Effective sustainment begins with the supportability analysis to form CDD specifications for each supportability parameter to be designed, developed, or procured as proven commercial technology. It is these analysis-driven supportability parameter specifications, once integrated through systems engineering with all other technical parameters, which drive deployed system operational availability, sustainment effectiveness, and operator ownership affordability. As discussed below, supportability analyses establish supportability performance capability KPP/KSA parameters for Sustainment in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) requirements documentation and are central to the systems engineering process of identifying and refining all system technical performance capabilities.

5.4.1.1. Sustainment in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Process

Performance-based life-cycle product support implementation begins in the JCIDS process with the exploration of capabilities defined in terms of overall performance and linking sustainment to performance. Every system is acquired to provide a particular set of capabilities in a specific concept of operations, and sustained to an optimal level of readiness. Understanding user needs in terms of performance is an essential initial step in developing a meaningful support strategy because changes to the CONOPS or the sustainment approach may impact the effectiveness, suitability, or cost of the system. Consequently, operational commands and organizations supporting the combatant commanders should be involved in establishing the requirements since they are generally the system users. Their needs should be translated into performance and support metrics to serve as the primary measures of support system performance.

An effective and affordable logistics support program should be represented as a performance capability priority. As discussed in section 1.3, the JCIDS process documents performance capabilities where Warfighters, or their operational user representatives, identify needed supportability and support related performance capabilities parameters (e.g., sustainment metrics, footprint limitations, cost per operating hour, diagnostic effectiveness). Sustainment planning and resource requirements should be mapped to these specific user needs for support related system performance. Further, programs can more easily invest in sustainment features such as condition based maintenance plus (CBM+) and related embedded instrumentation technology, when they are tied to JCIDS performance parameters.

The JCIDS analysis process is composed of a structured methodology that defines capability gaps, capability needs, and approaches to provide those capabilities within a specified functional or operational area. Based on national defense policy and centered on a common joint war fighting construct, the analyses initiate the development of integrated, joint capabilities from a common understanding of existing joint force operations and doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF) capabilities and deficiencies. The JCIDS analyses are led by the sponsor and linked into the Life-Cycle Management System at each phase and milestone.

The JCIDS Instruction (CJCS Instruction 3170.01) and Manual require that key considerations for sustainment be addressed early in the analysis as indicated below:

A Key Performance Parameter for Sustainment has been mandated which treats logistics supportability as a performance capability inherent to the systems design and development
A Sustainment Key Performance Parameter (Materiel Availability) and two mandatory supporting KSAs (Materiel Reliability and Ownership Cost) are required for all JROC Interest programs involving materiel solutions.
Logistics supportability becomes an inherent element of operational effectiveness.
The Capability Development Document and Capability Production Document (CPD) must state the operational and support-related/sustainment performance attributes of a system that provides the desired capability required by the Warfighter -- attributes so significant that they must be verified by testing and evaluation
The DOTMLPF includes analysis of the entire life cycle, including the sustainment; environment, safety, and occupational health (ESOH); and all Human Systems Integration (HSI) domains.
The process to identify capability gaps and potential materiel and non-materiel solutions must be supported by a robust analytical process that objectively considers a range of operating, maintenance, sustainment, and acquisition approaches and incorporates innovative practices -- including best commercial practices, HSI, systems engineering (including safety and software engineering), collaborative environments, modeling and simulation, and electronic business solutions.
The approaches identified should include the broadest possible range of joint possibilities for addressing the capability gaps. For each approach, the range of potential sustainment alternatives must be identified and evaluated as part of determining which approaches are viable.

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD). JCIDS analyses provide the necessary information for the development of the ICD. The lessons learned, cost drivers of current systems, and/or constraints impacting the supportability related design requirements of the planned system, and support system should be documented in the ICD. In addition, the sustainment metrics and the following supportability drivers should be included in the ICD because they guide the acquisition community in refining the concept selected and identify potential constraints on operating and support resource requirements:

System maintenance/support profiles and use case scenarios;
Reliability and maintenance rates;
Support environment and support locations;
Support and maintenance effectiveness needs; and
Duration of support.

5.4.1.2. Materiel Solution Analysis Phase Overview

The purpose of this phase is to assess potential materiel solutions and developing a Technology Development Strategy (TDS). This includes identifying and evaluating affordable product support alternatives with their associated requirements to meet the operational requirements and associated risks. Consequently, in describing the desired performance to meet mission requirements, the sustainment metrics should be defined in addition to the traditional performance design criteria (e.g., speed, lethality). This is because reliability, reduced logistics footprint, and reduced system life-cycle cost are most effectively achieved through inclusion from the beginning of a program and therefore should be addressed in the AoA Plan.

