5.2. Applying Systems Engineering to Life-Cycle Sustainment
Figure 5.2.F1 depicts the Life-Cycle Management System and relates key sustainment design and systems engineering activities. (Figure 5.2.F1 provides an overview roadmap during the acquisition process. Expanded versions are shown by phase in section 5.4.) These system engineering processes are not carried out in a strictly linear progression; they are typically carried out iteratively, expanding into lower levels of detail as the design evolves. Incremental acquisition present challenges in both acquisition and sustainment activities. An obvious challenge is the potential cost and configuration management challenges that can arise with multiple configurations of end items as well as the support system. This should be addressed early in development and evolution of the acquisition strategy. If planned correctly, configuration management efforts combined with rapid prototypes can provide the PM the opportunity to observe and evolve the success of tentative support strategies. Conversely, poor management of multiple system configurations can create a significant sustainment burden.
Program teams manage programs "through the application of a systems engineering approach that optimizes total system performance and minimizes total ownership costs" (DoD Directive 5000.01). In doing so, the PM's overriding program objective should be to maximize system effectiveness from the user's perspective. To accomplish this, sustainment considerations are addressed in the JCIDS process, demonstrated in test & evaluation, and implemented by fielding and sustaining the system. To reach that objective within resource and statutory constraints, trade-offs are continually conducted to balance performance, availability, process efficiency, risks, and cost. This requires the PM to think in both long and short terms.
Short term pressures to achieve system performance and schedule imperatives are very real, and cannot be ignored in a financially and statutorily constrained environment. However, system sustainability and affordability are also important program elements to be considered. Consequently CJCS Instruction 3170.01 established the Sustainment Key Performance Parameter and KSAs to reinforce the total life-cycle approach to program decisions. This is because a system that meets performance requirements but saves acquisition dollars by not expending the resources to make it reliable, maintainable, or supportable is a liability to the user. Ultimately, over the system life cycle, balancing this composite of long term objectives will provide greater benefit.
Figure 5.2.F1. Supportability Analysis in Acquisition
Achieving Affordable System Operational Effectiveness. The PM can address the long versus short term issue by designing for the optimal balance between performance (technical and supportability), life-cycle costs, schedule, and process efficiency. A development program that targets only some categories of technical performance capability; or fails to optimize system Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) technical performance, risks financial burden during operations and support. The PM should therefore design for the optimal balance between technical performance (including RAM), categories of LCC, schedule, and process efficiencies. The affordable system operational effectiveness concept is important because it is what the user sees in terms of how well the system is able to perform its missions over a sustained period as well as the ability to surge given the user's operating budget. In this concept the emphasis is not only on the system's ability to execute its mission or its reliability and maintainability, but also on the cost effective responsiveness of the supply chain. The challenge is in how to relate these interrelated elements into an integrated shared vision across the wide range of stakeholders. The major elements impacting a system's ability to perform its mission that should be considered in the design process are depicted in Figure 5.2.F2 and addressed below:
Mission effectiveness is critical because it reflects the Warfighter's ability to accomplish the mission (including the number of systems/sorties required to accomplish the mission) and directly impacts their workload. It reflects the balance achieved between the design and the process efficiencies used to operate and support the system, including the product support package and the supply chain. In addition, each of its elements directly influences the life-cycle cost. The key is to ensure mission effectiveness is defined in terms meaningful to the Warfighter over a meaningful timeframe. (e.g., number of systems required to move X ton miles in a 30 day period, or number of systems required to provide continuous surveillance coverage over 60,000 square mile area for a 6 month period).
The design effectiveness reflects key design features - technical performance and supportability features. These system aspects should be designed-in synergistically and with full knowledge of the expected system missions in the context of the proposed system operational, maintenance, and support concepts. To be effective, technical performance and supportability objectives should be defined in explicit, quantitative, testable terms. This is important to facilitate trade-offs as well as the selection and assessment of the product and process technologies. Each of the major elements controlled by the program manager in the design process is addressed below.
Technical performance is realized through designed-in system functions and their corresponding capabilities. In this context, functions refer to the desired mission abilities the system should be capable of executing in the operational environment. This includes high level functions such as intercept, weapons delivery, electronic jamming, surveillance, etc. down to the lowest subsystem level supporting functions (e.g., process signal). Capabilities refer to the various desired performance attributes and measures, such as maximum speed, range, altitude, accuracy (e.g., "circular error probable") down to the lowest subsystem level (e.g., frequencies). Each of these must be prioritized and traded off to achieve an acceptable balance in the design process.
Figure 5.2.F2. Affordable System Operational Effectiveness
In this context, supportability (see sections 5.3 and 4.3.18.22) includes the following design factors of the system and its product support package:
- Reliability is the ability of a system to perform as designed in an operational environment over time without failure.
- Maintainability is the ability of a system to be repaired and restored to service when maintenance is conducted by personnel using specified skill levels and prescribed procedures and resources (e.g., personnel, support equipment, technical data). It includes unscheduled, scheduled maintenance as well as corrosion protection/mitigation and calibration tasks.
