In the total life-cycle systems management concept, providing user support and managing the demilitarization/disposal of old systems are the PM's responsibilities. During this phase, the PM is the system focal point to the user and should continually assess the sustainability effectiveness of the fielded systems, adjusting the program as required to support the user.

Users require readiness and operational effectiveness (i.e., systems accomplishing their missions) in accordance with their design parameters in an operational environment. Systems, regardless of the application of design for supportability, suffer varying stresses during actual deployment and use. Consequently, the PM should apply the systems engineering processes used in acquisition throughout the entire life cycle. The difference is that during this phase actual use data including user feedback, failure reports, and discrepancy reports rather then engineering estimates are used.

While acquisition phase activities are important to designing and implementing a successful and affordable sustainment strategy, the ultimate measure of success is supporting the user after the system has been deployed for use. Accordingly, the PM and DoD Components should conduct periodic assessments of system support outcomes comparing actual vs. expected levels of performance and support. The assessments require close coordination with the user, support providers and appropriate systems engineering IPTs. They should be structured to:

Monitor system usage and supply chain against design baseline criteria and assumptions.
Review and triage all use data and supplier data to determine operational hazards/safety risks, as well as readiness degraders.
Develop alternatives to resolve critical safety and readiness degrading issues.
Identify sub-optimal performers in the fielded product support system, and correct them through rebalanced product support elements or changes to the maintenance program.
Enhance the performance and cost-effectiveness of the end-to-end supply chain to ensure materiel readiness continues to meet user needs.
Identify redesign opportunities to enhance system effectiveness.

5.4.5.2. Activities/Processes

During this phase, the focus is on supporting the user by executing the sustainment program and on making adjustments based on effectiveness and operating conditions using systems engineering principles. However, the PM should not undertake depot maintenance source of support decisions without consultation with accountable military department logistics officials to ensure the DoD Component depot maintenance 50 percent limitation statutory requirement is being met. Figure 5.4.5.2.F1 highlights the key sustainability and product support activities.

Figure 5.4.5.2.F1. System support implications in the Operations and Support Phase

5.4.5.2.1. Adjusting to meet User Needs

Under the total life-cycle systems management concept, the program manager continually assesses the system performance from the user's perspective. The PM should use existing reporting systems and user feedback to evaluate the fielded system, focusing on performance outcomes meaningful to the user. (If existing reporting systems do not provide sufficient information, the PM should augment existing reporting systems by collecting critical data required to assess performance and, where necessary, work with the DoD Components to add the capabilities to the existing reporting systems.) The data should be analyzed, comparing performance expectations against actual performance, root causes of problems identified, and corrective actions developed.

Potential corrective actions can be implemented through maintenance plan/requirement changes, process changes, modification of performance-based product support agreements, and/or design changes. The final decision for the corrective action selected will be determined by a balance between many factors, including but not limited to risk/safety, costs, schedule, user requirements and probability of success. (During this phase, the solution selected has a higher probability of success because more of the supportability analysis/RCM processes have the benefit of actuals, vice expectations, thereby reducing the amount of unknowns and eliminating many of the unknown-unknowns.) Regardless of the reason for the change (e.g., a required characteristic short fall, obsolescence, safety, changing user requirements or system design changes), the implementation/ fielding process will follow a tailored version of the Defense Acquisition Management System Framework.

5.4.5.2.2. In-Service Reviews (ISR)

The PM should conduct regularly scheduled In-Service Reviews (also know as Post IOC Reviews) with the users, assessing the current status, operational health and corrective actions to satisfy user operational needs based on user feedback and performance metrics. (See section 4.2.17 for additional information.) The ISR is a multi-disciplined product and process assessment to ensure the system is employed with well-understood and managed risk, so timely corrective actions can be taken. Leading into and during the reviews engineering, sustainment stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, representatives from primary supply chain providers, and the comptroller communities) and product support IPT members, as well as independent sustainment subject matter experts, should apply sound programmatic, systems engineering, and logistics management processes to:

Assess product support performance against requirements and objectives. The focus should be on reliability, maintainability, and support problems (hardware and software) and their impact on safety and operational readiness. It should include an assessment of risk, readiness, and trends in a measurable form.
Access the status of current system problems, solutions, and performance metrics. The metrics should include material reliability, material availability, mean down time, materiel ownership cost, and any additional useful sustainment metrics to substantiate in-service problems and budget priorities.
Group system problems, safety, product support, and readiness issues by priority to form an integrated picture of in-service health, operational risk, system readiness, and future sustainment requirements. This information should be used to prioritize budget requirements (execution and out year) and future sustainment planning.
Quantify and project system operational risk and system readiness levels based on current levels and current procurement, operations, and support budgets.
Access the status of current initiatives and the program's responsiveness to meeting customer needs, including problem (discrepancy) report inflow, resolution rate, and trends.