Along with articulating the overall system operational effectiveness objective, this phase is critical for establishing the overarching trade space available to the PM in subsequent phases. User capabilities are examined against technologies, both mature and immature, to determine feasibility and alternatives to fill user needs. Once the requirements have been identified, a gap analysis should be performed to determine the additional capabilities required to implement the support concept and its drivers within the trade space.

5.4.1.3. Activities/Processes

While considered pre-system acquisition, this phase is critical to acquisition program success and achieving materiel readiness because it is the first opportunity to influence systems supportability and affordability by balancing technology opportunities with operational and sustainment requirements. The phase provides the widest latitude for considering requirement alternatives and has the greatest impact on the life-cycle cost. In determining the optimally balanced requirements, emphasis is not only on the reliability and maintainability of potential materiel solutions, but also on assessing cost-effective responsiveness and the relevance of support system and supply chain alternatives.

5.4.1.3.1. Identifying and Evaluating Alternatives

During this phase, various alternatives are analyzed to select the materiel solution and develop the TDS to fill any technology gaps. Key activities involve identifying and evaluating alternatives and their system sustainment and product support implications. This process is critical because the resulting details guide the acquisition community on refining the concept selected and identifying potential operating and support resource constraints.

Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). The analysis should evaluate the mission effectiveness, operational suitability, and estimated life-cycle cost of alternatives to meet a mission capability in determining the system concept. The AoA team should include functional sustainment performance and associated life-cycle cost analysis expertise to help ensure the AoA assesses the ability of each material alternative candidate to meet and sustain the system's JCIDS performance sustainment capability parameters. It is important that the analysis of alternatives includes alternative maintenance and sustainment concepts consistent with the physical and operational environment of the proposed system. Specific consideration should be given to the associated performance metrics to achieve the required effectiveness goals and the overall ability to accomplish a mission, including the ability to sustain the system. Consequently, during this phase the focus is on determining the system level sustainment metrics and values that provide the balance between mission effectiveness, LCC, logistics footprint, and risk that best represents Warfighter needs. This needs to be done for each system alternative analyzed and for their associated sustainment and maintenance strategies. The strategies must then be broken down to their respective drivers to determine the gaps between what is needed to achieve the mission capability and what is currently achievable. The drivers then become performance-based metrics for sustainment enablers. The gaps indicate risk areas and become candidates for potential technology development initiatives. Since operational suitability is the degree to which a system can be used and sustained satisfactorily in the field (in war and peace time), consideration should be given to reliability, availability, maintainability, compatibility, transportability, interoperability, sustainment, documentation, and all the HSI domains (Manpower, Personnel, Training, HFE, Environment, Safety, Occupational Health, Survivability, and Habitability).

This analysis should be accomplished by:

Forecasting the physical and maintenance environment of the proposed system. This should include the projected sustainment demands.
Using the forecasted environment to assess the functional characteristics of the proposed system, its complexity, and the obstacles and enablers for effective sustainment.
Assessing the impact of the proposed system on the maintenance capabilities planned for the period in which the system will be introduced.
Assessing the preliminary manpower and personnel requirements and constraints in both quantity and skill levels.
Compiling initial information and requirements for the logistics footprint, deployment requirements, and other factors affecting the in-theater operational concept. Even this early Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates can be performed with comparisons to prior systems or systems of similar capability.
Developing initial operating and support reliability objectives and their corresponding benefits and resource requirements. This can be done by comparing the performance histories of prior systems or systems of similar capability where feasible for the critical maintenance/sustainment enablers required to achieve the operational requirements.
Developing ROM life-cycle cost estimates.

Data collected and analyzed during the analysis of alternatives should be retained because it can be useful for subsequent performance-based product support analysis including providing the baseline for logistics footprint and other factors affecting the in-theater operations concept. (See section 3.3.3) As a result, the sustainment related data should be maintained in a manner to make it easy to update program deliverables during subsequent phases, especially prior to milestone decisions.

5.4.1.3.2. Sustainment Metrics

During the Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) process, the operational framework and the Combatant Commander's priorities should be defined sufficiently to guide the development of alternative materiel and sustainment solutions. Relevant sustainment criteria and alternatives should be evaluated and addressed in the Initial Capabilities Document in sufficient depth to support the analysis of alternatives and establish the foundation for developing the Sustainment Key Performance Parameter and supporting KSAs in the Capability Development Document and Capability Production Document. At this time, the metrics should be defined and analyzed against the alternatives and a rough plan as to how they will be measured should be developed.

