DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER DTICfhas determined on 01/ lO /c?fl/f that this Technical Document has the Distribution Statement checked below. The current distribution for this document can be found in the DTICf Technical Report Database. d f/J DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ] © COPYRIGHTED. U.S. Government or Federal Rights License. All other rights and uses except those permitted by copyright law are reserved by the copyright owner. I | DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT B. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies only (fill in reason) (date of determination). Other requests for this document shall be referred to (insert controlling DoD office). ] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and their contractors (fill in reason) (date determination). Other requests for this document shall be referred to (insert controlling DoD office). ] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D. Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only (fill in reason) (date of determination). Other requests shall be referred to (insert controlling DoD office). ] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT E. Distribution authorized to DoD Components only (fill in reason) (date of determination). Other requests shall be referred to (insert controlling DoD office). ] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT F. Further dissemination only as directed by (insert controlling DoD office) (date of determination) or higher DoD authority. Distribution Statement F is also used when a document does not contain a distribution statement and no distribution statement can be determined. ] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT X. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and private individuals or enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoDD 5230.25; (date of determination). DoD Controlling Office is (insert controlling DoD office). DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM CASE STUB? Hull Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Standardization Program • CO CM O CM v . •-^ This case study describes how the Navy is dramatically increasing standardization of hull mechanical and electrical (HM&E) equipment across Navy ships, thereby conserving money, manpower, and time, while improving the operational readiness and availability of the fleet. )N PROGRAM CASE STUDY Hull Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Standardization Program As shown in Figure 1, two activi- er ships and had a total inventory of BACKGROUND ties—ship construction and conver- seven or fewer installed units across 1 sion, and scheduled depot the entire naval fleet.The existence of In the 1980s, the Navy began exam- maintenance—generated nearly 90 ining the proliferation of HM&F. APLs and NSNs for nonstandard, low-population HMc\E components percent of all new APLs and NSNs. equipment.Why, for example, was the Ship construction and conversion increased lite-cycle tost and reduced Navy managing multiple unique alone accounted for 66 percent of the pumps when a single pump could operational flexibility and availability new API s. Furthermore, 50 percent meet the requirements of several ships? to the fleet. of all 11M&E items (e.g., a unique Navy managers, faced with the need In a 1988 study, the Navy found pump) were installed on three or few- to reduce operating and life-cycle that proliferation of allowance parts costs, are now required to select ship- lists (APLs)- for like items of HM&E 1. Activities Generating FIGURE board systems, equipment, and com- equipment had reached unacceptably New APLs ponents based on total ownership high levels, causing significant support problems.The fleet had more than cost (TOC), rather than the initial acquisition cost alone. Although ini- 180,000 different types of'HM&E equipment, each supported by indi- tial acquisition cost remains impor- vidual parts lists, technical manuals, tant, additional lite-cycle factors such preventive maintenance documents, as manning, reliability, maintainability, and availability must be considered if training courses, and training equip- ment. Moreover, some 8,700 new the lowest practicable TOC' is to be HMcVE APLs were generated each achieved. Standardization can result in significant reductions m the num- year, resulting in the annual assign- ber of repairable items. Combined ment of more than 28,000 new with the deliberate use of common national stock numbers (NSNs). Ship Construction and Conversion items in ship design, standardization which added to the already volumi- Scnedu.ed Depot Maintenance can produce substantial cost savings nous list of logistically managed sup- Ml Other over the life cycle of ships. ply items. into the Navy supply support sys- data package. Often, such changes PROBLEM tem and less-than-optimum life- require generating a new APL The proliferation of HM&E equip- cycle costs being incurred by the number in the Navy logistics sup- ment was