit Operations – Energyo Maintenance – Allo Sustaining Support all except system specific trainingo Continuing System Improvements – Sustaining Engineering

Other key metrics:o Mean Down Time – Average Downtime required to restore an

asset to its full operational capabilities Includes Admin Lead Time, Procurement Lead Time, Repair

Turn Around Time and other variables that influence supply chain responsiveness

The LORA examines the Supportability footprint needed to sustain the designed level of Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability requirements and evaluates the cost of meeting those requirements.

The LORA is a multi-faceted Affordability Trade-off Analysis (Ao vs. Total Maintenance Cost) that evaluates the most economical repair alternatives to restore the end item to operational status.

The Maintenance Concept defines the support boundaries and constraints. The LORA works within the Maintenance Concept as a dynamic model that can relax some of the constraints to identify opportunities that may reduce Life Cycle Cost.



Content

Slide 10-12. Supporting Analyses to the LORA

Analyses that provide inputs for the LORA are:

R&M Allocation, Prediction, Modeling, and Analysis – provides preliminary MTBF and MTTR values, and Reliability Block Diagrams (RBDs)

FMECA and FTA – identifies significant failure modes mitigated by maintenance tasks

MTA – uses information from FMECA, FTA, and RCM Analysis/CBM+, in conjunction with system engineers, maintenance analysts/technicians, and human factors/safety engineers, to identify the required maintenance tasks to be performed, including:o Process for performing the task, including testingo Manpower required to perform the task

Skill level(s) of technician(s) Number of technicians Number of labor hours

o Required tools or special equipment to perform the tasko Required lubricants, solvents, kits, safety gear, or piece partso Environmental factors or safety concerns to equipment and

personnel that should be addressed when performing the task (formation of NOTES, CAUTIONS, WARNINGS)


17 of 61


Topic 3: Setting Up the LORA

Content

Slide 10-13. Topic 3: Setting Up the LORA



Content

Slide 10-14. LORA Set Up

Set Up for the LORA involves (1.1) developing a LORA Plan with all Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) and other Points of Contact who contribute to and participate in the performance of the LORA. This helps ensure the LORA is conducted efficiently and accurately, and helps avoid issues such as delays in the Supportability Analysis schedule, lack of version control, and accuracy.

Set Up for the LORA also includes (1.2) identifying valid data sources, (1.3) documenting the existing Supportability environment that will frame the maintenance task capabilities used to make LORA decisions, and (1.4) validating any data integrity errors.


19 of 61


Content

Slide 10-15. LORA Process – Set Up

Each stage in the LORA process includes specific activities. Turn your attention now to the activities that take place to Set Up the LORA.



Content

Set Up

1. Integrate Datao Scrub provisioning hierarchy data against authoritative RBDs and

Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) reportso Validate or update Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) / Shop Replaceable

Unit (SRU) relationships

2. Build and Validate Models by loading model with information describing the following items:o End Itemo Line Replaceable Unitso Non-Line Replaceable Unitso Shop Replaceable Unitso Non-Shop Replaceable Unitso Repair Alternativeso Technicianso Contract Parameterso Supply Chain Delayso System Informationo Support Equipmento Transportation

3. Run Front End Analysiso Conduct Initial Output Data Assessment

Review Operational Availability anomalies Seek and address probable causes of anomalies

o Check for errorso Format input data for further analysiso Provide a summary report of all inputs and supply chain calculated

fields


21 of 61


Content

Slide 10-16. LORA Data Management

Logistics Product Data refines and is refined by the LORA. The nature of this interaction between LPD and the LORA tool can be represented as a cycle, since the LORA, like other Supportability analyses, is iterative. The LPD-LORA interaction cycle can be described by the following 6, high-level, steps:

1. Logistics Product Data is captured in SAE GEIA-STD-0007.2. Logistics Product Data is exported to the LORA tool’s import template.3. The LORA tool performs a series of trade-offs to evaluate the LPD and

determines least-cost repair alternatives.4. The LCL evaluates the LORA tool’s recommendations and uses the LORA

tool to edit the recommendations to implement original maintenance policy instead of the least-cost recommendation, as appropriate.

5. The LCL evaluates the impact on Operational Availability and Cost of implementing original policy instead of least-cost recommendations. Based on the evaluation results, the LCL recommends to the IPT adjustments, such as promoting an SRU to an LRU, that benefit Operational Availability and/or Cost.