The focus should be on ensuring the metrics are traceable to the ICD, CDD, other JCIDS analysis, or agreement with the user community on the values for each metric and on documented analyses. The analyses should use the most appropriate data sources and include comparisons of corresponding values for analogous existing systems. Where there is a wide difference between values being achieved by today's systems and those needed for the projected environment, further analysis should be done to determine the enabler technologies (e.g., diagnostics, prognostics) required to achieve the sustainment metrics. The analysis should identify the corresponding performance requirements for key enabling technologies. The results should be included in the TDS and Draft CDD.

5.4.1.3.3. Technical Reviews

Many of the actions and subsequent results in this phase are reviewed during technical reviews. The actions and results discussed in this section should be accomplished even if the specific referenced reviews do not occur. The actions and results are tied to the reviews to reflect the relative timeframe in which the actions should be accomplished.

5.4.1.3.3.1. Sustainment Considerations in the Alternative System Review (ASR)

The ASR helps ensure the preferred system and product support solution satisfies the Initial Capabilities Document. Generally, the review assesses the evaluated alternative systems to ensure that at least one of the alternatives has the potential to be cost effective, affordable, operationally effective and suitable, and can be developed to provide a timely solution at an acceptable level of risk. See section 4.2.9 for additional information on how the ASR ensures the requirements agree with the customers' needs and expectations.

For this review to be fully effective, the support concept should be addressed as an integral part of the system concept. During the review, the system concept should be assessed with particular attention to understanding the driving requirements for reliability, availability, maintainability, down time, life-cycle costs, and the enabling technologies required to meet user requirements. Completion of the ASR should provide:

An agreement on the support concept to be used as the baseline for subsequent trade studies. The support concept should include the conceptual description, scope, and risk for both the system, as well as any supply chain system/software needs beyond what is currently available.
The results of any sustainment and support concept trade studies/technical demonstrations to develop the concept or reduce risks.
Refined thresholds and objectives (initially stated as broad measures of effectiveness). This should include a comprehensive rationale for the preferred solution and the proposed sustainment requirements based on an analysis of alternatives that included cost, schedule, performance (including hardware, human, software), and technology risks.
Product support constraints to enable integration with the operational and support environments.
Planning for the Technology Development phase addressing critical sustainment enabling hardware and software to be developed and demonstrated/prototyped, their cost, and critical path drivers. Planning should be based on a comprehensive assessment of the relative risks associated with the preferred support concept including commercial off-the-shelf items in the program. It should emphasize host platform environmental design, diagnostic information integration, and maintenance concept compatibility.
Sustainment requirements for the draft system requirements document, consistent with technology maturity and the proposed program cost and schedule for the technical baseline and preferred support concept. This should include any commonality, compatibility, interoperability, integration or joint requirements.

5.4.1.4. Materiel Solution Analysis Phase Results/Exit Criteria

The focus of this phase is on identifying the initial concept and any critical product support capability requirements. Affordable operational effectiveness is the overarching sustainment objective that should be considered during the JCIDS process. Implementing the process contained in figure 5.4.1.3.1.F1 results in the preferred system concept and the planning to mature the enabling technologies. The conclusion of this phase produces the initial acquisition strategy (including the sustainment strategy), contractual documents required to continue into the Technology Development Phase and includes the initial support & maintenance concepts as well as LCC and manpower estimates for the system concept.

Table 5.4.1.4.T1 identifies the most critical documents that should incorporate or address sustainment/logistics considerations. Entry documents should be complete when the phase is initiated and include the specific product support issues to be addressed in the phase along with a notional Maintenance & Sustainment Concept of Operations (CONOPS) consistent with the projected Operational CONOPS. Exit documents are completed or, in the case of the Maintenance & Sustainment CONOPS, updated based on the analysis of alternatives results. The key sustainment elements to be addressed in the next phase should be included in the Acquisition Strategy, the Technology Development Phase RFP, and Source Selection Plan.

