product support performance champion · focus strategy to improve involvement and commitment with a...

PRODUCT SUPPORT PERFORMANCE CHAMPION SECTOR 2

LOG 365

Spring 2015

LOG 365: Sector 2 2

SECTOR 2 – PRODUCT SUPPORT PERFORMANCE CHAMPION

My Takeaways & Reflections ....................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4

Read Ahead "Stakeholder Analysis for Product Support Managers" ........................................................... 5

A: Stakeholder Engagement Process ........................................................................12

B: PSM’s Online Resources ........................................................................................13 Online Resources

C: Product Support Performance Measures Across the System Life Cycle ................16

The M1999 Martin Program ................................................................................................17 Team 1: Service Headquarters ....................................................................................................... 18 Team 2: Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) ........................................................................... 21 Team 3: Product Support Integrator (PSI) ...................................................................................... 24 Team 4: Product Support Providers (PSPs) ..................................................................................... 28 Team 5: Operating Command ........................................................................................................ 33

D: Dozier Ground Vehicle Case .................................................................................38

Artifact 1: Dozier Ground Vehicle ........................................................................................39 Getting the Right Metrics In Place .................................................................................................. 39 Questions for Analysis and Discussion ............................................................................................ 47

E: Identify and Prioritize Stakeholders .....................................................................48

Homework Assignments ...........................................................................................49

Spring 2015 LOG 365: Sector 2 3

MY TAKEAWAYS & REFLECTIONS

SECTOR 2: PRODUCT SUPPORT PERFORMANCE CHAMPION


INTRODUCTION

The primary goal of Sector 2 is to reinforce the migration from warfighter requirements to performance outcomes to metrics. It is easy to select key performance parameters (KPPs) and high-level outcomes, but how do those KPPs lead to lower-level metrics? How do we use metrics and outcomes to ensure the end performance is achieved? How do stakeholder relationships impact performance outcomes? Performance metrics relate to and feed all the remaining sectors of the seminar.

PREPARATION

Prior to Sector 2, you should have:

Read “Stakeholder Analysis for PSMs” (7 pages) to prepare for Activity A

Read Dozier Ground Vehicle case (8 pages) to prepare for Activity D

Create a list of your current stakeholders (from your perspective as PSM) by type

Table 1: Sector Agenda

ACTIVITY TYPE

A: Stakeholder Engagement Process Seminar

B: PSM’s Online Resources Seminar

C: Product Support Performance Measures Across System Life Cycle Small Teams

D: Dozier Ground Vehicle Case Small Teams

E: Identify and Prioritize Stakeholders Individual


READ AHEAD

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT SUPPORT MANAGERS

Stakeholders can make or break a defense program, and often do. Successful DoD leaders recognize that securing advocacy and resources (funding, people, equipment, facilities) for their program or project increases their probability of success. This introduction to stakeholder analysis describes a proven process and tools that Product Support Managers (PSMs) can leverage to build a robust plan to improve relationships. Four powerful analysis tools are employed to determine appropriate engagement strategies. The stakeholder planning process and tools outlined below have been successfully used by all military services to help field and sustain weapon systems.

The stakeholder engagement planning process consists of the following five stages:

1. Identify relevant organizations and individuals using the Stakeholders Map. 2. Prioritize your stakeholders’ importance and influence using the Power Grid. 3. Analyze requirements, interests and expectations for each key stakeholder. 4. Focus strategy to improve involvement and commitment with a Focus Matrix. 5. Plan (Stakeholder Tactical Engagement Plan) creation for key stakeholders.

1. IDENTIFY (STAKEHOLDER MAP)

The Stakeholder Map is a simple visual aid that helps identify organizations and individuals whom PSMs may need to engage. Multiple types of stakeholders can be categorized within the four rings depicted in Figure #1. The gold core at the center of the Stakeholder Map is labelled “Team” to indicate members who are in the PSM’s inner circle and frequently report directly to them. Examples of stakeholders within the next ring labelled “Program” typically include the Program Manager and colleagues like the senior engineer, contracting officer, and business manager. The silver ring, farther from the center labelled “Service”, may include stakeholders including the warfighter, Program Executive Officer, Milestone Decision Authority, resource sponsors and support commands. Stakeholders in the outermost “External” ring may include contractors, defense agencies like DLA or DoD headquarters staff elements.

Federal government agencies, like those protecting the environment or small business, are external stakeholders that may be risky to overlook. Other government, industry and non-profit organizations opposed to your program may also be critical stakeholders.

Figure 1: Stakeholder Map


2. PRIORITIZE (POWER GRID)

The Power Grid is a useful tool for rapidly prioritizing stakeholders based upon their influence and importance. These two dimensions, portrayed on the horizontal and vertical axes in Figure 2, form the Power Grid quadrants. Stakeholders that are high on both influence and importance are plotted in the upper-right quadrant labelled “primary.” A stakeholder that is high on importance but low on influence would be placed in the upper-left quadrant. Likewise stakeholders that are high on influence but low on importance would be placed in the lower-right quadrant. Both these quadrants are labelled “secondary,” since these stakeholders are lower in one dimension than “primary” stakeholders. Stakeholders low on both dimensions populates the lower-left quadrant.

Figure 2: Stakeholder Power Grid

“Influence” is the extent to which a stakeholder is able to act upon or impact a program. Stakeholders that have a large positive or negative influence upon outcomes are mapped on the right side of the Power Grid. Factors likely to lead to higher influence include control over decisions or resources (funding, people, equipment, facilities…). The higher a stakeholders influence the farther right they are place on the Power Grid.

“Importance” is the degree which a stakeholder is affected by a program or project. Stakeholders which are greatly impacted by successful outcomes are plotted on the Power Grid near the top horizontal line. By contrast a stakeholder that is not impacted by program outcomes would be placed near the bottom horizontal line.

A stakeholder’s priority is based on the PSM’s assessment of their influence and importance. In Figure 3, the Program Manager is located in the upper-right quadrant (“Primary”), reflecting that the PM is high on both dimensions. The warfighter and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) are placed in the upper-left quadrant since the program is very important to both these stakeholders. Similarly, the Program Executive Officer (PEO) and headquarters resource sponsor are plotted in the lower-right quadrant since they exert high influence over program funding. The lower-left quadrant, labelled “Other”, is populated by stakeholders low in influence and importance like a maintenance depot or Defense Logistics Agency during early life-cycle phases.


Figure 3: Sample Stakeholder Power Grid

To successfully develop, field and sustain systems, PSMs need to engage their key stakeholders. In addition to building positive relationships with their primary stakeholders (upper-right quadrant), they also need to engage secondary stakeholders that are highly influential or which the program has a very large impact. Since relationship building requires time and effort, engaging every stakeholder is often not practical. Distilling a large list of organizations and individuals down to a manageable number of key stakeholders is an analysis stage that should not be overlooked.

3. ANALYZE (REQUIREMENTS, INTERESTS, AND EXPECTATIONS)

After using the Power Grid to prioritize organizations and individuals and selecting key stakeholders, the next stage in the engagement process involves analyzing their requirements, interests, and expectations (RIEs). Clarifying stakeholder RIEs is fundamental to gaining insight about their needs and what motivates them to act. While understanding written requirements is essential, reflecting upon your key stakeholder’s unspoken interests and expectations can be even more indispensable.

“Requirements” are typical documents agreed upon by two or more people. For stakeholders to agree on requirements they must be clearly communicated and understood. Warfighter system requirements are typically expressed in capability documents. Contracts are legal agreements with industry which specify deliverables and performance levels. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) may be used to document requirements agreed to between U.S. government organizations, allied nations and facilitate public-private partnerships.

