Figure 1: The "Sustainment Chart"
Once the product support strategy is assembled and documented, the PSM must follow-through and implement, then manage the product support. This includes documenting updates to the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP), conducting and implementing recommendations from Logistics Assessments (LA), and maturing the Sustainment Maturity Level (SML). The execution plan includes the continuous, ongoing assessment of Product Support effectiveness through using the established governance mechanisms driving decisions and actions to review, modify, revise, or evolve product support strategies and business arrangements.
The PSM's oversight role includes developing the performance assessment plan, monitoring performance, and revising the LCSP and Product Support Package as needed. The PM also acts as the agent for the Warfighter, certifying PSI performance and approving incentive allocations. The PSM should take a hands-on approach and not assume that the PSAs will be self-regulating. Programs are required to conduct periodic post-IOC assessments of system product support strategies to determine actual versus expected levels of performance and support. These reviews occur nominally every five years after IOC or when precipitated by changes in requirements/design or by performance problems. These reviews should at a minimum assess:
- PSI performance;
- Product improvements incorporated;
- Configuration control;
- Modification of PSAs as needed based on changing Warfighter requirements or system design changes;
- Plans for conducting product support BCA(s);
- Revalidation or re-accomplishment of product support strategy BCA(s);
- Affordability and cost control of current product support strategy.
In July 2011, DoD released the “Logistics Assessment Guidebook,” a powerful reference for conducting reviews. A Logistics Assessment (LA) is an analysis of a program’s supportability planning. Preferably, it is conducted by an independent and impartial team of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) not directly associated with the program being assessed. An LA is not a compliance audit, but an effective and valid assessment of the program office’s product support strategy, as well as an assessment of how this product support strategy leads to successfully operating a system at an affordable cost. As part of the LA, statutory, regulatory, and Component required documentation is reviewed and assessed for completeness and compliance prior to the milestone decision. The focus is on whether the program planning and methodology have a basis and can be successfully executed. Conducting the LA early in the program phase where the design can be influenced, and re-assessing the planning at each milestone and periodically thereafter as the design matures, is critical to fielding a sustainable system. It also provides senior decision makers critical information for making strategic trades within and across various programs, especially as today’s Acquisition Category (ACAT) programs are becoming increasingly complex and integrated with other systems.
Although developing a product support strategy is a significant effort, and periodic evaluation of supportability is an important check step, the ongoing management of the product support strategy, once it has been implemented, is significant. Once the product support arrangements (e.g., contracts, memorandums) have been signed, the process of monitoring performance against the defined performance outcome metrics must be accomplished systematically, accurately, and with a constant assessment of needed revisions to the product support strategy. The PSM should review each PSI's performance against its PSA on at least a quarterly basis and use that data to prepare for the post-IOC assessments.
For Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs), data on four metrics must be reported quarterly to OSD using the Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR) system. The mandatory sustainment Key Performance Parameter (KPP) is Materiel Availability. Materiel Reliability and Ownership Cost are the two supporting mandatory sustainment Key System Attributes (KSAs). These requirements, along with Mean Down Time, align with recent Joint Staff actions and establish a single set of sustainment metrics throughout a program's life cycle.
Goals for these four materiel readiness outcomes should be established early in the materiel solution analysis and then carried through as program baseline goals until system retirement. These metrics are reported in the top right quadrant of the Sustainment Chart shown in Figure 1. Status towards these goals should be reported at Program Reviews. In addition, instructions for using the Sustainment Chart shown in Figure 1 are found in Appendix C of the Product Support Manager Guidebook – Sustainment Chart Usage Instructions. While only required for Major Defense Acquisition Programs, the Sustainment Chart provides a useful template and pathfinder for all programs.
Figure 1: The "Sustainment Chart" provides a ready reference for executive decision makers to use when reviewing a program's product support organization, and is mandatory at all programmatic reviews.
Source: DoD Product Support Manager Guidebook.