6. The IPT determines which LCL-recommended adjustments to implement and gives approval to update the Logistics Product Data accordingly. The LCL updates the LPD using the program’s configuration management system.

This lesson will examine each of these steps in more detail.


SAE GEIA-STD-0007


SAE GEIA


Content

STEP 1. Capture Logistics Product Data in GEIA-STD-0007 format

This step assumes that the system engineering data and the outcomes of prior Supportability analyses have been documented in a format, usually a database, that conforms to GEIA-STD-0007

STEP 2. Import SAE GEIA-STD-0007 Logistics Product Data Into the LORA Tool

To analyze the maintenance strategy reflected in the Logistics Product Data, you must first import the Logistics Product Data to a LORA analysis tool, such as COMPASS.

To assure the best possible data import, data should be exported directly from the Logistics Product Data into a known import template. Importing data via the use of import templates is much more reliable and efficient than manually keying in significant amounts of data. Many tools, including COMPASS, offer import templates.


23 of 61


Content

Slide 10-17. LORA Input Data

STEP 2. Import SAE GEIA-STD-0007 Logistics Product Data Into the LORA Tool, continued

The Logistics Support Analysis Report (LSAR) 080 Bill of Material provides a complete view of the product structure and SM&R codes. Errors in this report must be investigated and resolved before exporting data.

The LSAR 023 Maintenance Summary provides a four-part view of:

Maintenance Concept Reliability and Maintainability Maintenance Requirements Resource Requirements (people and equipment)


SAE GEIA-STD-0007


Content

Slide 10-18. LORA Elements

The LCL uses his knowledge of the system, the Supportability environment and the Maintenance Concept/Philosophy to ensure the LORA process accurately and consistently addresses Supportability and Sustainment requirements to achieve a least-cost recommendation. The following table and discussion identify key factors in the definition of LORA elements.


25 of 61


Content

Metrics that contribute to least-cost recommendations and ensure the maintenance philosophy is reflected in the LORA determinations include those shown in the table below.

Table 1. Failure Metrics that Contribute to Least-cost Recommendations

Metric Name Metric Definition Metric Data Source

Mean Time to Failure How often the part or repairable item breaks

Reliability and Maintainability Predictions, Modeling, Allocation and Analysis

Mean Time between Failures

How often the part or repairable item breaks

Reliability and Maintainability Predictions, Modeling, Allocation and Analysis

Mean Time to RepairHow long the replacement or repair takes

Maintenance Task Analysis

Table 2. R C M Analysis Metrics that Contribute to Least-cost Recommendations

Metric Name Metric Definition Metric Data Source

Mean Time to Perform Scheduled or Periodic Maintenance

How often the repairable item requires scheduled maintenance

Reliability Centered Maintenance Analysis/Condition Based Maintenance +

Mean Time to Repair How long the repair takes Maintenance Task Analysis



Content

A number of component factors contribute to least-cost recommendations and ensure the maintenance philosophy is reflected in the LORA recommendations. Components can be allocated as an End Item, LRU, or SRU:

End Item can be the whole weapons system unit, or an assembly; in our scenario, the End Item is the Strike Talon weapon system.

Line Replaceable Unit is an item which is removed and replaced at Organizational level (via On-equipment Maintenance); this Organizational level activity restores the Strike Talon (End Item) to an operationally ready condition.

Shop Replaceable Unit is an item that is removed and replaced (via Off-equipment Maintenance) to restore the LRU to an operationally ready condition. The repair actions at Depot for SRUs are typically overhaul activities involving piece parts, special equipment and master level technicians.

One component factor that contributes to least-cost recommendations is whether End Items, LRUs, and SRUs will be:

Accessed, diagnosed and repaired Removed and replaced with spare part, while original part is repaired

and is then placed back into inventory, or Removed and replaced with spare part, while original part is discarded

Beyond Economic Repair: Often, Depot repair activities use heuristics (rules of thumb) to set a point when the cost to repair an item is no longer economical. For example: if the repair cost exceeds 75% of the cost of purchasing a new component, then the Depot activity discards and replaces the item.

Discard: LORA uses a similar concept, called “TOSS,” in determining whether to discard or repair the item when it assigns the most economic maintenance policy—it may be cheaper to discard the item every time rather than inducting it into the supply chain for repair.

LRU and SRU item descriptions, parts application and reliability data would come from the Logistics Product Data X, B and H tables.