Individuals and teams can also document their mutually agreed upon commitments. A supervisor and employee signing an annual performance plan is an example of a document that states individual objectives. A team charter describing a shared goal can serve a similar purpose for a group. While written agreements are often preferred for communicating requirements, verbal agreements between individuals are common.

“Interests” are what a stakeholder wants or believes is at stake (hence the term stakeholder). Some interests are tangible and objective such as cost, profit, schedule, performance or quality. Other interests may be intangible or even subjective. While interests are crucial to a stakeholder they are rarely communicated in writing. The interests of an individual or


organization are often internal thoughts concerning what motivates their behavior. For example, a program office’s principle interest may be to successfully field or sustain a system. In contrast, a headquarter staff may have a competing interest in preserving infrastructure or their organization’s influence. Likewise a contractor’s interests may be increasing profit, or growing market share.

Individual stakeholder interests can also complement or clash. The PSM and senior engineer may agree that the reliability of a new platform should be thoroughly demonstrated before deployment. Other program office stakeholders may be more interested in avoiding production delays or funding reductions …or getting promoted. While interests between organizations or individuals are rarely completely aligned, it is critical that PSMs understand major differences in their stakeholders’ core motivation.

“Expectations” are about stakeholder preferences concerning how issues are approached, communicated or completed. Unlike documented requirements, expectations tend to be unspoken expressions about what a stakeholder likes. As organizational and individual interests frequently differ, so can stakeholder expectations. For example, conflict can occur if a PSM and a program office colleague have different expectations about communicating with industry or a headquarters staff. Differences in government and industry expectations that are not communicated often result in schedule delays and cost increases. Program funding may be in jeopardy if leaders do not understand their resource sponsor’s preferred approach for receiving and processing information. To minimize these kinds of adverse impacts, PSMs can benefit from identifying and clarifying expectations of their key stakeholders. Tools like interviews, charters and Expectation Management Agreements can help increase the visibility of hidden organizational and individual expectations.

4. FOCUS (STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND COMMITMENT)

Like the Power Grid, the Focus Matrix is based upon a PSM’s assessment of two characteristics. Figure 4 shows that involvement and commitment form the axes of the matrix. The six matrix sextants are labelled Advocate (blue), Sponsor (green), Supporter (white), Apathetic (yellow), Skeptic (orange), and Adversary (red).

Figure 4: Stakeholder Focus Matrix


“Commitment” to program or project outcomes is plotted on the vertical scale of the Focus Matrix. Stakeholder commitment can be measured in terms of investment of time and resources (money, people, equipment, facilities). The axis includes positive, neutral and negative values to plot full range of support. A high score reflects strong support (Sponsor or Advocate) and a low score may reflect an apathetic stakeholder. Negative commitment could indicate that a key stakeholder is a Skeptic or Adversary.

“Involvement” level is mapped on the horizontal scale of the Focus Matrix. Key stakeholders who are well-informed about program or project status are plotted on the right side in the blue, white or red sextants. Organizations and individuals that are not involved or unaware are represented on the left side in the Focus Matrix.

Figure 5 shows that the highly involved and committed warfighter is placed in the upper-right sextant labelled “Advocate.” The PM and OEM that are also highly involved but not as strongly committed (positively or negatively) are plotted in the middle-right sextant as “Supporters.” An HQ resource sponsor that is highly committed but not routinely involved is plotted in the upper-left sextant. The maintenance depot which is not involved and displays negative commitment is placement in the lower-left sextant (“Skeptic”). The additional stakeholder in this sample is a similar defense program which competes for scarce resources. Program Y is an “Adversary” since it demonstrates dangerous combination of negative commitment and high involvement.

Figure 5: Sample Stakeholder Focus Matrix

After identifying current involvement and commitment levels for key stakeholders, the PSM should determine which they want to move to different sextants on the matrix. Increasing the commitment (move up) or involvement (move right) of a stakeholder is often desired. However there may be some stakeholders that a PSM would like to be less involved in decisions or communications (move left). If a key stakeholder is currently “Apathetic,” neither committed nor involved, the PSM may need to work to increase both commitment and involvement.

5. PLAN (STAKEHOLDER TACTICAL ENGAGEMENT PLAN)

Strategies to effectively engage stakeholders are the heart of a robust STEP. Three potential stakeholder engagement strategies are shown in Figure 6. An “inform” strategy to increase involvement is represented by the horizontal arrow pointing from the resource sponsor to the advocate sextant. A “consult” strategy is depicted by a vertical arrow pointing up indicating a


boost in the depot’s commitment from Skeptic to Sponsor. The arrow pointing to the left symbolizes a strategy to reduce the OEM’s involvement in the program.

Figure 6: Sample Stakeholder Engagement Strategies

“Inform” is a popular strategy for moving stakeholders who are either not involved enough or possibly too involved. Individuals or organizations can be shifted horizontally in the focus matrix by changing the quality, quantity or timeliness of information provided. While a PSM can increase the involvement of stakeholders by improving information flow, they can also decrease involvement by withholding information.

“Consult” may be an appropriate engagement strategy for stakeholders whose commitment of resources or time is lower than desired. A PSM who actively solicits headquarters staff feedback prior to a milestone decision or seeks maintenance depot inputs are examples of how a consulting strategy could help increase commitment.

“Partner” is probably the best strategy for key stakeholders that are already in the upper-right corner of the focus matrix. Instead of ignoring an individual or organization that is already highly involved and committed, why not work to make them a long-term partner? Ideally these individuals or organizations would also be high on influence and importance (upper right quadrant of the power grid). For example, if a warfighter or system customer is an advocate that is high on both these dimensions, then working closely with them to elevate them to long-term partner may be a win-win situation.

“Monitor” can be the preferred strategy for stakeholders that either the PSM does not need to move or does not have sufficient time or resources to actively engage. Monitoring can consume less time and energy than the engagement strategies described above, although it is important to not to confuse monitoring with ignoring. A monitor strategy involves discerning changes in stakeholder power or RIEs (requirements, interests, and expectations). Monitoring may be suitable for a stakeholder that is perceived as apathetic; however, PSMs want to proactively prevent an apathetic individual or organization from becoming a skeptic or worse an adversary.


Figure 7: Sample Two-Part Stakeholder Strategy

The two-part stakeholder engagement strategy shown in Figure 7 illustrates one example of how a PSM might choose to move an apathetic stakeholder to become an advocate. The curved arrow reflects an initial boost in commitment to the sponsor sextant, followed by an increase in involvement. Alternative combination strategies for the same apathetic stakeholder could involve first moving to the supporter sextant, by increasing involvement, then raising commitment, or by improving both simultaneously.

SUMMARY

A PSM can gain a deeper understanding of their stakeholders through analysis described in this introduction. The four stages described above (identify, prioritize, analyze, focus, plan) equip PSMs with needed insights about their stakeholders. The four analysis tools (stakeholder map, power grid, RIEs, focus matrix) help identify successful strategies for engaging stakeholders. This foundation enables building an effective Stakeholder Tactical Engagement Plan (STEP) that can improve involvement and commitment of key stakeholders. PSMs, their programs and their system warfighters will all benefit from this stakeholder engagement planning process consisting of:

1. Identify relevant organizations and individuals using the Stakeholders Map. 2. Prioritize their stakeholder’s importance and influence using the Power Grid. 3. Analyze requirements, interests and expectations for each key stakeholder. 4. Focus strategy to improve involvement and commitment with a Focus Matrix. 5. Plan (Stakeholder Tactical Engagement Plan) creation for key stakeholders.

