[Themaintainers] Whither the field of life cycle logistics?

Fri Jan 11 10:56:16 EST 2019

All,

Firing one for effect...that is to say, I'm keen to get feedback from members of this group.  I'm going to say some things here that reflect what I'm experiencing and what I know.  I acknowledge my experience is limited and my knowledge similarly so.  I can (I believe) be educated!

Background:

I was trained as a developmental psychologist and have spent my entire career working for the United States Navy and in the field of training (25+years).  Starting out in R&D, I moved over time to acquisition of training.  I currently work as a Department of the Navy civil servant in a logistics department for the Naval Aviation System Command.  My views, are of course, my own.

The DoD acquisition system is a complicated business.  In the interest of writing a post here and not a novel, I'll simplify things a bit to say that with respect to our systems (e.g., aircraft, ships, submarines, radars, etc.) we in the Naval Aviation Enterprise, assign technical responsibility for acquisition of the system to one group--call this the "Engineering Department"--while technical responsibility for the "stuff and things that will support the system" are assigned to another group--call this one the Logistics Department.  

Current Situation:

With respect to capabilities, we have some amazing systems.  This speaks to the quality of our engineers and our engineering department.  If time, budget, sustainment, and sustainability were not of concern, I'd suggest that the "Engineering Department" is doing fine.  Of course, these factors are of great concern and so I can say with confidence that the "Engineering Department" is keenly aware that they need to improve upon their processes & products.

However, I am not in the Engineering Department, I'm in the Logistics Department.  How are we doing?  Since you asked...Not well.  Across the Navy we're having difficulty sustaining our systems.  The most acute manifestation of this challenge is expressed in terms of readiness.  Are we ready with the systems that I have described?  Suffice to say that this is a significant challenge across the Navy.

How can this be you ask?  Don't we have a "process" or a "set of process".  Indeed, we do.  There are a number of "terms/constructs" that describe what we do but, here's the essence as I have come to understand it.  "Design the support and support the design."  I can break this down a bit more...

A weapon system requires many things to enable us to realize its capabilities.  We can characterize these as "support" elements.  In fact, DoD has broken this down (see MILHDBK-502A Product Support Analysis) into 12 "Integrated Product Support" (IPS) elements:

	- Product Support Management
	- Supply Support
	- Training & Training Support
	- Computer Resources
	- Facilities & Infrastructure
	- Maintenance Planning & Management
	- Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation (PHS&T)
	- Technical Data (think manuals)
	- Manpower (how many) & Personnel (what type of people)
	- Support Equipment

What makes these elements "integrated"?  Bit of an over-simplification but, true I think--these elements "interact" such that changes in one, will impact one or more of the others.  As for processes, as noted, we've got those.  I'll copy 'em in from MILHDBK-502A below for the sake of completeness:

Activity 1 - Product Support Strategy, Establish the initial maintenance concept
Activity 2 - Product Support Planning, Develop the Product Support Analysis Plan (PSAP) 
Activity 3 - Program & Design Reviews, Establish requirements for SETRs and PSA TIMs
Activity 4 - Application, Develop the Use Study
Activity 5 - Support System Standardization, Establish requirements for Hardware/ Software Standardization 
Activity 6 - Comparative Analysis, Develop the BCS and conduct Comparative Analysis 
Activity 7 - Technological Opportunities, Identify Potential New Technology 
Activity 8 - Supportability & Supportability-Related Design Factors, Identify impact on operations and support capabilities, risks and data rights issues
Activity 9 - Functional Requirements, FMECA, RCM , FTA, Task Inventory, Design       	Alternatives 
Activity 10 - Support System Alternatives, Alternatives and Plans
Activity 11 - Evaluation of Alternatives and Tradeoff Analysis, Level of Repair Analysis 
Activity 12 - Task Analysis, Maintenance Task Analysis results
Activity 13 - Early Distribution Analysis, Readiness Impacts 
Activity 14 - Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortages Management (DMSMS)/Obsolescence System Support Analysis Plan 
Activity 15 - Field Feedback, Supportability and Supportability related data from the Fleet
Activity 16 - Disposal Analysis, Disposal Plan 
Activity 17 - Operational Suitability Test, Evaluation, Verification & Validation, Test Strategy

But, the particulars of these processes are not what I'm soliciting feedback on, rather, I've noted I'm in the "Logistics Department" and that we have defined set of processes (the MILHDBK 502A).  So too do our colleagues over in the Engineering Department.  However, they also have a professional infrastructure that it seems to me is sadly lacking in logistics.   What I mean by infrastructure here is... Departments at colleges and universities that train engineers and systems engineers, professional societies that encourage active empirical work to advance the field (e.g., INCOSE and The Journal of Systems Engineering along w/IEEE and other organizations and publications).  My reading of our field (logistics) is we lack this.  Bit of digging turns up:

	- The Council of Logistics Engineering Professionals (CLEP): http://logisticsengineers.org
	- The International Society of Logistics--SOLE: http://www.sole.org/

But a visit to the websites above indicates that these are not "beehives of professional activity" and I don't see the professional journals.  And while I understand that "Supply Chain Management" and other undergrad and graduate-level programs are offered, these seem to be in business schools and/or in engineering schools.  I ask, is there a field of logistics if we lack a professional infrastructure?  As noted, while we have defined processes and a real need to develop and support systems, we're not doing this well.  Thus, I think we need one.  Further, and this is a completely parochial observation, I'd suggest that we re-brand ourselves as "Product Support Engineers" and our discipline as "Product Support Engineering".  

I make this bold assertion because it seems clear that we are in fact, engineers.  That is, our charge is to conceptualize, design, test, implement, and modify product support.  Moreover, this isn't a "point in time" challenge, it's about engineering socio-technical systems that will interact w/other socio-technical systems.  Finally, if our processes are connected, at the level of data, with what our colleagues over in the Engineering Department are doing, then, well, we're doing it wrong.  

When I look back for the R&D that supports my discipline...I "hear crickets".  Far as I can tell, we're flat out not training anybody to do this in our engineering schools or in any universities.  

Standing by for feedback.  V/r--John

John Burns
Fleet Maintenance and Training Systems Support Division
(301) 342-6292
47013 Hinkle Circle
Patuxent River, MD 20670-2942

**** NOTICE: This email may contain SENSITIVE Unclassified DoD information that has not been approved for public release.  It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you received this communication in error, please delete the message.  Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5355 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.stevens.edu/pipermail/themaintainers/attachments/20190111/9efe9cf7/attachment.p7s>