AD-A268 939

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Monterey, California

ELECTE
ItAD3

SEP08a 1993

THESIS
A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT SYSTEM

by
Michael Andrew Palmer June 1993 Principal Advisor: Associate Advisor Larry R. Jones Jerry L McCaffery

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

93-20696

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Form Approved v Appro 0MB No

data sources PU ic reporn:, g burden for this collectiof of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. incuding the tme for reviewing instructions, searchrng existing gathering and mainntaiing the data needed. and completing and rev ewinq the collectiOn of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other asemt Of this coltecton O0 infOrmatiOn. rinluding Sugeston or reduoing this burden to Washington HeadQuarters Services. Directorate for information Operations and Report. I I 1 jefterson Oavs Highway. Suite 1204. Arington. VA 22202-302 and tOthe Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-01S). Was.hngton. DC 20503

I. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

2. REPORT DATE

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

I
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

June 19939

Master's Thesis
S. FUNDING NUMBERS

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT SYSTEM

6. AUTHOR(S)

Palmer, Michael A.
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Naval Postgraduate School Monterjq, CA 93943-5000

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Navy's efficiency and effectiveness is dependent on the material readiness of its ships. It is essential that the programming mechanism for surface ship maintenance account for all required repair work and the relative risk associated with resource allocation, especially during this era of reduced defense spending. The Maintenance Requirement System (MRS) is a tool that appears to accomplish this by defining maintenance requirements, projecting those requirements into the future, and assessing the risk of not fully funding maintenance requirements in terms of degraded mission capability. This thesis examines MRS, current and future issues that impact MRS, and the similarities between MRS and performance budgeting.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Maintenance Requirement System (MRS), Performance Budgeting, Availabilities, Severity, Probability, Risk, Maintenance Requirements, Defining Requirements,
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION WOT.

96 16. PRICE CODE

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

II. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

Of THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT

ted
NSN 7540-01-280-5500

Unclassified

Unclassified

UL
Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)
Prescribed bV ANSI Std

139-'1

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

A COMPREHENSIVE

ANALYSIS O1 THE

MAINTENANCE

RZQUIRBN NT SYSTEM

by
Michael Andrew Palmer Lieutenant Commander, United States Naval Reserve B.A., University of Illinois, 1981 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 1993

Author:

Mi

1i A. Palmer
L Principal Advisor

Approved by:

= Larry R. Jon

/6aiaR.

Apple, Chai o/n

Department of Administrative Sciences

ii

ABSTRACT The Navy's efficiency and effectiveness is dependent on

the material readiness of its

ships.

It

is essential that the

programming mechanism for surface ship maintenance account for all required repair work and the relative risk associated with resource allocation, defense spending. especially during this era of reduced is

The Maintenance Requirement System (MRS)

a tool that appears to accomplish this by defining maintenance requirements, and assessing projecting those requirements into the future, the risk of not fully funding maintenance This

requirements in

terms of degraded mission capability.

thesis examines MRS, MRS, and the

current and future issues that impact between MRS and performance

similarities

budgeting.

oAeGs8lon For

WTIES

rPA&I

DTTC TAB
JUntr~n, ncaed

DTI C Q LTL ,_.

L L

'.

.. .

By _
Di TAvallijbilit7 toles
st

AvAi il sp

sp

eci aa

/or

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION A. B. C.

........

1 1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

........... .....

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... METHODOLOGY .

. . . ..................

2 2

II.

BACKGROUND ON MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT SYSTEM A. B. BUDGET ENVIRONMENT PRIOR TO MRS .... MRS MECHANICS BREAKDOWN ............... 1. 2. Phase One: Phase Two: Defining Requirements .
. .

4 4

........
.

7 8 12

... ...
.

Projecting Requirements

3.
C.

Phase Three:
Analysis
. .

Managing Risk:
. . . . ............

Sensitivity
13 . 16

REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE: TO THE READER . . . . .

SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION
. . . . . . . . . . .

1. 2.
3. 4.