Spring 2015

A: Stakeholder Engagement Process

LOG 365: Sector 2 12

A: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

Participation: Full Seminar

Proactively engaging key stakeholders increases the probability that a product support strategy will succeed

The Stakeholder Engagement Process involves analysis, planning and most importantly engagement

PSM’s stakeholder analysis should include identifying and prioritizing organizations or individuals that are have high influence on the program/project and are high on importance

Participate in discussion about the Stakeholder Engagement Process and your experience with influencing key stakeholders

Ask excellent questions about the read ahead ”Stakeholder Analysis for PSMs”

Refine your list of current stakeholders

Reading ”Stakeholder Analysis for PSMs”

Video clips of DoD program leaders sharing perspective about engaging key stakeholders

KEY TAKEAWAYS

INSTRUCTIONS

LEARNING AIDS

Spring 2015

B: PSM’s Online Resources


B: PSM’S ONLINE RESOURCES


There are multiple references and samples for Product Support Managers available online through DAU website

DoD and DAU guidebooks published online include topics of interest to PSMs including; BCA, PPPs, IPS Elements, PBL

Listen to an overview of online resources for PSMs

LOG COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

Website: https://acc.dau.mil/log

KEY TAKEAWAYS

INSTRUCTIONS

LEARNING AIDS

Spring 2015



PBL COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

Website: https://acc.dau.mil/pbl

DOD AND DAU GUIDEBOOKS INCLUDE;

GUIDEBOOK WEBSITE

Product Support Manager’s https://acc.dau.mil/psm-guidebook

Business Case Analysis https://acc.dau.mil/bca-guidebook

Logistics Assessment https://acc.dau.mil/la-guidebook

Public-Private Partnering https://acc.dau.mil/ppp-guidebook

Integrated Product Support Element https://acc.dau.mil/ips-guidebook

Performance-Based Logistics https://acc.dau.mil/pbl-guidebook

Spring 2015



TOOLS & RELATED REFERENCES INCLUDE;

TOOL/REFERENCE WEBSITE

Logistics Communities of Practice https://acc.dau.mil/log

PBL Communities of Practice https://acc.dau.mil/pbl

Product Support Key References https://acc.dau.mil/productsupport

PSM Reference Repository https://acc.dau.mil/psm

Product Support Implementation Roadmap

https://dap.dau.mil/dodpsroadmap

Life Cycle Sustainment Plan Outline https://acc.dau.mil/lcsp-outline

Product Support Manager Toolkit

https://acc.dau.mil/psmtoolkit

Product Support Analytical Tools Database

https//acc.dau.mil/psa-tools

Logistics & Sustainment Director’s Blog

https://dap.dau.mil/career/log/blog

Spring 2015

C: Product Support Performance Measures Across System Life Cycle


C: PRODUCT SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES ACROSS SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE

Participation: Small Teams

Metrics you track and care about evolve over life-cycle from metrics that drive design to metrics that measure performance

The PSM must be aware of performance metrics in program documents to ensure downward traceability (from operational requirements to performance outcomes) and upward (from performance outcomes to operational requirements)

Misaligned, missing, or inappropriate performance metrics negatively impact the PSM’s ability to achieve desired performance outcomes across the system life-cycle

As newly-assigned PSM for the M1999 Martin program, review your program’s relevant product support documentation

As a team, compare the system performance measures in the program’s LCSP with those in your other assigned document excerpts, related to the following key program stakeholders:

Team 1: Service Headquarters Team 2: Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Team 3: Product Support Integrator (PSI) Team 4: Product Support Providers (PSPs) Team 5: Operating Command

Don’t get distracted by the numbers; you’re just addressing whether or not the M1999 has correct set of metrics in place.

Select a member to share discussion highlights with the seminar

M1999 Martin Program Background

MIL-HDBK-260 Reference Data for Logistics Metrics (URL: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=142348)

KEY TAKEAWAYS

INSTRUCTIONS

LEARNING AIDS

Spring 2015

The M1999 Martin Program


THE M1999 MARTIN PROGRAM

The M1999 Martin family of ground-based, tracked vehicles is an Acquisition Category (ACAT) I program, managed by Project Executive Office (PEO) Ground Battle Support, Project Manager, Martin Boots on the Ground Team (MBGT). The M1999 is adaptable to a wide range of existing and future battlefield tasks.

The Martin family includes six separate systems organized under two basic variants. These variants are defined by their basic roles: the Personnel Carrier Vehicle (PCV) is the infantry or mission vehicle type, and the Mobile Weapon System (MWS) is the straight-fire platform that performs the maneuver fire support role for the MBGT. The PCV can be transported by air (C-5, C-17, and C-130), land, rail, and sea.

Brinkman, International, was the OEM and ICS contractor. The program’s current product support strategy is performance-based logistics. Fortuna Supply Chain Management, Inc. is the Product Support Integrator (PSI) responsible for the readiness and support of the entire fleet of over 2000 vehicles. Fortuna has a subcontract with Power Mechanics, Inc., for engine repair and a partnership with Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) for repair and overhauls.

As the newly-assigned M1999 Martin Product Support Manager, your first order of business is to review the program’s documentation and familiarize yourself with the program’s stakeholders.

IOCA Post-IOC

Materiel Solution Analysis

Technology Maturation &

Risk Reduction

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

Production & Deployment DisposalOperations & Support

Team 1: Service HQ

Team 2: OEM

Team 5: Operating Command

Team 4: PSPs

Team 3: PSI

B C

Spring 2015



TEAM 1: SERVICE HEADQUARTERS

Timeframe: Pre-Milestone B

YOUR TASK

Compare the system performance measures in the LCSP (Excerpt 1) with those in the CDD (Excerpt 2) and Quad Chart (Excerpt 3). Collaborate with your team to answer the following:

Do the performance metrics contained in your excerpts align with the LCSP? If not, identify the inconsistencies. Are any metrics missing?

If you found inconsistencies, what impact does this have on the PSM’s ability to properly track product support performance and cost?

What actions would you take to resolve the inconsistencies?

EXCERPT 1: LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINMENT PLAN

2. PRODUCT SUPPORT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Based on the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), developed jointly by HQ TRADOC and the Department of Army, a performance specification was created. Modifications were governed by meeting the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and the performance specification requirements derived from the ICD.

Product support performance requirements are outlined in the following table.

Table 2: LCSP Sustainment Performance Requirements (Pre-Milestone B)

Requirements Threshold Objective

Materiel Availability (KPP) (Percentage of total inventory of a system that is operationally capable of performing an assigned mission at a given time)

Materiel availability ≥ 80% fleet-wide


Operational Availability (KPP) (Percentage of time system is available to perform its mission)

Operational availability ≥ 80% fleet-wide

Operational availability ≥ 85% fleet-wide

Maintainability (KPP) Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)

MTTR < 4 hours

MTTR < 2.5 hours

Maintainability (KPP) Mean Supply Response Time (MSRT)

MSRT < 15 days

MSRT < 10 days

Spring 2015




Operations and Support (O&S) Costs (KSA) O&S costs will not exceed $18.5B over life cycle using standard base year

O&S costs will not exceed $17B over life cycle using standard base year

Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) (KSA) MTBF ≥ 800 hours MTBF ≥ 1,000 hrs.

