5.2.1. Supportability Analysis
Sustainment requirements should be an integral part of the systems engineering design process. (A detailed discussion of the systems engineering process can be found in section 4.3.) Regardless of the life-cycle phase, effective supportability begins with the development of sustainment requirements to drive the design and development of reliable, maintainable and affordable systems through the continuous application of the systems engineering methodology focusing on affordable system operational effectiveness. The key is to smoothly integrate the systems engineering processes and design maturation processes together with the Defense Life-Cycle Management System and its milestones. A key product of the supportability analysis is the maintenance plan which evolves and drives all sustainment resource requirements throughout the life cycle.
5.2.1.1. Supportability Analysis Phases
Section 5.4 provides areas of focus for each acquisition phase. In general, however, life-cycle management can be thought of in terms of three broad periods.
- Pre-Systems Acquisition: Determining the capabilities and major constraints (cost, schedule, available technology) that frame the acquisition strategy and program structure for both the system and its support concept
- Acquisition: Designing, producing and deploying the equipment and its support system
- Operations: Adjusting to the operational environment by assessing readiness trends/issues, cost trends, evolving materiel conditions, and taking timely corrective actions to support the users
Pre-Systems Acquisition: Here, supportability analysis should be used to evaluate the suitability of material alternatives, shape life-cycle sustainment concepts and determine the product support capability requirements. Each alternative should be assessed to determine the likely materiel availability and its life-cycle affordability. Generally the analysis starts at the system level but can selectively go to lower levels of indenture if key enabling technologies are required to meet the CONOPS (for both the system and the product support system). This includes using supportability analysis to:
- Evaluate alternatives until an optimum balance is achieved between mission effectiveness and the KPPs (including the Sustainment KSAs). Specifically it should be used to ensure the preferred System Concept & Support CONOPS, are consistent with the projected Operational CONOPS taking into account "real world" constraints including "core", statutory requirements, existing supply chain, etc. Generally this is done by considering the sustainment effectiveness and O&S affordability of systems currently performing the same or similar capabilities. These are analyzed and serve as benchmarks to assess alternatives; with the intent of incremental improvement over current (legacy) system capability readiness and cost.
- Evaluate product support capability requirements using a notional Support CONOPS for trades and LCC estimates in evaluating the alternatives.
- Identify enabling sustainment technology needed to meet life-cycle sustainment goals especially when the risk of achieving the incremental improvements is high (e.g., a robust software architecture, health management, diagnostics, prognostics. etc.).
- Assess the operational and life-cycle risks associated with sustainment technologies, especially those requiring development.
- Assess the intellectual property considerations needed, to include the technical data rights and computer software needed to sustain and support a system.
- Integrate supportability performance into systems engineering, initial acquisition strategic planning, and as benchmark criteria for test and evaluation.
- Refine associated performance requirements based on technology development results (positive and negative) to achieve the preferred system concept & Support CONOPS.
- Refine supportability performance requirements and life-cycle sustainment concepts, based on evolving technology and changes in the CONOPS.
Acquisition: Here, supportability analysis helps reduce risks and create/field the system and its supply chain with provided feedback into the design process. This is accomplished by assessing the affect of system plans, development, and production on sustainment effectiveness, readiness, and O&S affordability. The intent is to act early to mitigate evolving circumstances that may adversely impact deployed readiness. This includes using systems engineering in designing the system and its supply chain; producing both concurrently; and testing to verify the total system requirements have been achieved. Specifically systems engineering is used in designing for support and:
- Taking Warfighter requirements (Including the Operational CONOPS) and developing the sustainment objectives, Support and Maintenance CONOPS and determining their detailed "design-to" and "build to" requirements. (It also includes identifying the performance requirements for the supporting supply chain segments to support the Operational CONOPS.) In accomplishing this, the trades/analyses are used to identify:
- The key metric values (e.g., the drivers) required to meet the operational/campaign model assumptions/requirements as well as the impact on Warfighter mission capability (e.g., ability to generate a mission (operational readiness) and perform during a mission) of the various trades.
- LCC drivers for the system, its support concept and maintenance concept/plan.
- The optimum mix of driver values to meet KPPs and their corresponding confidence levels.
- Effectiveness (KPP/KSA Outcomes) if the supply chain performs at today's levels (as well as if current trends continue or with anticipated trends).
- Taking the test/initial operations results and predicting likely mature values for each of the KSA and enabler drivers.
- Providing integrated Sustainment KPP/KSA estimates into the Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR) system.