Add Alts/Pkged Effects ..... Tailor Shipsheets

Assess Funding Cuts.

..........

.. 17 18

.............
. ........... ........

.18
. 19

Tailored Shipsheet Report ....

5. III.

System Administration Menu ...

CREDIBILITY ............

........
. . .

.. 19
. 32

CURRENT ISSUES:

A.

MRS REPRESENTATIVE AVAILABILITIES AND THE CURRENT OPNAVNOTE 4700 NOTIONAL MAN-DAYS:
DIFFERENCES .
.
....................

34 38

B.

ADVANCE PLANNING AND FARM-IN/FARM-OUT BAM

FACTORS
. . . . . . .................

iv

1.

MRS and BAM Factors: Current Data .

. . .

Current System
. . . . . . . .

.
.

39

2. 3.
C.

Problems With Calculating AP and FIFO From

.

. 39

User Group Recommendations ...

........
.

.. 41
. 42 45 45

IMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY IN MRS VERSION 2.0 .

. . . . .

IV.

FUTURE ISSUES:
A. B. C.

PROJECTING PERFORMANCE AND COMPLI..........

ANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW

ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM: ..... KEY ELEMENTS AND SIMILARITIES TO MRS ..

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND 50 RESULTS ACT ..................... MRS FUTURE ISSUES ........ .
. .....................

...............

53 57 57 58 o59 60 69 70 80 87

V.

CONCLUSIONS A. B. C.

DOES MRS HAVE A HOW IS MRS USED IN THE NAVY? .......... DIRECT IMPACT ON BUDGETING? .... WHAT ARE THE CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING . . . . . . .................. MRS? AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ....... ...........

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D

VALID DATA VALUES AND DATA DERIVATION . . ................ GUIDELINES . MRS DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE ............

MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM DATA DEVELOP. ............ MENT SYSTEM (MDDS) GLOSSARY
.. . .

.................. ...................
. . . . . . . ........

LIST OF REFERENCES

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST .

89

1.
A. STATUMENT O

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEM

One of the primary concerns for the United States Navy is obtaining the necessary funding for surface ship maintenance. The Maintenance Requirement System is a recent development and budgeting of funds Navy's ability to part as a

that supports planning,

programming,

for surface ship maintenance. carry out its

The U.S.

assigned missions can be viewed in

function of material readiness.

Acquiring and expending funds

on surface ship maintenance must therefore be effective and efficient. execution is The incremental form of budget preparation and

rapidly becoming obsolete.

Primacy of finding a

solution to the growing federal deficit will cause the defense budget program to be displaced, initiatives taking a "back seat" to rejuvenate to domestic the economy.

designed

Executive agencies will be aggressively competing for scarce resources. Within the Department of Defense, similar

competition between (surface, aviation,

the Navy's primary warfare communities and submarine) exists and has provided

impetus to improve budgeting for operational readiness. Recent pieces of legislation passed by Congress attest to the importance of this topic, specifically, The Chief

Financial Officers Act of 1990.

Although the primary purpose

of the legislation is the improvement of financial accounting

systems within the federal government, beginnings Additionally, (S.20) would of a The greater Government focus

the Act includes the on program and results. Act

Performance

Results

initiate a new form of accountability

within

government programs through the use of performance budgeting techniques. Act is not Although The Government Performance and Results the primary area of research, the Maintenance

Requirement System (MRS) in the legislation. later in the thesis. B.

has several key elements called for

These common elements will be addressed

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS This thesis documents the Maintenance Requirement System.

It

begins with an examination of the budget environment that when MRS was developed. it Then it describes the

existed

mechanics of MRS.

Finally,

explores current and future

issues related to MRS. questions. 1. 2. 3. 4.

C.

The thesis focuses on the following

How is the Maintenance Requirement System used presently

in the Navy?

Does MRS have a direct impact on budgeting? What are the issues relating to the current and future issues of the Maintenance Requirement System? What areas are recommended for further research?
MBETODOLOGY

Basic data for this thesis was obtained from existing Navy instructions, notices and policy manuals on budgeting, 2 MRS

User's Group training materials,

field interviews,

and the

general body of academic literature. in four major steps: 1.