EXCERPT 2: CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

PERFORMANCE METRICS

Based on the Initial Capabilities Development (ICD)—developed jointly by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Headquarters and the Department of the Army—a performance specification was created and used for selecting and developing M1999 Martin vehicles. Modifications were governed by meeting Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and performance specification requirements derived from the ICD.

Performance requirements associated with M1999 Martin are outlined in the following table.

Table 3: CDD Sustainment Performance Requirements (Pre-Milestone B)

Requirements Documen-tation Threshold Objective IOC FOC Full

Field.


ICD Ch 1, v1, 4 Oct 2006




ICD Ch 1, v1, 4 Oct 2006

Operational availability ≥ 80% brigade level


Operations and Support (O&S) Costs (KSA)

ICD Ch 1, v1, 4 Oct 2006

O&S costs will not exceed $18.5B over life cycle using standard base year


Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) (KSA)

ICD Ch 1, v1, 4 Oct 2006

MTBF ≥ 800 hrs. MTBF ≥ 1,000 hrs.

Spring 2015



EXCERPT 3: SUSTAINMENT QUAD CHART

Product Support Strategy Metrics Data

Sustainment Approach Early planning for ICS

Issues Reliability on projected growth curve

O&S Cost estimate already exceeds goal

Resolution Rebaseline APB

Metric Baseline Goal Current Estimate

Materiel Availability 85% NA

Materiel Reliability 1,000 hrs. 780 hrs.

Total O&S Cost $17B $17.65B Mean Down Time 4.1 hrs. 6.2 hrs.

Sustainment Schedule O&S Data (Fleet)

Cost Element Previous

Actual Cost

Original Baseline

Current Cost

Unit Level Manpower 3.90B 5.17B 5.75B

Unit Operations 6.05B 6.88B 6.85B Maintenance 0.74B 0.60B 0.68B Sustaining Support 2.24B 2.40B 2.40B

Continuing System Improvements

0.13B 0.03B 0.05B

Indirect Support 1.85B 1.92B 1.92B Total 14.91B 17.00B 17.65B

Spring 2015



TEAM 2: ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER

Timeframe: Pre-Milestone C

YOUR TASK

Compare the system performance measures in the LCSP (Excerpt 1) with those in the RDT&E Contract Specification (Excerpt 2). Collaborate with your team to answer the following:






Based on the Capability Development Document (CDD), developed jointly by HQ TRADOC and the Department of Army, a performance specification was created. Modifications were governed by meeting the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and the performance specification requirements derived from the CDD.


Table 4: LCSP Sustainment Performance Requirements (Pre-Milestone C)









MTTR < 4 hours

MTTR < 2.5 hours


MSRT < 15 days

MSRT < 10 days

Spring 2015







Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) (KSA) MTBF ≥ 800 hrs. MTBF ≥ 1,000 hrs.

Commonality 70% commonality between platforms; excludes the Mission Equipment Package (MEP)

85% commonality between platforms; excludes the MEP

Reliability 1,500 Mean Miles Between System Aborts (MMBSA)

Spec 2000 (CDD 1000) MMBSA

Supply Support Customer Wait Time < 15 days Customer Wait Time < 10 days

Training Throughput > 100 operators / quarter

Throughput > 150 operators / quarter

Footprint Support footprint limited to 7.5 C-130 loads

Support footprint limited to 5 C-130 loads

Transportability Capable of transport using existing air (C-5, C-17, and C-130), land, rail, and ship capabilities

Capable of transport using existing air (C-5, C-17, and C-130), land, rail, and ship capabilities

EXCERPT 2: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUTION (RDT&E)

CONTRACT

GENERAL

This contract addresses product support for the M1999 Martin system up to and including the development phase, including:

Total system support from the development phase through the successful completion of Milestone C, and

Periodic review requirements to ensure that the contractor is meeting performance requirements

PERFORMANCE METRICS

Performance metrics will be used to manage this contract. Incentives and penalties described in a subsequent section will be assessed based on these performance metrics.

Specific performance parameters are described as follows:

Spring 2015



Support system availability: The contractor will provide necessary product support to assist in developing and testing requirements for the system. In particular, the contractor will:

o Fulfill product support requirements within the timeframes negotiated with the Martin Program Office

o Achieve a mean time to repair (MTTR) rate of 3 days

o Maintain a mean time between failure rate of 1000 hours for major subcomponents (defined by the Martin Program Office) and engines

o Minimize back orders and back-order time

Develop a provisioning approach: The contractor will develop provisioning data for use by the Martin Program Office to determine product support sustainment requirements

Identify product support infrastructure needs: The contractor will determine and produce a report that documents product support infrastructure requirements, including training, facilities, equipment, and so on

Spring 2015



TEAM 3: PRODUCT SUPPORT INTEGRATOR (PSI)

Timeframe: Production & Deployment

YOUR TASK

Compare the system performance measures in the LCSP (Excerpt 1) with those in the Sustainment Contract (Excerpt 2) and Renegotiated Sustainment Contract (Excerpt 3). Collaborate with your team to answer the following questions:






Based on the Capability Production Document (CPD), developed jointly by HQ TRADOC and the Department of Army, a performance specification was created. Modifications were governed by meeting the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and the performance specification requirements derived from the CPD. Product support performance requirements are outlined in the following table.

Table 5: LCSP Sustainment Performance Requirements (Production & Deployment)

Requirements Threshold Objective IOC




75%




80%


MTTR < 4 hours

MTTR < 2.5 hours 7

Maintainability (KPP) MSRT < MSRT < 10 days 15

Spring 2015



Requirements Threshold Objective IOC

Mean Supply Response Time (MSRT)

15 days




$17.65B


MTBF ≥ 800 hrs. MTBF ≥ 1,000 hrs. 800



78%


Spec 2,000 (CPD 1,000) MMBSA

2,000 MMBSA



120 operators / quarter



3.5 C-130 loads



Yes

Table 6: Sustainment Performance Metrics Breakdown (Production and Deployment)

Requirement Lower Level Metric Documentation Standard or Level

Materiel Availability Perfect Order Fulfillment DoD Instruction, Service Directive

80%

Operational Availability Average Customer Wait Time

DoD Instruction, Service Directive

4 days

Operational Availability Logistics Response Time DoD Instruction, Service Directive

2 days

Operational Availability Supply Availability DoD Instruction, Service Directive

90%

Spring 2015




Operations and Support (O&S) Costs

Supply Chain Management costs

Service Directive 20% of total O&S costs

EXCERPT 2: INITIAL SUSTAINMENT CONTRACT

GENERAL

This contract establishes Fortuna Supply Chain Management (SCM), Inc., as the primary product support provider in support of the Army M1999 Martin. The period of performance is for 2 years from the date of signature of this contract, with option years. Fortuna SCM will use the U.S. Army organic repair capability for depot-level repairs and overhauls. Fortuna SCM will be responsible for providing supply support using Army inventory when practical. Under the terms of the contract, Fortuna SCM will provide product support to the Army M1999 Martin fleet and meet the performance requirements described in a subsequent section.

PERFORMANCE METRICS


Specific performance parameters are described as follows.