Figure 1. Listing of Logistics Product Data Tables – Tables X, B, and H Indicated


27 of 61


Content

Another component factor that contributes to least-cost recommendations and ensures the maintenance philosophy is reflected in the LORA determinations is the cost of initial and replenishment spares, including storage cost, over the life of the system:

Initial spares – up to full production Replenishment spares – after full production Who pays for the spares? The Government Program Office pays for

initial spares while the sustaining organization pays for replenishment spares

Personnel factors that contribute to least-cost recommendations and ensure the maintenance philosophy is reflected in the LORA determinations include available manpower, considering:

Skill types and levels required to perform repairs Workload rates at both Organizational and Depot level Cost of labor

Personnel determinations are developed as on output of MTA. Tasks (C Tables) are connected to the skill specialty codes (G Tables). These can be viewed together in the LSAR 023 Maintenance Summary or extracted through a query.

Figure 2. Listing of Logistics Product Data Tables – Tables C and G Indicated



Content

Location and Transportation factors that contribute to least-cost recommendations and ensure the maintenance philosophy is reflected in the LORA determinations include:

Suitable maintenance facility locations Storage locations The time delay to:

o Transport spares from storage locationso Order new spareso Transport the unit requiring repair

Cost of (cost per pound, per mile), and procedure for, transportation of components or whole units; recall Supportability environment should already define the time delays

Consider:o Weight and sizeo Packaging or container costo Configuring for transportation time (in labor hours)o Packaging time (in labor hours)o Load and unload time (in labor hours)o Actual transportation cost (includes fees and fuel)

Transportation can be rolled into a “cost per pound, per mile” parameter with average miles and weight of item used to calculate cost between echelons. Transportation and packaging information can be found in the J tables.

Figure 3. Listing of Logistics Product Data Tables – Table J Indicated


29 of 61


Content

Administrative factors that contribute to least-cost recommendations and ensure the maintenance philosophy is reflected in the LORA determinations include:

Cost of identifying and tracking (cataloging) all elements that go into the manufacture and maintenance of the weapons system

Cost of identifying and tracking all requests for supplies (requisitions) related to the manufacture and maintenance of the weapons system

Cost of, and procedure for, creating and updating technical manuals related to the operation and maintenance of the weapons system

Many tools have default values in this section based upon historical data.



Content

Slide 10-19. The Supportability Environment


In conjunction with the CDD, the Maintenance Concept defines the Supportability environment, which includes:

Available facilities – Organizational (Field) level and Depot level Capabilities or availability of discrete vs. automatic test equipment Available personnel – by skill type/level or rank per Organizational

(Field), Depot, and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) facility Applicable delay times and distance between different:

o Maintenance Repair and Overhaul facilitieso Spare or Float stagingo Distribution centers

A fundamental step in setting up any model is defining assumptions. Not everything is known with exact precision, and many models come with default values for supply chain information. For example, we’d say that when allocating Depot level repair line Full Time Equivalent technicians (FTEs), like systems would share the same repair line to save costs. Therefore, allocating a 0.5 FTE is a reasonable assumption for technician cost allocation between two programs; 0.3 FTE between three programs, etc.


31 of 61


Content

Slide 10-20. COMPASS Tool Supportability Environment Input Screen

Many LORA tools allow for the Supportability Environment’s capabilities and constraints to be established as parameters, as identified in the Input Screen.

As shown in the “Repair Echelons” in the lower left quadrant, the Strike Talon system has a two echelon support system: O–D (Organizational to Depot), as represented by check marks that identify the maintenance level for the COMM/NAV subsystem, and its LRU/SRU.

The “Number of Shops” in the upper right quadrant indicates that the Maintenance Concept specifies 100 Organizational shops; this is the total number of repair facilities and includes both Organizational and Depot level shops. The differentiation between which kinds of repairs are performed at each level is reflected in the “Repair Echelons” quadrant in the lower left corner.

The ”Repair Echelons” quadrant in the lower left corner also identifies maintenance cycle requirements in terms of “Turn Around Time (Days)”, which is ”repair turn around” time in days and is part of the larger Mean Logistics Down Time (MLDT) parameter.



Content

Slide 10-21. Front End Analysis


Before you generate and review the LORA tool’s recommendations, it is important to perform a front end analysis of the input data to ensure data integrity. Some things to look for when reviewing the input data include:

Blank fields Redundant entries Suspiciously Low MTBF Extremely High MTTR

Potential data anomalies are resolved by comparing suspicious values to the most current version of authoritative data sources.