The reviews should be conducted at defined intervals to identify needed revisions and corrections, and to allow for timely improvements in the strategies to meet performance requirements for materiel readiness. At least initially, the In-Service Reviews will focus on the product support package fielding including the product support providers performance against the PBAs and other requirements. Consequently, the reviews with the users and product support service providers should be on a semi-annual basis as the support plans are executed (including transition from organic to contract support and vice versa, if applicable). After the system has been fully deployed, the frequency of these reviews should then be based on system performance (including trends), the pace of technology, obsolescence issues, and safety. The program's In-Service Reviews should be used to prepare for the DoD Component level assessments or reviews.

5.4.5.2.3. Formal DoD Component Post Deployment Reviews

Program assessments encompass and evaluate supportability, logistics, readiness, and sustainment planning and are conducted by each DoD Component to help ensure a solid life-cycle product support program. Assessments independent of the program office are management practices that have proved to be useful in managing product support risks by providing an impartial evaluation of a program's product support and sustainment implementation. The DoD Components have independently established formal assessment processes in DoD Component specific policies and instructions. The process names vary, but all are intended to assist the PM in the successful execution of his/her total life-cycle management responsibilities.

The DoD Components conduct Post Deployment Reviews beginning at Initial Operational Capability (IOC) and then nominally every three to five years or when precipitated by changes in requirements/design or performance problems. These periodic assessments verify whether the fielded system continues to meet or exceed thresholds and objectives for cost, performance, and support parameters approved at the full rate production decision. In addition to comparing actual versus expected levels of performance and support, the reviews should at minimum include:

Product Support Integrator/ Product Support Provider's performance, including effectiveness of sustained materiel readiness implementation
Product improvements incorporated
Configuration control

5.4.5.2.4. Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan

Following the Full Rate Production Decision, the LCSP is the principle program document governing the system’s management and execution. It describes the actions to be taken to meet the total system availability requirements based on measured performance in the operational environment. The plan documents the results of the stakeholder actions and projects outcomes expected based on the budget and real world conditions emphasizing the:

Sustaining Engineering processes for refining Product Support Package elements based on operation experience to maintain the system’s sustainment metrics and control or reduce sustainment costs.
Results of logistics assessments on how the system and supply chain are performing.
Adjustments to the product support strategy including any changes to the Program Office or Product Support Arrangements.
Projected sustainment metric values over the FYDP reflecting the expected results of corrective actions under way.
Required and anticipated funding levels over the FYDP necessary to ensure acceptable affordability and availability rates to maintain mission capability against the relevant threats.

Once a program has been designated a "replaced system", a Replaced System Sustainment Plan will be generated which will require the program to work closely with the defense acquisition authority and the replacement system program manager. (See section 5.1.2.3)

5.4.5.3. Operations and Support Phase Results/Exit Criteria

Implementing the process depicted in figure 5.4.5.2.F1 results in proactive support to the user focusing optimized resources to met operational needs. It can also result in new system requirements which would begin the Life-Cycle Management System process again.

The conclusion of this phase results in the disposal of the system following statutory regulations and policy. The PM should coordinate with DoD Component logistics activities and DLA, as appropriate, to identify and apply applicable demilitarization requirements necessary to eliminate the functional or military capabilities of assets (DoD 4140.1-R and DoD 4160.21-M-1). The PM should coordinate with DLA to determine property disposal requirements for system equipment, support assets, and by-products (DoD 4160.21-M).

5.4.5.4. Sustainment Considerations in the Operations and Support Phase

DoD Instruction 5000.02, Enclosure 2, paragraph 8, includes "supply; maintenance; transportation; sustaining engineering; data management; configuration management; HSI; environment; safety (including explosives safety), and occupational health; protection of critical program information and anti-tamper provisions; supportability; and interoperability" within life-cycle sustainment. While not all of these elements are traditional product support elements, all are important considerations for the PM to take into account in supporting the user. Key is ensuring the entire program is assessed and adjustments are made as needed, based on changing user requirements/needs or system design changes.

When assessing performance and revising agreements or support strategies, the process should encompass all configuration/block increments, and potential redesigns/ECPs to address changes required to address problems encountered in the operational environment. Emphasis should not only be on newly added support requirements, but also on addressing the support strategy in total across the entire platform and range of deployed configurations using the same analytical processes used in earlier phases.