During this period more realistic and detailed data is used in the models/simulations to reduce risk and define achievable performance & sustainment requirements. Consequently, a mix of design estimates/contract requirements, sustainment, and Maintenance Plan metrics are used when conducting sustainment trades/analysis depending on the period and objective. In addition, expected trends for system, enabler & supply chain metrics and their confidence levels are also needed requiring the use of data models. This requires that:
- Data realism is based on systems engineering/technology assessments.
- Metric values can be evaluated and re-adjusted as necessary.
- The required data elements performance requirements can be defined in contract terms.
- There is a means to verify the maturity growth over time.
Operations: Here, supportability analysis is used to help in adjusting the program based on the sustainment program's achieved effectiveness as well as on changing hardware and operational conditions. This includes using supportability analysis to:
- Analyze the impact of proposed re-design alternatives on the sustainment metrics and mission effectiveness.
- Analyze the impact of proposed process changes on the sustainment metrics.
- Take use data and user feedback including Failure & Discrepancy Reports to:
- Project trends (with confidence levels) so proactive actions are taken as conditions warrant to minimize adverse impacts on the users.
- Identify areas in the supply chain where performance is adversely affecting materiel availability, increasing LCC or missing areas of potential savings/improvements. (Note, that care is needed, since, in some cases, an increase within a specific system may be significantly offset by a major saving elsewhere within the DoD Component or DoD. Consequently, higher level organizations may have to be engaged in the final decision.)
- Identify and analyze readiness risk areas and develop corrective action alternatives.
- Relate/quantify various business process outcomes with resources.
During this period, the system program measures and tracks the supply chain and its effectiveness and use models that include the driver metrics to determine root causes of problems or anticipate future problems.
5.2.1.2. Supportability Analysis Steps
As discussed in section 4.3.18, designing for optimal system affordability and operational effectiveness requires balance between mission effectiveness and life-cycle cost. The emphasis is not only on the reliability and maintainability of the system to achieve mission capability, but also on human systems integration and optimization of all human interfaces across the HSI domains to ensure the cost-effective responsiveness and relevance of the support systems and supply chain. This is critical since a significant portion of LCC are human related and are locked in early in the acquisition life cycle. Consequently it is important that a comprehensive HSI program be initiated early in the life cycle to address the major LCC drivers. These objectives can best be achieved through integration with the system design and CONOPS (both operational and sustainment) and by focusing on the sustainment requirements. As depicted in Figure 5.2.1.2.F1, the supportability analysis process is most effectively carried out through inclusion from the very beginning of a program, starting with the definition of required capabilities. The colors in the figure provide a rough idea as to the life-cycle phase in which specific tasks are conducted. However, in reality, the time Supportability Analysis phasing for a specific piece of hardware is really dependent on the maturity of the design process, not strictly based on the program’s milestone reviews.
Figure 5.2.1.2.F1. Supportability Relationships
Implementation of a disciplined supportability analysis approach, including systems engineering activities such as CBM+, Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) (see Enclosure 3, DoDI 4151.22 RCM Process), and level of repair analysis (considering cost and availability implication of the maintenance level and locations) will produce a Maintenance Task Analysis (MTA) directly linked to the system's reliability and maintainability characteristics. The Maintenance Task Analysis is the opportunity to determine whether the design has met the supportability requirements defined in the system specification, and provides a feedback loop to the Systems Engineer that is either positive (design has met requirements) or that there is a need for re-evaluation of either the requirement or the design itself. The results of the re-evaluations permits the trade space required for the PM to make a justifiable decision. The RCM analytical process which determines the preventive maintenance tasks is critical in providing recommendations for actions necessary to maintain a required level of safety, maximize materiel availability, and minimize operating cost. In addition to DoD Component guides and handbooks (e.g. MIL-P-24534A), SAE JA1011 (Evaluation Criteria for RCM Programs) and SAE JA1012 (A Guide to the RCM Standard) are illustrative commercial standards for this method.
The technical input and maintenance task analysis provide a detailed understanding of the necessary logistics support element requirements to sustain required materiel availability. The MTA process identifies support tasks and the physical location where they will be accomplished considers the costs, availability implications, and statutory requirements. (The Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) process is key in determining location.) This in turn produces a product support package that identifies support element requirements and associated product data based on the system reliability and maintainability. The product support package provides descriptions of the following topics:
- Supply Support (Spare/Repair Parts)
- Maintenance Plan and Requirements
- Support, Test & Calibration Equipment
- Technical Data (Paper Based and/or Electronic Interactive)
- Manpower & Training including Computer Based Training
- Facility Requirements
- Packaging, Handling, Storage, & Transportation
- Computer Resource Support
The steps shown in figure 5.2.1.2.F1 are not necessarily carried out in a linear progression. Design increments and the continuous assessment of test results and in-service system performance will identify needs for system improvements to enhance reliability, and maintainability and to overcome obsolescence, corrosion, or other sustainment problems. Additional information including a detailed process description, considerations in implementing the process and data element definitions, can be found in MIL-HDBK-502. (Note: This document is currently in the update process.)