fueled by a number of factors: government. port system. Obsolescence. A lanufacturer turnover. • Lack of engineering awareness and Many equipment items, especially The turnover among original responsibility for life-cycle costs. electronic items, are subject to equipment manufacturers is con- Many working-level engineers obsolescence due to rapidly siderable; they go out of business were simply not aware ot the advancing technologies that pro- impacts on logistics support activ- entirely or undergo mergers and vide increased performance and ities of selecting nonstandard buyouts. The discontinuation ot a cost efficiencies. To a lesser equipment. Moreover, program manufacturing line forces ship- extent, this also is true with managers were primarily con- builders and suppliers to find HM&E items because manufac- cerned with the initial acquisition alternative sources, which often turers continually improve the and delivery of the ship rather results in the introduction of new equipment, changing the configu- than with life-cycle costs. HM&E APLs and increasedTOC. ration and hence the technical • Lack of data access. Engineers lacked the tools to readily access current and accu- rate data on the performance, logistics, and cost of commercial equipment. They also lacked clear guidance regarding how HM&E equipment selections affect logis- tics and life-cycle costs. • Acquisition incentives. Unless contractually obligated or greatly incentivized to select equipment based on best life- cycle cost, the shipbuilder awards equipment contracts to the low- bidders or to regional suppliers. This practice resulted in thou- sands of new equipment items being unnecessarily introduced Reduce, to the greatest extent The Navy's standardization approach • Navy market share. The Navy's influence on the possible, the number of sizes and is aimed at the use ot systems, equip- commercial market has been in types ot equipment that have sim- ment, and components, both within decline for several years as it ilar functions ship classes and across ship types, that downsized the fleet. The Navy's are standardized to the maximum Provide for common usage ot share of the shipbuilding market extent practicable.' Hence, standardi- equipment, parts, and materials to relative to the world market is too zation is divided into tiers: promote commonality among small to induce manufacturers to weapons systems • hardship commonality. make equipment that meets Navy The first-tier objective is to Maximize the use ot standard requirements. The Navy's share of ensure the use of identic al equip- design equipment, parts, materials, the marine equipment market is ment tor similar functions on a and processes to lower costs, significant only for Navy-unique single ship. reduce downtime, facilitate inter- equipment, such as replenishment changeability, enhance maintain- • Intraclass commonality. and fueling-at-sea systems and ability, and promote commonality The second-tier objective is to components and equipment built attain the maximum level of inter- Maximize repetitive use of exist- specifically tor combat systems changeability of equipment and ing, reliable, and fully supported or to withstand strict shock components by reducing the equipment requirements. number of unique items for like Maximize the use ot common APPROACH functions installed within the ship publications, manuals, drawings, class. training aids, and similar materials Since the late I'JXOs, the Navy has • Intrafleet commonality. Conserve money, manpower, focused its HM&E standardization The third-tier objective is to time, facilities, and natural program on ship construction and obtain commonality with existing resources conversion.To reduce the unnecessary supported equipment and com- introduction of new HMcVE equip- During the system design, ponents across different ship class- ment—in other words, to reduce the redesign, or production stage, es within the fleet while meeting number ot unique or nearly unique exclude, to the maximum extent all performance and other HMeVE APLs—the Navy has worked practical, equipment that is not requirements. aggressively with contractors and fully supported Objectives affecting all tiers include managers ot major ship acquisition Improve operational readiness and limiting the range ot different types ot and equipment procurement pro- availability of die fleet equipment and components used and grams. The Navy established the fol- Reduce the life-cycle logistics provisioning tor the maximum use ot lowing HM&E equipment standardi- support costs of equipment. common maintenance, test, and sup- zation goals: HM&E Equipment Data installed in the fleet that warrant the port equipment and training material Research System assignment of an APL number. The at the minimum total logistics support majority of previously available refer- cost. The Navy's primary tool for standard- ence systems concentrated on part To achieve those goals and objectives, izing HM&E equipment during the number/stock number relationships, the