Table 5.4.1.4.T1. Sustainment Considerations in Materiel Solution Analysis

Entry Documents:

Initial Capabilities Document

Analysis of Alternatives Plan

Alternative Maintenance & Sustainment Concept of Operations

Exit Documents:

Analysis of Alternatives (including Market Research results)

Draft Capability Development Document

Test and Evaluation Strategy

Technology Development Strategy

SEP

Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan

The Analysis of Alternatives Report should describe the alternative maintenance and sustainment concepts consistent for each alternative analyzed along with the support capabilities drivers and any gaps.

The exit documents should contain the following sustainment related information for the preferred system concept:

ICD/Draft Capability Development Document – the description of the specific enabling technology capabilities required to achieve the drivers and/or to reduce risks in achieving the sustainment metrics values required to meet the operational requirements. The same should be done for each of the corresponding enabling technologies
Technology Development Strategy - the approach for achieving the required enabling sustainment technologies (including design criteria in the Preliminary Design Specification for each of the sustainment drivers). It should also identify the required associated performance metrics and their values.
Test and Evaluation Strategy – the identification of the metrics and the key design features to be evaluated in subsequent phases along with the approach for evaluating the likely achievement of each

Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan – In this phase and preparing for MS-A, the LCSP focuses on the approach for developing the sustainment metrics and product support strategy. Emphasis is on the:

Sustainment metrics (including their threshold and objective values) as well as the supporting design characteristics included in the contract along with the corresponding test methods incorporated in the T&E Strategy/TEMP
Support and Maintenance Concepts including any real world constraints or limitations (including "core" requirements, statutory requirements, etc.) as well as the extent to which the program is taking advantage of existing supply chain processes and maintenance capabilities.
Critical sustainment technologies requiring development, their corresponding development plan and how their maturity will be demonstrated.
Management approach and analytical process for determining affordable metrics (for both the weapon system operational performance and supply chain performance) and for identifying cost and availability degraders so that they can be addressed in the design process.

5.4.1.5. Sustainment Considerations in the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase

Use of M&S should be considered to gain an understanding of the dependency and interplay between designed-in capabilities, processes, availability, and life-cycle cost. While at a high level during this phase, each design alternative examined within the operational concept should be considered as to system availability, LCC, and maintenance and sustainment concept drivers. It is important the analysis of alternatives consider the physical and maintenance environment of the proposed systems in the assessment of the alternative system support concepts.

During this phase, support considerations should address the degree to which a system's design and planned logistics resources support its readiness requirements and wartime utilization. This includes consideration of activities and resources (such as fuel) necessary for system operation as well as real world constraints and environment. It also includes all resources that contribute to the overall support cost (e.g., personnel; equipment; technical support data; and maintenance procedures to facilitate the detection, isolation, and timely repair/replacement of system anomalies).

5.4.1.6. Best Practices during the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase

Modeling and simulation combined with LCC analysis are critical best practices and should be included in the AoA Plan. In addition, both should be used as a source selection factor in the Technology Development Phase selection process and to define the desired ranges for the sustainment metrics thresholds and objectives.

5.4.1.6.1. Life-Cycle Cost

During this phase, both acquisition and O&S costs need to be considered in evaluating affordable alternatives. Also during this phase, key sustainment related cost performance criteria, such as O&S cost per operating hour or cost per ton-mile, can be considered when conducting design trade-off analyses.

Logistics footprint minimization in projecting and sustaining the force is an overarching DoD goal because minimizing the logistical burden a system will place on deployed forces benefits the user, improves deployment time, and can help reduce the LCC. During this phase, footprint metrics appropriate to the system and its operational environment should be analyzed and considered as subsequent KPP, KSA, or design requirements. At a minimum, logistics footprint metrics to meet the concept of operations should be established to be used in baseline trade analyses throughout the life cycle to help impact the design and establish a minimal logistics footprint for the system concept.

5.4.1.6.2. Modeling and Simulation

During this phase M&S supports the requirements determination efforts by analyzing the impact of various alternatives to determine an achievable range of the sustainment metrics values to meet the functional requirements. M&S should be used to assess the alternatives, ensuring all sustainment metrics are considered in parallel and not at the expense of the others. In addition, sensitivity analyses should be used to determine the:

Optimum mix of key metric values (e.g., LCC and readiness drivers) required to meet the requirements and identify corresponding confidence levels for each of the alternatives
Impact on sustainment, LCC, and readiness drivers if the supply chain performs at today's performance levels.
Associated sustainment/maintenance concepts for each of the alternatives to be used as the baseline in subsequent phases

Combining these factors will help identify specific areas where new technology is required to achieve or to reduce risks and increase the probability of achieving the requirements.

Top of page

Previous and Next Page arrows