More often than not, data integrity issues result from manual data entry. To avoid these errors, Logistics Product Data should be imported using standards based data exchanges, such as SAE GEIA-STD-0007, which support exporting and importing data between databases and analytical tools. Logistics Product Data errors manifest themselves early and become hard wired into the data set as a result of misalignment of program data sources such as Computer Aided Design (CAD) models, 2D Drawings, and Reliability Block Diagrams.


33 of 61


Content

Slide 10-22. COMPASS Tool Front End Analysis Output Screen

On the Front End Analysis (FEA) output screen, the tool clearly reflects the input data. The LCL reviews the data for suspicious or erroneous entries.

This slide shows the MTBF data for SRUs. Notice that in the COMPASS LORA tool, the FEA output allows the LCL to view LPD from many different data categories, which are listed on the left hand side.

The Front End Analysis also brings LRUs and SRUs and their SM&R Codes into view. An SM&R chart is available from Logistics Joint Regulation Governing the Use and Application of Uniform Source Maintenance and Recoverability Codes: Army Regulation 700–82, OPNAVINST 4410.2A, MCO 4400.120 found on the Army Publishing Directorate site at http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r700_82.pdf.

SM&R code “PADDD” is translated as follows: First two positions “PA”: Item Stocked Third position “D”: Depot is lowest level authorized to remove and

replace Fourth position “D”: Depot is lowest level capable to perform complete

repair action Fifth position “D”: Depot disposes of item when not economically

feasible to repair

The LCL determines that this code meets the Maintenance Concept requirements for an SRU.


http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r700_82.pdf


Topic 4: Conducting the LORA and Reporting Findings

Content

Slide 10-23. Topic 5: Conducting the LORA and Reporting Findings


35 of 61


Content

Slide 10-24. LORA Analyses

The LORA analysis consists of running a series of reports in three stages.

The first stage, Sensitivity Analysis (2.1), includes identifying which variables are the most sensitive to variation. An item with low MTBF would have a corresponding and highly sensitive relationship with Maintenance Cost. The Sensitivity Analysis reveals candidates for further investigation.

The second stage, Optimization Analysis (2.2), calculates least-cost maintenance policy recommendations.

The final stage, Trade-off Analysis (2.3), includes implementing trade-offs between original policy constraints and least-cost recommendations by determining the impact on Operational Availability and the cost of implementing those constraints.



Content

Slide 10-25. LORA Process – Analysis

Each stage in the LORA process includes specific activities. Turn your attention now to the activities that take place to perform LORA analyses.


37 of 61


Content

Analyze

1. Run Sensitivity and Trend Analysis. Examine significant factors, that when varied, have impact on cost:o AO

o MTBFo MTTRo Repair turn-around time (Mean Logistics Down Time)o Operating hourso Equipment density

2. Run Optimizer. Review output:o Least-cost Maintenance Concept for each LRU and SRU in the

systemo Life cycle operation and support costso Quantities and locations of the initial spares for repairable itemso A side-by-side comparison with the original SM&R code repair

policies3. Edit Model’s Maintenance Policy. Adjust the model repair policy:

o Enter original SM&R codes and/oro Enter alternative repair policies

4. Run Evaluator. Evaluate the impact of policy edits by comparing Optimizer results against model policy adjustments and examine differences in:o KPP/KSA Metrics, particularly Operational Availability (AO)o Life Cycle Cost (LCC), from increased labor, parts, equipment, etc.o Sparing, in terms of storage, distribution times, quantity, etc.o Manpower, in terms of number of personnel, required skill level,

required labor-hours, etc.



Content

Slide 10-26. Optimizer Analysis

STEP 3. Determine Least-cost Repair Alternative

The LCL uses the LORA tool’s Optimizer Report to identify least-cost maintenance strategy recommendations.

Initially, an Optimizer Report can be run without factoring in policy constraints to provide a baseline against which to compare the impact of policy changes using the Evaluator Report.

The LCL reviews the tool’s recommendations to identify inconsistencies between the recommendations and the original maintenance policy. The original maintenance policy results from the preliminary SM&R codes input during the MTA and then imported into the tool along with the Logistics Product Data.