Naval Sea Logistics Center's HM&E 1990s has been HEDRS, a collection but had very little information on the Standardization OtBce focused on ot databases and analytical programs. end-item equipment. HEDRS two major efforts: With HEDRS, maintenance, opera- includes tour databases: tions, engineering, planning, and • HM&E Equipment Data logistics communities can research • Components Characteristics File, Research System (HEDKS), HM&E equipment data and resolve which describes form, fit, and developed in the late 1980s and emergent or anticipated problems. For function attributes and is indexed early 1990s, which provides access official use only, HEDRS was pro- by APL number and insight into the performance, duced and distributed annually on • Equipment Applications File, logistics, and cost data requited to compact disk and was provided as which documents where within a select the right equipment government-furnished equipment in particular ship the equipment is • Navy Standardization Guide (NSG), ship construction contracts. installed a desk guide that summarizes Now, HEDRS brings enhanced data • Supportability Database, which current HM&E standardization and analytical capability directly to contains information derived policies and data and provides the fleet.Two Navy products, HEDRS from a manufacturers survey and templates for developing a stan- and SeaLink, constitute one web- expressed in terms of an engi- dardization program plan. based product available via a password- ,( neering support code ' The two efforts address some ot the 4 protected Internet site. HEDRS is • Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) key factors contributing to the prolif- available through the Naval Sea Database, which reports whether eration ot HM&E equipment, Logistics Center home page notably, the lack of engineering ILS data have been developed for (www.nslc.navsea.navy.mil) and the awareness and the lack of data access. the particular equipment. Navy's Distant Support Anchor Desk They also moderate the effects of HEDRS also contains data about (www.anchordesk.navy.mil), the fleet's obsolescence and manufacturer equipment populations in the fleet. single point of access for technical turnover. Together, they improve problems, logistics help, supply ques- HEDRS has user-friendly features designers' and engineers' awareness of tions, and ordnance issues. that enable users to query, retrieve, and ready access to equipment TOC analyze, and store data for specific sit- databases and tools that provide the HEDRS contains unclassified infor- uations. Examples of analyses that can information necessary to enable the mation on approximately 150,000 be performed using HEDRS follow: selection of best-value equipment. HM&E nondevelopmental items Feasibility of equipment substitution. mine the application of specific The NSG contains several standard- It equipment replacement is equipment across the fleet. ization program planning documents, required, a user can query including military handbooks, l)ol) Navy Standardization Guide HEDRS, using component char- directives, SECNAV instructions, and acteristics data of the equipment sample standardization program plans. Another critical tool is the NSG. to be replaced, to find equipment It also contains standard profile 1 )eve!oped to aid in training and installed in the active fleet that reports (SPRs) and an II S cost-avoid- awareness, the NSG is a simple, easy- meets the desired specifications ance package that includes ll.S cost to-use guide addressing current and is supported by the original tables and a cost calculator. I he SPR HMeVE standardization policies and equipment manufacturer. This provides indicators of IIMc\E stan- data. The NSG conveys the impor- ability is one of the most power- dardization by ship, ship class, and the tance ot selecting standard parts and ful utilities in HEDRS. entire active fleet by listing the num- equipment m the design process. It ber ot times an APL is used through- summarizes the policies that support Identification of potential problem out the fleet. Managers can use .u\ standardization and organizes the equipment. SPR to determine the relative degree ideas from many documents to help A user can identify HM&E of standardization for HM&E equip- managers better implement standardi- equipment that is obsolete, obso- ment used in the fleet. zation in their programs. lescent, or foreign-source depend- ent. Once such equipment is identified, the user can further investigate and possibly replace the equipment.This capability is essential in helping programs avoid selecting equipment that will cause problems downstream. Application of the equipment. A user can identity- all HMisH equipment APLs installed on a particular ship and can retrieve a breakdown by equipment cate- gory (valve), equipment class (relict valve), or service (main propulsion boiler safety relief valve).The user also can deter- The I IS cost calculator is a repeat- Amphibious Assault Ships STANDARDIZATION able method, validated by the