5.2.1.3. Key Depot Maintenance Analysis Elements
Program managers should analytically determine the most effective levels of maintenance and sources based on materiel availability and cost factors. 10 U.S.C. 2464 and DoD policy require organic core maintenance capabilities be in place to provide effective and timely response to surge demands and to ensure cost efficiency and technical competence. In addition per 10 USC 2464, core sustaining workload must be accomplished in Government owned facilities with Government owned equipment and personnel. The PM should perform an analysis to determine the maintenance source that complies with statutory requirements, operational readiness and best value for non core workloads. (Initial organic depot maintenance source of repair assignments must employ merit-based selection procedures to select among alternative sources. Depot maintenance workloads previously accomplished at organic facilities, with a value of at least three million dollars, must also be subjected to merit-based selection procedures when deciding between alternative organic sources of repair. Additional information including exceptions to the requirement can be found in DoDD 4151.18 and DoD Instruction 4151.20.)
Core Logistics Capability. Title 10 U.S.C. 2464 and DoDI 4151.20 require core logistics capability that is government-owned and government-operated (including government personnel and government owned and operated equipment and facilities) to ensure a ready and controlled source of technical competence with the resources necessary to ensure effective and timely response to mobilization, national defense contingency situations, or other emergency requirements. These capabilities must be established no later than 4 years after achieving IOC. These capabilities should include those necessary to maintain and repair systems and other military equipment that are identified as necessary to fulfill the strategic and contingency plans prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Excluded are special access programs, nuclear aircraft carriers, and commercial items, as defined by (Title 10 U.S.C. 2464).) Core logistics capabilities should be performed at government owned-government operated (GO-GO) facilities of a military department. Such facilities should be assigned sufficient workload to maintain these core capabilities and ensure cost efficiency and technical competence in peacetime while preserving the surge capacity and reconstitution capabilities necessary to fully support strategic and contingency plans.
Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) Analysis. The process to help the PM select the best value in depot maintenance support is implemented through the Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) analysis. The Depot Source of Repair Guide provides additional information for accomplishing the required Core Logistics Analysis/Source of Repair Analysis in determining the source of repair for depot level workload. The DSOR decision process is an integral part of sustainment planning and mandatory for systems/equipment requiring depot maintenance. DoD Directive 4151.18, Maintenance of Military Materiel, requires DSOR assignments be made by the PM using the DSOR assignment decision logic. The process should be completed before entering into firm commitments or obligating funds for other than interim depot support. The DSOR decision is typically made during the Engineering & Manufacturing Development and the Production and Deployment phases.
The DSOR decision process consists of two major elements, normally performed sequentially: The first is the organic versus contract source of repair determination. This determination is made by the PM using a DoD Component approved analysis process that gives consideration to core requirements. Title 10 USC 2464, Core Logistics Capabilities; Title 10, USC 2466, Limitations on the Performance of Depot Level Maintenance of Materiel, and DoD Directive 4151.18 provide further guidance for this process.
The second element in the DSOR decision process is consideration of interservice depot maintenance support. This element, known as the Depot Maintenance Interservice (DMI) review, is required regardless of the outcome of the contract versus organic selection. The DMI review is prescribed in the Joint Depot Maintenance Program regulation Logistics, Joint Depot Maintenance Program with individual DoD Component details spelled out in OPNAVINST 4790.14A, AMC-R 750-10, AFI 21-133(I), MCO P4790.10B, and DLAD 4151.16. All new acquisitions, equipment modifications, and items moving to or from contract depot maintenance support are to be reviewed for interservice potential in accordance with this regulation.
The DSOR decision process has the potential to reduce program costs by effectively using commercial and organic depot maintenance resources. The process helps ensure the DoD Components maintain the core depot maintenance capability, as required by statute that meets military contingency requirements and considers interservice depot maintenance support and joint contracting. In performing this analysis, the PM should ensure that maintenance source of support decisions comply with the following statutory requirements.
Depot Maintenance 50 Percent Limitation Requirement. Title 10 U.S.C. 2466 requires not more than 50 percent of the funds made available in a fiscal year to a military department or defense agency for depot level maintenance and repair workload as defined by Title 10 U.S.C. 2460 be used to contract for performance by non-federal government personnel. As this is a military department and agency level requirement and not a system specific requirement, the PM should not undertake depot maintenance source of support decisions without consultation with accountable military department logistics officials to get the DoD Component position on this statutory requirement.
DAG Tutorial 