39 of 61


Content

Slide 10-27. LORA Least-cost Decision Tree

During the Optimizer Analysis, the LORA tool performs a series of trade-offs to determine the least-cost maintenance solution for each component. These trade-offs determine at what maintenance level, facility, and skill level a maintenance task is performed and then allocates the task to the most cost-effective maintenance approach.

The LORA decision sequence follows a logic tree:

1. Determine whether the maintenance task can be performed “on-equipment” or must be performed “off-equipment” due to equipment and/or and task complexities.

2. Determine whether the failed component, once removed, is (a) repaired and returned to the unit, (b) repaired and placed back in stock as a spare, or (c) discarded.

3. Given the Supportability environment, determine whether necessary equipment and skilled technicians are available to perform the task at Depot.

4. Determine whether the task requires Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) resources; for example because the repair is covered under warranty or because it requires specialized maintenance capabilities/equipment

5. Determine whether the task is performed at the Organizational (Field) level or at Depot level, consistent with the Maintenance Concept/Policies and the preceding determinations



Content

Note: The Maintenance Concept establishes what the SM&R code should comply with. In the MTA, the LCL establishes the “preliminary” SM&R code based on the Maintenance Concept. The MTA feeds the LORA. In the LORA, the LCL can recommend adjustments to SM&R codes to improve affordability. These recommendations require review, concurrence, and approval to ensure appropriate program or agency mandates and policies are implemented where applicable, rather than wholesale adoption of the most economical recommendations.


41 of 61


Content

Slide 10-28. Analyzing Optimizer Report Output

Let’s review three scenarios using example Optimizer results:

Scenario A. Inaccurate SM&R code. – The baseline maintenance philosophy indicates a repair should be performed at the Depot level. The least-cost recommendation by the tool indicates that the same repair should be performed at the Organizational (Field) level. The LCL would identify the reason for the inconsistency; in this case it is likely that the SM&R code entered in the preliminary Maintenance Analysis was inaccurate. The anomaly would be resolved through business rules established between the Government and the design agent (OEM) within your Logistics IPT.

Scenario B. Change in maintenance policy regarding maintenance level allocation. – The LCL has been tasked with determining the impact on cost and availability of making specific SRUs repairable at the Organizational level as opposed to the Depot level. The LCL would adjust the current maintenance policy implemented in the tool and review the impact in terms of Operational Availability, cost, spares and people.

Scenario C. Change in maintenance policy regarding discard rules. – After validating the input data and running the Optimizer Report, the Maintenance Policy changes and no longer allows sensitive equipment to be discarded at the Organizational level. The original SM&R code would change to ORG and the TOSS recommendation would be forced to ORG by a model constraint change.



Content

Slide 10-29. COMPASS Tool Optimizer Report Output Screen

On the Optimizer Report output screen, the tool clearly indicates where its least-cost recommendations differ from the maintenance policy entered when the model was loaded. All recommendations highlighted in red differ from the loaded maintenance policy.Interpreting the tool’s recommendationsThe following explanations are based on Strike Talon two-level (Organizational to Depot) maintenance policy, where LRUs are removed and replaced at the Organizational level and SRUs can only be removed from the LRU at Depot to bring the LRU to operational status.

In the LRU/SRU columns: “TOSS”/“TOSS” indicates the failed LRU and failed SRU are discarded as

a unit at the Organizational level echelon. “ORG”/“TOSS” indicates the failed LRU is removed and replaced at the

Organizational level, and then the LRU is shipped to Depot where the failed SRUs are removed and discarded and new SRUs installed to bring the LRU to back to operational status. The now-operational LRU would be shipped from the Depot to its needed location per sparing policies.

“ORG”/“DEP” indicates the failed LRU is removed and replaced at the Organizational level, and the failed SRU is removed and repaired, then reinstalled in the LRU, at the Depot level, bringing the SRU and LRU back to operational condition.


43 of 61


Content

Slide 10-30. Editing Maintenance Policy

Figure 4. Inset of Step 4 from the LPD to LORA Tool Interaction Cycle

STEP 4. Adjust Maintenance Policy

The LORA tool is configured to evaluate policy trade-offs in terms of Operational Availability and Life Cycle Cost. Should the economic maintenance policy differ from Strike Talon program or agency policies, the LCL has the option of implementing the original maintenance policy instead of the maintenance recommendations in the tool.