- Support features include operational suitability features cutting across reliability and maintainability and the supply chain to facilitate detection, isolation, and timely repair/replacement of system anomalies. It also includes features for servicing and other activities necessary for operation and support including resources that contribute to the overall support. Traditional factors falling in this category include diagnostics, prognostics (see CBM+ Guidebook), calibration requirements, many HSI issues (e.g. training, safety, HFE, occupational health, etc.), skill levels, documentation, maintenance data collection, compatibility, interoperability, transportability, handling (e.g., lift/hard/tie down points, etc.), packing requirements, facility requirements, accessibility, and other factors that contribute to an optimum environment for sustaining an operational system.
Supportability features cannot be easily "added-on" after the design is established. Consequently supportability should be accorded a high priority early in the program's planning and integral to the system design and development process. In addition to supportability features, the associated product support package, along with the supply chain, are important because they significantly impact the processes used to sustain the system, allowing it to be ready to perform the required missions. While not specifically identified in figure 5.2.F2, producibility (i.e. the degree to which the design facilitates the timely, affordable, and optimum-quality manufacture, assembly, and delivery) can also impact supportability. This is because easily producible items are normally faster to obtain and have lower life-cycle costs.
Process efficiency reflects how well the system can be produced, operated, serviced (including fueling) and maintained. It reflects the degree to which the logistics processes (including the supply chain), infrastructure, and footprint have been balanced to provide an agile, deployable, and operationally effective system. While the program manager does not fully control this aspect, the program directly influences each of the processes via the system design and the fielded product support package. Achieving process efficiency requires early and continuing emphasis on the various logistics support processes along with the design considerations. The continued emphasis is important because processes present opportunities for improving operational effectiveness even after the "design-in" window has passed via lean-six sigma, supply chain optimization and other continuous process improvement (CPI) techniques. Examples of where they can be applied include supply chain management, resource demand forecasting, training, maintenance procedures, calibration procedures, packaging, handling, transportation and warehousing processes.
The relationships illustrated in figure 5.2.F2 are complex and not as clean as shown in the figure. Figure 5.2.F3 is more accurate relative to how the basic system operational effectiveness elements interface. For example, each of the supportability elements influences the process aspects which in turn can impact supportability. (e.g., while reliability drives the maintenance requirements, the implemented maintenance processes and the quality of the spare and repair parts as reflected in the producability features can impact the resultant reliability.) In addition, how the system is operated will influence the reliability and both can be influenced by the logistic processes. Last but not least, each of the design and process aspects drives the life-cycle costs. Achieving the optimal balance across these complex relationships requires proactive, coordinated involvement of organizations and individuals from the requirements, acquisition, logistics, and user communities, along with industry. Consequently, because of the complexity and overlapping interrelationships full stakeholder participation is required in activities related to achieving affordable mission effectiveness. Models that simulate the interactions of the elements, as depicted in Figure 5.2.F3, can be helpful in developing a balanced solution.
Figure 5.2.F3. Affordable System Operational Effectiveness Interrelationships
Each of the elements reflected in Figure 5.2.F2 contribute to achieving the top level affordable operational effectiveness outcome and have associated metrics which can be measured to assess efficiency and effectiveness. However, they don't mathematically add up as implied in Figure 5.2.F2. This is because, in addition to the complex interrelationships between the elements, the various stakeholders only measure portions of the supply chain and often use different metric definitions. Consequently DoD has adopted 4 key sustainment metrics (including the Sustainment KPP and 2 KSAs) for projecting and monitoring key affordable operational effectiveness performance enablers to:
- Provide a standard set of encompassing measures to continuously estimate and assess affordable operational effectiveness
- Complement the traditional readiness metrics to help overcome the overlapping interrelationships,
- Provide a common communications link across the diverse systems and organizations
- Provide the programs latitude in determining the optimum solution.
Figure 5.2.F4 indicates the minimum set of sustainment metrics the PM should use to facilitate communication across the stakeholders and the elements affecting them. The color code indicates the elements measured by Materiel Availability, Materiel Reliability and Mean Down Time metrics. The metrics are interrelated and along with the CONOPS impact the LCC.
Figure 5.2.F4 Sustainment Metrics & Affordable System Operational Effectiveness
This overarching perspective provides context for the trade space available to a PM and for articulation of the overall objective of maximizing the operational effectiveness. This is critical because trade-offs outside the trade space (i.e., program parameter changes) can require approval of both the Milestone Decision Authority and Validation Authority since validated KPP threshold values cannot be reduced without Validation Authority approval. Consequently, it is critical the design trade space established by the values selected for the sustainment metrics are established early and be acceptable to the user and acquirer communities. As a result, the user and sponsor should be involved with the determination of the design trade space. Finally, to help ensure the metrics goals are met, the program should establish supporting metrics for key drivers (e.g., logistics footprint, manning levels, ambiguity rates for diagnostics) uniquely tailored for the system and the projected operating environment as the design requirements are allocated.
DAG Tutorial 