Naval ACHIEVEMENTS A study of the construction of the Audit Service, for evaluating the life- LHD 1 amphibious assault ship class cycle costs associated with a program's As a result of its HM&E standardiza- revealed poor standardization results— equipment needs. The calculator helps tion program, the Navy has dramati- only 60 percent of the HM&E equip- to identify and quantify the life-cycle cally reduced the unnecessary ment used in the LHD 1 was already costs that should be considered in an introduction of new HM&E equip- in the Navy's fleet inventory at that economic analysis relevant to the ment in the fleet. In the following time. LHDs 2, 3, and 4 were built competitive procurement of function- subsections, we described the using the same approach—one that ally interchangeable equipment. The significant achievements in standardi- relied on monetary incentives to ILS calculator accounts for the fol- zation that have occurred in two achieve standardization—and with the lowing logistics support costs: classes of ships—amphibious assault same disappointing results. ships (LHD) and amphibious trans- • Development and assembly of port dock ships (LPD)—and in the It was clear that a new approach technical documentation overall fleet. was needed. So beginning with con- • Provisioning • NSN/APL maintenance Market Research Yields Better Standards • Training • Technical manuals The LPD 17 baseline system description called for a standard • Installation drawing changes Navy saltwater strainer—large and cumbersome equipment that must be manually cleaned, a time-consuming process. • Configuration control The logisticians and design engineers conducted market • Testing research to select an alternate: a Navy-standard self-cleaning • Planned maintenance. saltwater strainer that offers higher operational availability Given known factors for particular with full functionality. Cleaning occurs in 30 seconds without equipment, such as number of parts, disassembly. The strainer also has a smaller space and expected life cycle, unit price, and weight profile. By selecting an alternate standard, the Navy number of classes of ships receiving estimates a $12 million cost avoidance for the 12-ship class the equipment, a program manager over a 40-year life cycle. can compare life-cycle costs for inter- changeable equipment. struction of LHD 5, and continuing Table 1. Reduction in HM&EAPLs from LHD 1 to LHD 7 with LHDs 6 and 7, the Navy used the LHD ("lass Standardization Pro- Ship Total APLs Fleet-unique APLs Class-unique APLs gram Plan and HEDRS, along with LHD1 5,143 810 252 monetary incentives, to achieve dra- LHD 7 193 4,437 36 matic improvements in standardization." Reduction in APLs 76% 14% 86% The LHD Class Standardization Program Plan required the shipbuild- achieve the maximum level of inter- manufacturer or through the Navy In ing contractor to maximize the use of changeability of equipment and com- addition, the plan required that all equipment and components on the ponents by reducing the number of HM&E equipment have a minimum following lists (in order of precedence): unique items of like function installed of five applications (on one or more • Navy Standard Design list, a list in the ship (intraship standardization). ships) throughout the fleet.These of Navy-wide equipment for All requests for nonstandard equip- requirements helped to moderate the which the Navy has developed a ment—that is, items not contained in issues of manufacturer turnover and complete technical data package, the above three lists—were submitted obsolescence. including production drawings to the Navy for approval.The con- The standardization results for for manufacturing tractor submitted quarterly progress LHDs 5. 6. and 7 were dramatic in • LHD Class HM&E Supportable reports to demonstrate the degree of terms of intraship. intraclass, .i\-\d Equipment List, a list of equip- standardization being achieved during intrafleet standardization.The number ment installed on LHD 1 and the design and construction of the of new HMc\E equipment items LHD 2 and fully supported by ship. These reports provided the pro- introduced into the fleet as a result of the Navy or the original equip- gram manager real-time insight into the construction of these three ships ment manufacturer the level of standardization being was significantly lower than that of achieved and was critical to the suc- • HMcVE Supportable Equipment the four earlier LHD-class ships. Table cess of the program. List, a list of additional HM&E 1 compares standardization results tor equipment used in the Navy The LHD Class Standardization the LHD 1 and LHD 7 based on and fully supported by the Navy Program Plan required that all select- FY02 data. As the table shows, the or the original equipment manu- ed HMcVE equipment and associated number of API s dropped significantly, facturer. spare and repair parts be available reflecting a high degree of standardi- zation within this ship class either from the original equipment The contractor also was required to