The total life-cycle systems management and performance-based product support concept required by DoD 5000.01 necessitates that managing performance be focused on outcomes vs. segmented functional support organizational outputs. The PM is the focal point for ensuring that all program elements are considered and the respective stakeholders are engaged to support the user.

5.4.5.4.1. Sustainment Metrics

During this phase, the PM should measure, track and report the supply chain performance and its effectiveness, along with the sustainment metric drivers and the root cause of any performance shortfalls. Special emphasis should be placed on tracking the metrics for the drivers for the key enabler technologies that were developed for the system or are critical for achieving the required materiel availability.

5.4.5.5. Best Practices during Operations and Support

The following are important, but not the only, best practices to be used in this phase since the concepts previously spelled out still apply. In each case, the best practices involve Sustaining Engineering where the PM continually comparing performance against expectations using actual equipment and support performance data, to revise, correct and improve product support strategies to meet the users' requirements.

5.4.5.5.1. Continuous Process Improvement (CPI)

Often, due to revisions in funding, mission requirements, or other fact-of-life changes, logistics resources become out of balance or poorly synchronized. Therefore, PM efforts to achieve system availability while reducing costs should include periodic assessments and, where necessary, improvements of the support strategy and processes. While some system deficiencies can be addressed through system design, many can be more effectively resolved by adjusting the support strategy or processes. The continual application of supportability analysis, including condition based maintenance plus concepts, is an effective means of meeting evolving conditions and providing improved materiel availability.

Adjusting the maintenance requirements using RCM and CBM+ principles can be a very effective in optimizing the sustainment KPP and KSAs during the Operating and Support Phase. Additional approaches useful to the PM in balancing logistics resources, decreasing repair cycle times, and/or improving readiness/availability include:

Application of Lean, Six Sigma and Theory of Constraints Concepts.
Updating the supply chain processes based on actuals. This can help balance logistics support through thorough review of readiness degraders, maintenance data, maintenance and support process implementation.
Implementing properly incentivized performance-based agreements with support providers that encourage product support assessments and improvements based on comparisons between performance expectations against actual performance data.

5.4.5.5.2. Supportability Analysis

During this phase, the supportability analysis continues to focus on design changes regardless of the need for the change (e.g., reliability shortfall, obsolescence issue, safety concern) and adjusting the support package to accommodate the changes. In this process, care should be given to ensure the analysis encompasses all previous configuration/block increments across the entire platform and range of deployed configurations. In doing this, the entire support strategy should be addressed to look for opportunities to reduce the costs and logistics footprint.

Supportability analysis should also be used to adjust the support package based on how it is performing. A wide range of changes (including moving between overhaul and repair, improving off equipment diagnostic capabilities, transitioning to a commercial supply chain management system, etc.) should be considered in determining the best solution. The ability to continually compare performance against expectations using actual equipment and support performance data to drive data analyses and a RCM decision analysis is more efficient and reduces risks.

In both cases, use data is monitored/collected and analyzed using FMECA. Any failure, maintenance or operational issues are verified and root causes, risk and severity are determined. An analysis should then be performed to determine if the most cost effective solution is a:

Maintenance change (either a preventative maintenance task (including scheduled inspections) or, if it is a non critical failure, a corrective maintenance task. A Maintenance Plan analysis can help balance logistics support through thorough review of readiness degraders, maintenance data, maintenance procedures and commercial opportunities.
Supply chain change.
Product support element change.
Change in the operations or use of the system (including the timeframe and conditions under which the limitations will be have to remain in effect).
Design change.

In any proposed solution, the PM should work with the users to determine if the change and the timeframe are acceptable. Once the agreements have been reached, supportability analysis is used to adjust the appropriate product support package elements.

5.4.5.5.3. Modeling and Simulation

During this phase M&S supports the program improvement efforts by analyzing the impact of proposed continuous process improvements, ECPs, and budget alternatives on the sustainment metrics as well as mission effectiveness. M&S can be used in assessing the alternatives affecting the design and deployment of both the end item and its support system. In addition, it can be used in a proactive mode to anticipate problems by taking use data and user feedback to:

Project trends (with confidence levels) so actions are taken as conditions deteriorate to minimize adverse impacts on the users.
Identify areas in the supply chain where performance is adversely affecting materiel availability, increasing LCC, or where there are opportunities for savings/improvements.
Identify specific risk areas and ways to address/resolve root causes and reduce risk.

Top of page

Previous and Next Page arrows