Operational Readiness Rate (ORR): The required ORR for the M1999 Martin fleet is 90 percent. ORR is calculated as the number of vehicles available for their mission divided by total on-hand vehicles. This metric is calculated daily, but the contractor will be evaluated on the cumulative value

Perfect Order Fulfillment. The required level of perfect order fulfillment is 80 percent. This represents the percentage of orders delivered to the right place, with the right product, at the right time, in the right condition, in the right package, in the right quantity, with the right documentation, to the right customer, with the correct invoice. This metric will be calculated through a sampling effort conducted by the program office

Supply Availability: The required supply availability for the M1999 Martin fleet is 90 percent. Supply availability is calculated as the number of immediate issues for stock items divided by the total number of requests for stock items. This is a cumulative number calculated by summing the immediate issues and requests across all battalions

EXCERPT 3: RENOGIATIATED SUSTAINMENT CONTRACT

GENERAL

This contract establishes Fortuna Supply Chain Management (SCM), Inc., as the primary product support provider in support of the Army M1999 Martin. The period of performance is for 2 years from the date of signature of this contract, with 3 additional option years. Fortuna SCM will use the U.S. Army organic repair capability for depot-level repairs and overhauls. Fortuna SCM will be responsible for providing supply support using Army inventory when practical.

Spring 2015



Under the terms of the contract, Fortuna SCM will provide product support to the Army M1999 Martin fleet and meet the performance requirements as described in a subsequent section.

PERFORMANCE METRICS



Operational Readiness Rate (ORR): The required ORR for the M1999 Martin fleet is 90 percent. Within the fleet, the contractor is also required to maintain a 90 percent ORR for each variant. ORR is calculated as the number of vehicles available for their mission divided by total on-hand vehicles. This metric is calculated daily, but the contractor will be evaluated on the cumulative value

Perfect Order Fulfillment. The required level of perfect order fulfillment is 80 percent. This represents the percentage of orders delivered to the right place, with the right product, at the right time, in the right condition, in the right package, in the right quantity, with the right documentation, to the right customer, with the correct invoice. This metric will be calculated through a sampling effort conducted by the program office

Supply Availability: The required supply availability for the M1999 Martin fleet is 90 percent. Within the M1999 Martin fleet, the contractor is required to maintain 90 percent supply availability for each of the variants. Supply availability is calculated as the number of immediate issues for stock items divided by the total number of requests for stock items. This is a cumulative number calculated by adding the immediate issues and requests across all battalions

Spring 2015



TEAM 4: PRODUCT SUPPORT PROVIDERS (PSPs)

Timeframe: Post IOC

YOUR TASK

Compare the system performance measures in the LCSP (Excerpt 1) with those in the MOA with the maintenance depot (Excerpt 2) and the Engine Repair Contract (Excerpt 3). Collaborate with your team to answer the following questions:






Based on the Capability Production Document (CPD), developed jointly by HQ TRADOC and the Department of Army, a performance specification was created. Modifications were governed by meeting the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and the performance specification requirements derived from the CPD.


Table 7: LCSP Sustainment Performance Requirements (Post IOC)

Requirements Documen-tation Threshold Objective IOC FOC


CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012



75% 76%


CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012



80% 83%

Spring 2015



Requirements Documen-tation Threshold Objective IOC FOC


CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012

MTTR < 4 hours

MTTR < 2.5 hours 7 5


CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012

MSRT < 15 days

MSRT < 10 days 15 12


CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012



$17.65B $17.96B


CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012

MTBF ≥ 800 hrs. MTBF ≥ 1,000 hrs. 800 850

Commonality CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012

70% commonality between platforms; excludes the Mission Equipment Package (MEP)


78% 80%

Reliability CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012

1,500 Mean Miles Between System Aborts (MMBSA)


2,000 MMBSA

1,882 MMBSA

Training CDD Ch 1, v2, 4 Nov 2008





Footprint CPD Ch 1, v1, 3 Dec 2010

Support footprint limited to 7.5 C-130 loads


3.5 C-130 loads

3.9 C-130 loads

Transportability CPD Ch 1, v3, 3 Dec 2012



Yes Yes

Table 8: Sustainment Performance Metrics Breakdown (Post IOC)


Spring 2015





80%

Operational Availability Average Customer Wait Time

DoD Instruction, Service Directive

4 days


2 days


90%




EXCERPT 2: SUPPORT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)

GENERAL

Under the terms of this memorandum of agreement (MOA), Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) and the Martin Program Office agree that ANAD will repair a minimum of 1,000 vehicles and a maximum of 2,000 vehicles. The repair cost of the M1999 Martin is fixed, with the specific charges for each kind of repair delineated in Appendix 11 of this arrangement. Repairs exceeding 2,000 annually must be approved by the Martin Program Office.

REPAIR DESCRIPTION

Components of the M1999 Martin have been divided into two categories of repair in Appendix 1—that is, overhaul and general repair. Overhaul means that the component is returned to a “like new” status and will have a specified service life. General repair will refer to correcting a specific, noted deficiency.

PERFORMANCE METRICS

Performance metrics will be used to manage the terms of this memorandum. Incentives and penalties described in a subsequent section will be assessed based on these performance metrics.


Overhaul. For those components and vehicles designated for overhaul, the following metrics apply:

o Repair Time for Vehicles: Repair time cannot exceed 90 days. Time begins when the vehicle has been turned in for overhaul at the battalion. Time ends when the vehicle is returned to the Ready for Issue inventory

1 Appendix 1 is not necessary for this activity.

Spring 2015



o Repair Time for Components: Repair time cannot exceed 30 days. Time begins when the vehicle has been turned in for overhaul at the battalion. Time ends when the vehicle is returned to the Ready for Issue inventory

o Repair Reliability for Vehicles and Components: Overhauled vehicles and components should have a serviceable life of 5,000 full-spectrum training miles. The specific definitions and conversion rates for full-spectrum training miles are described in Appendix 22 of this arrangement

Repair Quality. For those components and vehicles designated for repair, the following metrics apply:

o Repair Time for Vehicles: Repair time cannot exceed 45 days. Time begins when the vehicle has been turned in for overhaul at the battalion. Time ends when the vehicle is returned to the Ready for Issue inventory

o Repair Time for Components: Repair time cannot exceed 20 days. Time begins when the vehicle has been turned in for overhaul at the battalion. Time ends when the vehicle is returned to the Ready for Issue inventory

o Repair Reliability for Vehicles and Components: Repaired vehicles and components will be inspected to ensure the completeness of repairs. All repairs must be certified, and the certifications must be filed in the inspection area. Incomplete or ineffective repairs will be returned to Depot Overhaul, and repair time will continue on the vehicle or component until the repair is satisfactorily completed

EXCERPT 3: ENGINE REPAIR CONTRACT

GENERAL

This contract is for the repair of engines in support of the Army M1999 Martin. The period of performance is for 1 year from the date of signature of this contract. Under the terms of the contract, Fortuna Supply Chain Management, Inc., and Power Mechanics agree that Power Mechanics will repair a minimum of 1,000 engines and a maximum of 2,000 engines. The repair cost of the engine is fixed. However, discounts specified later in this contract will be considered to be in force once Power Mechanics has received at least 1,200 engines for repair. Performance to the terms of this contract will be determined by the metrics described in a subsequent section.

PERFORMANCE METRICS

Performance metrics will be used to manage this contract. Incentives and penalties described in a subsequent section will be assessed based on those performance metrics.


Repair Time: Repair time cannot exceed 20 days. Time begins when ANAD positions the engine and ends when Power Mechanics returns the repaired engine to the Power Mechanics bay within the Organic Depot Repair receiving area.

2 Appendix 2 is not included.

Spring 2015



Repair Quality: Engines must meet a 95 percent acceptance rate. All engine repairs will be subject to an engine test that will include a check to ensure that the noted repair was performed and that the engine performs in accordance with the engine specifications contained in the contract appendix. The calculation for this metric is as follows: (Number of engines repaired – Number of engines rejected) ÷ Number of engines repaired.

