[Themaintainers] [Non-DoD Source] Themaintainers Digest, Vol 37, Issue 10

Tue Mar 19 09:52:15 EDT 2019

All,

I'd like help in identifying my research community to address the issues Nathan & Phillip so articulately address.  DoD is in crisis.   

1) We've been "reforming" acquisition since I started back in the early 90's and before that as well.  The root-cause analyses speak to the complexity of the problems well, but...it seems we don't have the appetite for addressing systemic challenges.  I have this slide taped up by my desk by way of explaining the DoD thought process (or lack thereof!):

	Faced with a 20-year threat,
	The Government responds with a 15-year plan;
	Programmed in a 6-year POM;
	Managed by 3-year personnel;
	Who develop a 2-year budget;
	Formulated over a 3-day weekend;
	With a 12-hour window to reclama;	
	And approved in a 1-hour decision brief

2) I believe we've reached an "inflection point".  We either change or...Now before anyone calls me on this, I'll note that we're the government and so for us, "acute points" are measured in years and so it's perhaps more accurate to suggest that we've reached an "inflection phase".  Publicly available data here and I'll keep to the Service I know of but...pretty sure our other services are no better off:

	- Submarine Community has billions of dollars in unanticipated maintenance costs at their depots (the place where most intensive, time-consuming maintenance happens),  
	- Surface Community has struggled for 20 years to field ship classes "optimally manned" and capable of meeting operational availabilities, &
	- Naval Aviation has struggled for years with an inability to accurately predict readiness across its various aircraft types and correspondingly, struggled to achieve required levels of readiness.

3) This situation is rich with irony.  As I sit here and type this email, I do so while listening to a Spotify Playlist on my iPhone XR and my U-ROK Bluetooth Headphones.  I marvel at the engineering prowess that allowed me to type that last sentence.  In like fashion, it's clear to me that our DoD is well-supported by talented engineers who can bring forth amazing technologies.  Sure, it always seems to take longer than projected but...we're addressing this...

4) We've got a research consortium, coincidentally enough, led by Stevens Institute, helping us (at NAVAIR) to re-envision how we engineer our systems.  Cue The Who's "Goin Mobile" and insert "Digital" and you'll grasp the "secret ingredient" in the re-imagined approach.

5) Wonderful except that I believe that, as laudable as the above effort is, to a very great extent, it's a terrific example of "The Streetlight Effect":

"Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the officer he's looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he's sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light's better here, explains the drunk man."

6) Our engineering abilities are awesome.  However, "sustainment" is not a variable in the engineering equation.  Where might this "sustainment" thing be found?  Glad you asked, check with the "loggies".  This is the pejorative term we (DoD) assign to those not smart enough to get degrees and jobs in engineering.  To be a life-cycle logistician doesn't even require a college degree.  The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy - Expeditionary Programs and Logistics Management has a bachelor's of science degree in mechanical engineering and is Defense Acquisition University (DAU--DoD's professional training school) Level III (highest level) qualified in Program Management, Test & Evaluation, and System Planning, Research Development & Engineering--but not, I note with abject horror, Life Cycle Logistics.  

7) Well, as it turns out, and as this group absolutely understands, sustainment, and sustainability are pretty damn important.  My Navy hasn't quite grasped this.  I wonder whom I might reach out to in our great colleges and universities who would be interested in delving into this?  Couple of additional observations to cage the discussion:

	- Industry has related but not identical challenges.  Industry will not be solving DoD's sustainment problems--ever.  Bits and pieces?  Sure, but, DoD has qualitative differences.  Doesn't mean I'm not interested in talking to those working with/for Amazon, Walmart, JetBlue etc., on "supply chain" engineering etc., rather, it's imperative that we understand our problem space is unique and thus, our solution will be unique.

	- Don't let my "cheeky" comments about engineering suggest I'm not desperate for input and collaboration with engineers--I am!  If I could go back in time, perhaps I'd triple major in political science, journalism, & engineering before getting my cognitive psych PhD?  As it stands, I'm learning SySML...OMG!  Old dogs and new tricks...necessity demands it.

V/r--John

-----Original Message-----
From: themaintainers-bounces at lists.stevens.edu <themaintainers-bounces at lists.stevens.edu> On Behalf Of themaintainers-request at lists.stevens.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:00 AM
To: themaintainers at lists.stevens.edu
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Themaintainers Digest, Vol 37, Issue 10

Send Themaintainers mailing list submissions to
	themaintainers at lists.stevens.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.stevens.edu/mailman/listinfo/themaintainers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	themaintainers-request at lists.stevens.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
	themaintainers-owner at lists.stevens.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Themaintainers digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1.  737 design maintenance (PHILIP SCRANTON)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:41:54 -0400
From: PHILIP SCRANTON <scranton at scarletmail.rutgers.edu>
To: Nathan Schneider <Nathan.Schneider at colorado.edu>
Cc: "themaintainers at lists.stevens.edu"
	<themaintainers at lists.stevens.edu>
Subject: [Themaintainers]  737 design maintenance
Message-ID:
	<CAO7N7nbSOFac1CM9gqpGHsRt=91Drj5iAFHmqym1JNXtTXEFQw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

This is a stunning, yet wholly sensible, thread. When I was researching the development of early US military jet engines, over a decade ago, engineering studies and project histories showed that any substantial technical change ramified through the whole device in unanticipated ways.
Such vectors took years, if not decades, to bring under control, one element in which was project discipline in handling/accepting proffered design change requests, in part because repeated changes created maintenance and spare parts miseries. Cold War era jet engines did stabilize after multiple redesigns, though few lasted anywhere near 50 years, except perhaps in the B52 propulsion systems. It makes sense that airframes experienced comparable upgrades, with ambiguous implications.
   Best regards, Phil Scranton

On Sunday, March 17, 2019, Nathan Schneider <Nathan.Schneider at colorado.edu>
wrote:

> Really interesting discussion here on whether and why the 737 has been 
> in continuous development for 50 years, including regulatory and 
> market
> dynamics:
>
> A 50-year-old design came back to haunt Boeing with its troubled 737 
> Max jet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414164
>
> This discussion also touches on other such cases, like the Soyuz and 
> NYC subway and firearms and unix.
>
>
> ###
> Nathan Schneider
> Assistant Professor, Media Studies
> University of Colorado Boulder
>

--
Philip Scranton, Emeritus Board of Governors Professor, History of Industry & Technology, Rutgers University; Author, Enterprise, Organization and Technology in China: A Socialist Experiment, 1950-1971 Palgrave Macmillan (2019).  BOOK LINK:
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030003975?wt_mc=ThirdParty.SpringerLink.3.EPR653.About_eBook#aboutBook
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stevens.edu/pipermail/themaintainers/attachments/20190318/1aa62202/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Themaintainers mailing list
Themaintainers at lists.stevens.edu
https://lists.stevens.edu/mailman/listinfo/themaintainers

End of Themaintainers Digest, Vol 37, Issue 10
**********************************************
-------------- 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/20190319/fd7053d6/attachment.p7s>