Continuation of Example B from previous slide No. 29:

Change in maintenance policy regarding maintenance level allocation. – The LCL has been tasked with determining the impact on Operational Availability and Life Cycle Cost of making specific SRUs repairable at the Organizational level as opposed to the Depot level. The LCL would adjust the current maintenance policy implemented in the tool as denoted under the LRU/SRU “Orig Rep” columns by editing the recommended maintenance policy indicator as denoted under the LRU/SRU “Rep” columns.



Content

Slide 10-31. COMPASS Tool Edit Policy Screen

On the Edit Policy screen, the tool displays truncated identifier information which may need to be cross-referenced with the complete indenture list. Using this screen, the LCL can manually enter maintenance allocations to change the tool’s recommendations.


45 of 61


Content

Slide 10-32. Analyzing Evaluator Report Output

Figure 5. Inset of Step 5 from the LPD to LORA Tool Interaction Cycle

STEP 5. Evaluate Impact of Policy Adjustments

After adjusting the current maintenance policy implemented in the tool, the LCL would run an Evaluator Report and examine the impact of the changes in terms of Operational Availability, Life Cycle Cost, spares, and manpower.



Content

Slide 10-33. COMPASS Tool Evaluator Report Output Screen

The Evaluator Report output screen is an almost exact replica of the Optimizer Report output screen. There are two differences, however:

Maintenance allocations edited to conform with the loaded maintenance policy are no longer highlighted in red.

The Total Maintenance Policy (Life Cycle Cost) and Availability Achieved (Operational Availability) have both been updated to reflect the changes—this does not display the delta between the Optimizer Report and the Evaluator Report, only the total cost and availability.

Content


47 of 61


Content

Slide 10-34. COMPASS Tool Opt/Eval Report Output Screen

The Opt/Eval Report output screen is an almost exact replica of the Optimizer Report and Evaluator Report output screens. It differs in that the Opt/Eval Report output screen displays the differences between the Optimizer Report and the Evaluator Report.

In our example, we promoted CPU 2.5 GHZ 1 and 2 from an SRU that could only be repaired at the Depot level, to an LRU that can be repaired at the Organizational level.

What effect did this change have on the Operational Availability and Life Cycle Cost?

Operational Availability ____________

Life Cycle Cost ____________

What determination should you make based on the impact on Ao and Cost? Should you recommend promoting CPU 2.5 GHZ 1 & 2 components from SRU to LRU? ____________



Content

Slide 10-35. LRU/SRU Allocations

How are maintenance policy recommendations captured in the Logistics Product Data? Let’s review the following repair level example to find out.

Maintenance Concept: The maintenance policy indicates that LRUs may be removed and replaced at the Organizational level, but that repair of an LRU should occur at the Depot level. Further, maintenance tasks involving SRUs should be performed at the Depot level and SRUs should be discarded rather than repaired whenever it is most economical. The LORA tool would reflect this maintenance policy as follows:

Table 3. Maintenance Concept as Depicted in COMPASS Tool for Slide 35 Scenario

LRU Name

SRU Name

LRU Rep LRU Orig Rep

SRU Rep SRU Orig Rep

LRU 1 SRU 1 ORG ORG DEP DEP

Scenario: An LRU is diagnosed as inoperable, creating a condition where the weapons system is not mission ready.


49 of 61


Content

Solution:

Table 4. Steps in Maintenance Process for Slide 35 Scenario

Box GOAL Metric Repair Action

1

Bring Strike Talon to

Operational Status

Repair time MTTR (Hours)

Typically, a weapons system is deployed and maintained at the Organizational level. Therefore, the Organizational technicians remove the failed LRU and replace it with another operational LRU.

2Bring LRU to Operational

Status

Transportation delay (Days)

The Organizational level does not have the capability to repair LRUs or SRUs. Consistent with the Maintenance Concept, the failed LRU must be sent to the Depot level for repair.

3Bring LRU to Operational Status

Repair time MTTR (Hours)

At the Depot level, skilled Depot technicians repair the LRU by removing and replacing the failed SRU that caused the LRU to fail.

4Bring LRU to Operational Status

Transportation delay (Days)

The operational LRU can be sent to the field if it is spared there or retained at the Depot and shipped when needed by a field activity.

5 Discard SRU Repair time MTTR (Hours)

The failed SRU is discarded rather than repaired because it is the most economical solution.