Spring 2015



TEAM 5: OPERATING COMMAND

Timeframe: Operations & Support

YOUR TASK

Compare the system performance measures in the LCSP (Excerpt 1) with those in the User Report (Excerpt 2). Collaborate with your team to answer the following questions:






Based on the Capability Production Document (CPD), developed jointly by HQ TRADOC and the Department of Army, a performance specification was created. Modifications were governed by meeting the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and the performance specification requirements derived from the CPD.


Table 9: LCSP Sustainment Performance Requirements (Operations & Support)

Requirements Threshold Objective IOC FOC Full Field.




75% 76% 79%




80% 83% 88%

Maintainability (KPP) Mean Time to Repair

MTTR < 4 hours

MTTR < 2.5 hours 7 5 4

Spring 2015



Requirements Threshold Objective IOC FOC Full Field.

(MTTR)


MSRT < 15 days

MSRT < 10 days 15 12 11




$17.65B $17.96B $18.42B


MTBF ≥ 800 hrs. MTBF ≥ 1,000 hrs. 800 850 880



78% 80% 80%



2,000 MMBSA

1,882 MMBSA

1,856 MMBSA








3.5 C-130 loads

3.9 C-130 loads

4.0 C-130 loads



Yes Yes Yes

Table 10: Sustainment Performance Metrics Breakdown (Operations & Support)



80%

Spring 2015




Operational Availability Customer Wait Time DoD Instruction, Service Directive

4 days


2 days


90%




Spring 2015



Table 11: Sustainment Performance Assessment / Test Results (O&S)

Demonstrated (tested) Sustainment Performance

Metric / Feature

Contractual Requirements

Demonstration Schedule

Requirement / PS Elements

Impacted

Performance Objective / PS

Package Baseline Value

Estimated Value / IOC

Estimate

Perfect Order Fulfillment

System Contract

Metric Demo 2nd Qtr Supply, Maintenance

80% 78%

System Reliability

System Contract

Reliability Growth Curve from Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)

Maintenance, Spares

Spec 2,000 (CPD 1,000) Mean Miles Between System Aborts (MMBSA)

1,856 MMBSA

All support at operational sites performed within 2,000 sq. ft. covered area

System Contract

Maintainability Demo 1st Qtr

Facilities 2,000 sq. ft. Footprint

1,400 sq. ft.

EXCERPT 2: USER REPORT

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes system performance observed by the Lead Command for the Army M1999 Martin over the past quarter. The Martin family of vehicles is a performance-based Acquisition Category (ACAT) I program, managed by the Project Executive Office (PEO) Ground Battle Support, Project Manager, Martin Boots on the Ground Team (MBGT). M1999 Martin vehicles are ground-based tracked vehicles that are adaptable to a wide range of existing and future battlefield tasks. They include six separate systems, organized under two basic variants.

These variants are defined by their basic roles—the Personnel Carrier Vehicle (PCV) is the infantry or mission vehicle type, and the Mobile Weapon System (MWS) is the straight-fire platform that performs the maneuver fire support role for the MBGT. The PCV vehicles can be transported by air (C-5, C-17, and C-130), land, rail, and sea. Each brigade contains 125 M1999 Martins, of which 100 are PCVs and the remaining 25 are MWSs.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The overall assessment of M1999 Martin status is marginal. As will be discussed in the subsequent section, the MWS has continued to be a problem system for battalion commanders. In particular, unique parts for the MWS have proved to be difficult to acquire, and repair associated with MWS has suffered from the lack of trained personnel to work on unique MWS systems.

Spring 2015



PERFORMANCE METRICS

Performance metrics managed within this command and at the battalion level are divided into three major areas:

Operational Readiness (unit level):

o The PCV Operational Readiness Rate (ORR) has averaged 98 percent o The MWS ORR has averaged 80 percent

Materiel Availability (fleet level):

o PCV Materiel Availability has averaged 81 percent o MWS Materiel Availability has averaged 76 percent

Vehicle Downtime at the Unit:

o PCV downtime has averaged 10 days o MWS downtime has averaged 29 days

Spring 2015

D: Dozier Ground Vehicle Case


D: DOZIER GROUND VEHICLE CASE

Focus first on the KPP (availability) and KSAs (reliability, and O&S cost) then examine additional support attributes

To avoid too many metrics it may be better as PSM to focus on a handful of product support integration metrics and leave lower level metrics to the product support providers

PSM may also need to be aware of the other metrics tracked by key stakeholders and be monitor their status

The law of unintended consequences may apply: some metrics may drive undesirable behavior in the future and in the field, as well as impacting other product support elements

As program matures, product support metrics may also evolve

PSMs need to review product support strategies throughout the life cycle as environment changes (e.g., peace/war, service life, system maturity, funding availability, and politics)

Performance metrics provide a means to maintain visibility into complex operations and large, distributed organizations. In the Dozier Ground Vehicle case study, you will analyze challenges faced by the product support manager related to product support performance metrics when the Dozier maintenance strategy was transitioned from 100% CLS to an organic mix.

Collaborate with your team to answer the questions at the end of the case. Prior to Sector 2, you should already have read the Dozier Ground Vehicle case.

Select a team member to share highlights of discussion with seminar including merits of possible courses of action

Dozier Ground Vehicle Case


KEY TAKEAWAYS

INSTRUCTIONS

LEARNING AIDS

Spring 2015

Artifact 1: Dozier Ground Vehicle Case


ARTIFACT 1: DOZIER GROUND VEHICLE CASE

GETTING THE RIGHT METRICS IN PLACE

As the Product Support Manager (PSM) for the Dozier Ground Vehicle program, Ms. Jan Swenson has successfully supported the Dozier vehicle and sustained the program for nearly two years. The fielding battalions universally applaud the exceptional, responsive support, her key metrics are outstanding, and her contract with Hadley Armour, the prime support contractor, is under budget. Because of this success, the Dozier program has been indefinitely extended and expanded to field additional battalions.

That’s not to say that Jan’s job isn’t challenging, or that there isn’t room for improvement. Dozier is in the middle of an unanticipated change in product support strategy from 100% contractor logistics support (CLS) to organic support to the maximum extent possible, an effort both Hadley Armour and the fielding battalions were resisting. In addition to the obvious hurdles involved in the transition, the stakeholder relationship management was certainly keeping her busy.

All things considered, though, Jan’s biggest problem was trying to determine what metrics to start using to help address the program’s inventory control problems while maintaining its strong support performance. She and her team had to decide 1) what metrics to write into the product support arrangements the program office was establishing with the various organic support organizations and 2) what metrics to include in the new contract with Hadley Armour and how to incentivize them.

Jan and her team were discussing just that when they were notified of an impending Inspector General report which detailed Dozier’s inventory control failures and listed the eye-catching, groan-inducing price tag of $892.3 million. They refocused their efforts with a renewed sense of urgency.

BACKGROUND

The Dozier Ground Vehicle is a family of eight-wheeled, armored fighting vehicles produced by Hadley Armour (HA) for the United States Army. The vehicle is named for Medal of Honor recipient, infantryman First Lieutenant James Dozier. Dozier was developed to support quick deployments of fully equipped units for a variety of operations and to fill a capability gap between two vehicle categories: heavy and lethal, and lightly armed and armored.

To achieve this objective, the Army compromised on some key features. Dozier is wheeled rather than tracked to reduce weight and improve deployability. Similarly, Dozier’s armor is lighter than a tank’s armor, reducing its ability to engage more heavily armored units; however, its speed and communications suite enable it to navigate through and avoid more heavily armored adversaries.