Another oversight tool available to support monitoring Life Cycle Sustainment Plans is Earned Value Management. Earned value is a management technique that relates resource planning to schedules and to technical cost and schedule requirements. All work is planned, budgeted, and scheduled in time-phased "planned value" increments constituting a cost and schedule measurement baseline. There are two major objectives of an earned value system: to encourage contractors to use effective internal cost and schedule management control systems and to permit the customer to be able to rely on timely data produced by those systems for determining product-oriented contract status. EVMS can serve as a useful tool between Logistics Assessments and Milestone Reviews, in parallel with the oversight system erected for the execution of the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan, but it does not replace the need for oversight specifically implemented over Product Support.
The Product Support Integrator serves an important role in execution of a Life Cycle Sustainment Plan. The Product Support Integrator (PSI) role is assigned within the scope, direction, and oversight of the PSM. Note that the PSI is assigned at the discretion of the PSM; not all programs will require a PSI. PSIs accomplish their product support role through use of one or more Product Support Providers (PSP). The PSI is responsible for performing oversight of the Product Support Providers falling under the PSI’s defined scope.
Product support integrators are responsible for the activities and output of one or more product support providers within a specific product support element or across product support elements. There may be a system-level PSI that manages subsystem level PSIs. A PSI may also perform the function of a product support provider. A PSI may be either a government or commercial entity.
For a commercial contractor, the contractual metrics and incentives are their lifeblood; they will make the difference between earning a reasonable profit and little or possibly no profit from the contract. For the organic product support provider, although there is no “profit” involved, there should be a comparable performance plan. Accordingly, for both commercial sources of support, it is critical to develop and include a comprehensive and detailed performance assessment plan. This plan must include, at minimum, the following information:
- The metrics to which the contractor will be held responsible (e.g., performance and support outcomes, such as system availability, reliability, process performance, etc.).
- The weighting (if used), prioritization, and range of metric values used to determine earning of contractual incentives.
- The identification of the source of the data from which the metrics will be calculated, how frequently the data will be collected and calculated, how the metric values will be calculated, the period of performance assessment upon which incentive evaluations will be made, who will collect, compile, calculate, and assess the metrics, and how disputes over assessment data will be resolved.
As with all major DoD processes, things change over time. Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO) changes, flying hour requirements change, training requirements change, funding priorities change, the list goes on. The Program Manager, responsible for life cycle management of the system, through the PSM must continually monitor, oversee, and manage the product support strategy cognizant of these external change factors and adjust the strategy as necessary to ensure full coordination between the resource priorities, Warfighter performance objectives, and the sustainment process.
Implementation and Assessment must start and end with the Warfighter’s objectives, closing the loop with management processes to ensure that product support remains on track:
- Ruthlessly separate needs from appetites;
- Understand portfolio of alternatives;
- Tie metrics directly to Warfighter outcomes.
While recognizing fiscal realities and efficiencies demanded in the resource-constrained environment we live in, the PSM can never lose sight of the Warfighter. As General Petraeus so eloquently said, we can “never lose sight of who the ultimate customer is.”
To support the Warfighter, the PSM and the Life Cycle Logistician must demonstrate and enforce a Life Cycle Focus:
- Govern sustainment as part of the life cycle;
- Design for sustainability, and integrate acquire-to-retire processes;
- Manage predictable costs throughout the life cycle;
- Integrate human capital planning into life cycle focus.
DoD life cycle management is not new. "Cradle-to-grave," "concept-to-disposal," "acquire-to-retire" thinking has been a foundational principle going back more than a half a century. Designing for support, integration of acquisition and sustainment, investing in long-term product support, and assigning Product Support Managers as life cycle product support managers are foundational tenets.
In the dynamic DoD environment, change is constant, but core principles guide us. It requires a vigilant, proactive Program Support Manager to ensure that the product support strategy consistently optimizes weapon system operational readiness consistent with DoD priorities.
Return to top