Content

Slide 10-36. LORA Report Findings

Reporting Findings for the LORA includes:

Model Behavior (3.1) describing the modeling strategies performed using the tool and the resulting improvements,

Cost/Reliability Drivers (3.2) identifying LRU/SRU candidates that significantly impact Operational Availability and cost when the maintenance policy applied to them is changed, and detailing the trade-offs related to the identified LRU/SRU candidates.

These trade-offs are explained Opportunities (3.3) in terms of opportunities to better utilize/leverage existing resources or grow organic repair capabilities.

These three aspects together comprise the contents of the LCL’s reported findings and act as the LCL’s recommendations.


51 of 61


Content

Slide 10-37. LORA Process – Report Findings

Each stage in the LORA process includes specific activities. Turn your attention now to the activities that take place to report LORA findings.

Report Findings

1. Assess differences between Optimizer policy and modified policy for the following:o KPP/KSA Metrics, particularly Operational Availability (Ao)o Life Cycle Cost (LCC), from increased labor, parts, equipment, etc.o Sparing, in terms of storage, distribution times, quantity, etc.o Manpower, in terms of number of personnel, required skill level,

required labor-hours, etc.2. Run summary table results.



Content

Slide 10-38. Reporting & Implementing Findings

STEP 6. Report Policy Adjustment Recommendations

It is important to recognize that implementing a change to an SM&R code that is not consistent with the maintenance policy is a management decision, which only the Lead Logistician can make in concurrence with the overarching IPT. At a minimum this includes systems engineers, representatives knowledgeable in supply chain/provisioning activities, and maintenance technicians/analysts at the Depot level.

The LCL presents the results of policy trade-offs to the IPT by emphasizing the following:

The inconsistencies that prompted the review The causes of the inconsistencies Potential remedial actions represented by the policy trade-offs The impact on Operational Availability and Life Cycle Cost from the

implementation of recommended policy trade-offs.


53 of 61


Content

Slide 10-39. IPT Reporting Structure

Integrated Product Teams (IPT)

IPT complexity varies from project to project. LCLs can anticipate reporting LORA findings to several IPTs, such as IPTs governing the functional areas of Human Systems Integration, Project Support Management, and Systems Engineering.

Depending on the Supportability function under analysis, LCLs may report their findings to an IPT, or analyze findings and provide insight as a member of an IPT.



Content

Integrated Product Support (IPS) Elements

Recall that the Integrated Product Support (IPS) Elements are the support requirements for affordable system operational effectiveness.

Manpower and Personnel, sometimes called is often the most significant cost driver in LORAs. “Repairmen” or “human capital” cost sometimes exceeds the other cost factors combined (training, special equipment, initial and consumption spares, transportation, technical publications, requisition/overhead costs, etc.).

Support Equipment and Facilities & Infrastructure can also contribute significantly to cost.

Supply Support includes initial sparing allocation, demand spares and the financial burden of transportation and repair delays.

Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation (PHS&T), the design of shipping containers and methods, as well as the incurred costs of PHS&T is also a cost contributor.

In calculating the cost per page for technical manuals and the cost of Test Program Set Development, the LORA tool accommodates the cost of implementing Technical Data. The LCL assumes that technical data rights are appropriate for organic development of these vital product support requirements. The Lesson 11, Trade-off Analysis discusses the impact of technical data on the Supportability Analysis process in detail.


55 of 61


Content

Slide 10-40. The Iterative Nature of the LORA

The LORA often accompanies the Business Case Analysis (BCA). The Business Case Analysis and the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) must be refreshed at least every 5 years. This often triggers the conduct of a new LORA.

Other triggers for conducting a new LORA include new data, such as from the Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action System (FRACAS), or updated information regarding the operational reliability (MTBF) and repair rates and the cost of the system and its components.

Once operational data is generated, it should replace the preliminary design-based data. The LCL will report the impact of the updated data on availability and cost to the IPT. The IPT will evaluate the updated findings. This evaluation may result in changes to the existing Product Support Strategy.



Topic 5: Exercise and Simulation


57 of 61


Content

Slide 10-41. Topic 5: Exercise and Simulation

Content

Slide 10-42. LORA Exercise & Simulation Introduction



Topic 6: Summary

Content

Slide 10-45. Topic 6: Summary


59 of 61


Content

Slide 10-46. Takeaways

Content

Slide 10-47. Lesson 10 Summary

Congratulations! You have completed Lesson 10: The Level of Repair Analysis.60 of 61 January 2013Final v1.3



61 of 61