Spring 2015



PRODUCT SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

Based on the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) development jointly by Headquarters (HQ) U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the Department of the Army, the program office created a common performance specification (CPS) for use in the selection and development of Dozier and its variants. Sustainment performance requirements are identified in the following table.

Table 12: LCSP Sustainment Performance Requirements

Req. (KPP, KSA,

Derived) Docs Threshold / Objective TES /

TEMP IOC FOC Full Field.

General System Inter-operability

ORD Ch 1, v2, 4 Nov 2008 CPS 3.1.2.1.1.1 General System Inter-operability

Integrate and host Government Furnished Materiel (GFM) systems without degradation to vehicle or GFM appliqué systems performance, and in accordance with applicable interoperability standards. Contractor will integrate and host any new GFM added to the Systems View 2 (SV2) by Headquarters Department of the Army. Integrate Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) equipment with Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) / intercom to generate a CBRN alert message and inject warning tones into the intercom system. Video from the Drivers Video Enhancement (DVE), FBCB2, and Remote Weapon System (RWS) will be available on the Video Display Terminal (VDT also used for the Squad Leaders Display).

Flat Bottom Hull (FBH) Production Verification

Testing (PVT) '04-'08

Double “V” Hull (DVH)

Test '11-'12

Met Met Met

Transport-ability

ORD Ch 1, v2, 4 Nov 2008 CPS 3.1.1.1.1.1 Transport-ability

Capable of transport using existing air (C5, C17) land, rail, and ship capabilities. Tiedown and lifting provisions shall be in accordance with MILSTD 209 and shall have the ability to withstand the force generated by the rail Impact Test as defined in IL STD 810E.

FBH PVT '04-'08

DVH Test '11-'12

Met Met Met

Spring 2015



Req. (KPP, KSA,

Derived) Docs Threshold / Objective TES /

TEMP IOC FOC Full Field.

C-130 Transport-ability

ORD CPS 3.1.1.1.1.1 Transport-ability

C-130 Transportable; Immediate Combat Operations (ICO)

FBH PVT '04-'08 DVH N/A

Met Met FBH Met

without kits Feb

11

Reliability ORD Ch 1, v2, 4 Nov 2008 CPS 3.1.1.7.2

Spec 2,000 (ORD 1,000) Mean Miles Between System Aborts (MMBSA). The individual reliability of any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) shall not be degraded by its integration on the system.

FBH PVT '04-'08

DVH Test '11-'12

Met Met FBH 2,817

MMBSA DVH 3,647

MMBSA

Operational Readiness

ORD Ch 1, v2, 4 Nov 2008

Operational readiness ≥ 90% Brigade Level Met Met Garri-son 90%

Deploy 97%

Common-ality

CPS 3.0.1 FBH–85% commonality between platforms, excludes Mission Equipment Package (MEP) DVH–Maximize

FBH 90% DVH 80%

FBH 90% DVH 80%

FBH 80% DVH N/A

Maintain-ability

CPS 3.1.1.7.3.1

The Dozier Ground Vehicle shall be designed such that daily operator/crew checks conducted by two crew members with on board tools and test equipment and shall not exceed 0.5 clock hours

FBH PVT '04-'08 DVH

Not Tested

Met Met Met

PRODUCT SUPPORT STRATEGY

The Dozier program was envisioned to be a 5-8 year bridge solution between existing systems at time of program inception and the Army Future Combat Systems program already under development. Because of the system’s interim nature, the Army opted to support the vehicle 100% through contract support to save on the cost of establishing a support infrastructure that would soon be obsolete.

When the wars started in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dozier was fielded rapidly, in greater numbers than ever anticipated, and in a harsh operating environment. The CLS product support strategy

Spring 2015



was already in place, and fielding brigades were stood up as Dozier brigades, manned for operations and combat but not support. Until the transition to organic support began in 2007, the fielding brigades had never operated under any other support construct than 100% CLS through Hadley Armour.

In total, there are ~2,500 Dozier vehicles in the fleet (all variants): 2,200 fielded among 7 brigades and 300 or so in the repair and transportation pipelines.

ORIGINAL SUPPORT CONTRACT

The program office awarded the first Dozier CLS contract to Hadley Amour in 2002—a two-year contract with three option years. Hadley Armour was responsible for providing 100% support for the system and using Army parts, when available, for system maintenance. Performance would be measured using a single metric, Operational Readiness Rate (ORR), with a target of 90%3. The government decided not to purchase technical data rights, given the cost and the expected life cycle of the system. When Dozier brigades deployed, they deployed with contract maintenance personnel.

SYSTEM SUPPORT PERFORMANCE

Hadley Armour’s performance in terms of Operational Readiness Rate (ORR) was excellent.

Table 13: System Support Performance over the First CLS Contract

Performance Category Thresh. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Operational Readiness Rate (ORR)

90% 95.0% 94.1% 93.7% 95.1% 94.9%

With satisfied users, no budget concerns, and excellent contract performance, the government elected to exercise all three option years on the first CLS contract. A follow-on contract was awarded to Hadley Armour with the same metrics in place in early 2007.

NEW SUPPORT STRATEGY

In 2004, the program office conducted a product support BCA which concluded that there was a negligible difference between the cost of CLS support and the cost of organic support. However, an Army budgetary and operational review in 2005 concluded that organic support, at that point in time, offered more operational flexibility and was the preferred option, based on the BCA. In 2006, the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) reached that same conclusion, which aligned with a growing feeling among some general officers that “green suits” should be performing “green jobs,” like maintenance.

In late 2006, the Army officially directed the program office to transition as much of the Dozier ground vehicle logistics support system as was feasible from contract to organic. Given the results of the BCA and the success of the existing CLS strategy, the Product Support Team (PST) was caught completely unprepared for this new directive.

3 U.S. Army standard for operational readiness rate for ground vehicles is 90%, which is considered a threshold for most programs.

Spring 2015



It was too late in contract development process to significantly alter the follow-on contract with Hadley Armour, and in any event, the PST had a lot of planning to do before they were ready to enter into any new product support arrangements. To complicate matters, the program has just been assigned a new product support manager, Jan Swenson. Also in 2006, the Army Future Combat Systems program experienced extensive budget cuts, which contributed to extending the life of the Dozier program.

Year 2007, Jan’s first year on the program, was spent determining just exactly what components of the Dozier support system could practically be transitioned to organic providers. The PST was severely limited by several factors. First, the brigades didn’t see the need to change. They were happy with the current arrangement, they were comfortable with it, and they weren’t properly manned to take over field level maintenance. Second, Hadley Armour wasn’t thrilled with the change, either. They were making a good profit under the flexible contract that was in place. They owned the technical data rights for the Dozier and its variants, and they weren’t even interested in discussing a price with the program office. Finally, the program office didn’t have the knowledge to take over the responsibilities. There had never been a reason to acquire it, since the strategy was expected to be 100% CLS for the life of the system.

Months of planning and analysis resulted in a revised product support strategy in the following table. The PST communicated with Hadley Armour and the operating brigades the program office’s intention to implement the strategy using a phased approach, with all phases completed by 2013.

Table 14: LCSP Product Support Strategy

Sys Subsys Field-Level Maint.

Sustain-Level Maint.

Software Support & Maint.

Unique Supply Supp

Common Supply Supp

PHS&T Support Analysis

Config. Ctrl.

Tech. Data* Training

Flat Bottom

Hull Power Pack O PPP O HA O O O HA HA O

Remote

Weapons Station

O HA O HA O O O HA HA O

3.5 Driveline O PPP O HA O O O HA HA O

Double V Hull

5.5 Driveline HA HA O HA HA O O HA HA O

ECP PGS Auto-

motive O PPP O HA O O O HA HA O

PGS (Electr.) O PPP O HA O O O HA HA O

Chassis O PPP O HA O O O HA HA O

Spring 2015



Sys Subsys Field-Level Maint.

Sustain-Level Maint.

Software Support & Maint.

Unique Supply Supp

Common Supply Supp

PHS&T Support Analysis

Config. Ctrl.

Tech. Data* Training

Upgrades

Vehicle Digital

Backbone O PPP O HA O O O HA HA O

*United States Government (USG) purpose rights; contractor owns technical data package

ECP Engineering Change Proposal HA Hadley Armour O Organic PGS Power Generation System PHS&T Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation PPP Public Private Partnership

The strategy, which is documented in the table below, included a two level maintenance concept with responsibilities shared among Hadley Armour, Anniston Army Depot, and the fielding units. Out of necessity during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Anniston Army Depot rebuilt severely damaged Doziers. The work was accomplished on time, under budget, and within existing infrastructure. However, this activity was in partnership with Hadley Armour and under contracts awarded out of Anniston. Through this approach, Anniston acquired limited access to technical data and Hadley support for proprietary processes and repairs, so some working relationship had been established.

INVENTORY CONTROL ISSUES

During her assessment of the Dozier product support infrastructure in preparation for the transition to organic support, Jan and her team discovered a sizeable inventory control problem. To an extent, Hadley Armour had been achieving the objective level of operational readiness by maintaining an excess supply of on-hand spare parts. A large number of those parts were stored uncatalogued in government facilities managed by Hadley Armour.

Because of the unexpected emphasis on rapidly fielding the system, Dozier’s production and fielding schedule was ramped up and accelerated beyond what was planned. Since the focus was entirely on fielding the system quickly, in large quantities, and ensuring that it was operationally ready once in the field, other aspects of the support infrastructure naturally received less attention. Another contributing factor was that the only metric written into Hadley Armour’s contract was ORR, so they had no financial incentive to track or achieve any others.

Table 15: LCSP Two-Level Maintenance Concept

Two-Level Maintenance Tasks Performed By

Field-Level Maintenance

Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) Scheduled Services PMCS own Vehicle Repair

Crew CLS Service Team

Spring 2015



Two-Level Maintenance Tasks Performed By

Fault Isolation/Diagnostics Using Standard Test Measurement Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE), Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBP+) Adjustment Alignment of Modules Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) Remove and Replace Maintains Operational Readiness Float Field Level Recovery Light Body Repair (Corrosion)

Garrison: Field Level Mechanic Field Service Representative (FSR) Provides Platform Level Assistance

Deployment:

Brigade Recovery of Platform Comprehensive Maintenance

Sustainment-Level Maintenance

Class IX Repair Battle/Combat Damage Repair Reset Recap Overhaul

Organic for Common Items PBL for Unique Items Depot to Meet Core Requirements

CLS and PPP: PMO, HA, and Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) Core Depot: ANAD

Regardless of the reason, now that the problem had been identified, Jan and her team had to decide how best to address it in the context of the program’s transition to organic support.

NEW PRODUCT SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS

It’s now 2009, and the PST is in the process of implementing the new product support strategy for the program. The PST needs to establish the product support arrangements required to support that new strategy. Hadley Armour is the Product Support Integrator (PSI). Hadley Armour’s contract period of performance ends soon. There are three option years left on the contract, and Jan must decide whether to exercise the first option year, modify the contract, or award a new contract on a sole source basis. If she decides to modify or recompete the contract, she and the team must decide which metrics to write into the new contract.

Jan will also need to advise and support Hadley Armour as they establish a public private partnership (PPP) with Anniston Army Depot (ANAD). The PST itself may need to establish one or more Performance Based Agreements (PBAs) with the depot or the warfighter. Each of these arrangements is a potential opportunity to address the inventory control problem while protecting the program’s excellent performance and keeping operations & support (O&S) costs down.

DECISION TIME

At a working session with the PST during which they were discussing potential metrics to include in the next support contract, Jan received an e-mail alerting her to the impending release of an IG report entitled Accountability Was Missing for Government Property Procured on the Army's Services Contract for Logistics Support of Dozier Vehicles. The e-mail included the executive summary of the report, which reads, in part:

Spring 2015



PMO Dozier did not properly account for Government property procured on the cost-reimbursable services contract for logistics support of Dozier vehicles. We identified 19,365 different items of Dozier inventory (spare and repair parts) being managed by Hadley Armour at a Government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) warehouse that had not been assigned a value and recorded in appropriate Army property accountability and financial accounting systems. At our request, Hadley Armour assigned a value to the Dozier inventory of about $892.3 million. PMO Dozier failed to comply with multiple DoD and Army property regulations designed to provide good stewardship and fiduciary responsibility over Government property and implement a comprehensive inventory management improvement plan.

Jan knew that her team was going to be on the hook to provide a comprehensive plan for addressing this problem and support the program office’s response to the IG report. The looming release of the IG Report has added a sense of urgency to the team’s work.

Jan and team have to decide: what metrics are they going to use going forward to track product support performance? What metrics are they going to put on contract? What metrics are they going to include in new product support arrangement? How are they going to protect the excellent performance of the product support infrastructure while addressing the program’s shortcomings and keeping costs low?

Spring 2015



QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

1. Which metrics should PSM Jan Swenson use for the transition of the support strategy for maintenance (depot-level repair/overhaul) and supply (wholesale supply chain management) support elements? Why?

2. Should these metrics all be written into the follow-on support contract? How should the contractor be incentivized?

3. How should the metrics be distributed among the memoranda of agreement/understanding to measure both battalion and depot support for the Dozier?

4. How will these metrics be measured (i.e., collection frequency, method of calculation, etc.)? How will the program office collect the data required to measure these metrics (i.e., contractor, depot, battalion, etc.)?

Spring 2015

E: Identify and Prioritize Stakeholders


E: IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE STAKEHOLDERS


Other: STEP Software Tool

The first stage of the Stakeholder Engagement Process is to simply identify your stakeholders

The second step of the Stakeholder Engagement Process is to prioritize your stakeholders and clarify “key” stakeholders

Log in to the STEP software tool and create a new plan

In the “Identify” stage enter your product support stakeholders which will generate a Stakeholder Map

In the “Prioritize” stage rate each stakeholder’s influence and importance on the Power grid

Designate your “key” stakeholders

Reading “Stakeholder Analysis for PSMs”

STEP Software Tool

STEP Software Tool User Guide

KEY TAKEAWAYS

INSTRUCTIONS

LEARNING AIDS

Spring 2015

Homework Assignments


HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS

Individual: Full Seminar

Other: Homework Assignments

Prepare for Sector 3 (Product Support Strategy Architect)

Complete prioritizing your stakeholders using the STEP software tool

Review “The Principles 360-Degree Leaders Practice to Lead Up" (pre-seminar assignment)

Read Technical Data Rights Concepts (9 pages)

Read background for Activity A: Apache Prime Vendor Support (7 pages)

Read background for Activity D: C-65C Atlas case (10 pages)

Optional reading “Product Support Business Case Analysis

Concepts”

Optional reading “DoD Clashes With Suppliers Over Data

Rights”

STEP Software Tool

STEP Software Tool User Guide

KEY TAKEAWAYS

INSTRUCTIONS

LEARNING AIDS

product support performance champion · focus strategy to improve involvement and commitment with a...

Documents