Research was conducted

Interviews with Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) (SEA915/935), American Management Systems, Inc. (AMS) executives, Commander Naval Surface Force Pacific (CNSP) (N-4) Examination of each phase involved in MRS mechanics by perusal of official documents, supplemented by interviews Evaluation of the role of MRS in the budgeting process Evaluation of the role of MRS as a performance budget in light of current legislation. The resulting research provides a comprehensive examina-

2.

3. 4.

tion of the Maintenance employed in Memorandum

Requirement

System and how

it

is

the surface ship maintenance Program Objective (POM) development and budget process.' This

research also explores MRS's future application in performance budgeting. Recommendations for potential areas of further

research may be found in the concluding chapter.

'POM is specific programming guidance derived from Defense Guidance (DG) handed down from the Secretary of Defense to each of the service secretaries. 3

II.

BACKGROUND ON MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT SYSTEM

Chapter

II

provides the background

on MRS.

Section A the

discusses the budget environment. three phases of MRS mechanics.

Section B describes

Section C illustrates a system

demonstration through a representative example. A. BUDGET ENVIRONMENT PRIOR TO MRB In the past, surface ship maintenance managers used a

derived or notional man-day number multiplied by current manday cost to develop the POM. the funds necessary to In turn, this figure represented support specific mission areas

2 delineated by the National Maritime Strategy.

This method of resource allocation was inherently flawed. Funds requested are a function of total man-days and cost for scheduled maintenance work. are static predictions. Therefore, POM numbers produced

As alternative funding recommenda-

tions are generated as part of the iterative programming and budgeting process, the specific impact of under-funding

surface ship maintenance could not be determined using the traditional notional or "fixed" number approach. Since the

POM figures are static predictions and the impact of funding cuts indeterminate, justification of funds requested in the

Maritime Strategy (NMS) is the Secretary of the Navy's input to the Secretary of Defense's Defense Guidance. The current NMS is titled "From The Sea."
4

2National

POM has become difficult. This problem is need for financial restraint [Ref. and cutback 1] that, in

compounded by the in The Navy and

Department of Defense. The

resulting problems

meant

an

increasingly

constrained fiscal environment,

POM surface ship maintenance

representatives did not possess sufficient evidence to show the impact of proposed program or budget increases or cuts. When asked how a ten percent funding cut would affect

maintenance accomplishment, Surface Type Commanders, using the traditional notional approach, responded with the only answer available: [Ref. 2]. We will accomplish ten percent less maintenance

Due to the program and budget competition from both the submarine factors, and aviation communities in the Navy, and other

a disproportionate share of future funding cuts may This is especially the

be allocated to the surface community.

case when the impact of resource cuts cannot be quantified in specific terms. For example, if a budget cut were to be administered to an explanation offered might

the naval maintenance community, be that it

is more important for a ballistic missile submarine

or an aircraft carrier to remain operational than a frigate or destroyer. Cold War, This may no longer be the case with the end of the but until now the Soviet Union has shown no The

significant sign of reducing its military capability.

Soviet

threat

was

critical

variable

in

determining

the

National Maritime Strategy, which in turn effects POM. By using notional figures it for the surface cuts, would have been unreasonable community the not to expect to justify

ship maintenance due to

funding

primarily If

inability

proposed POMs.

the surface ship community continued to be a gradual slip in

assessed funding cuts on a yearly basis, maintenance dollars would result.

To prevent the likely results of dwindling maintenance funds, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)
3

Code

915

was

directed by Admiral Reimann (then OP-03)4 to: Develop a process for surface ship maintenance budget preparation and justification that will identify funding required...and assess the impact of funding below the requested level [Ref. 2]. Include adequate funding in budget request to meet system readiness objectives and identify the readiness impact of failing to provide the requested funding [Ref. 3]. These directives, POM and budget and coupled with lessons learned from past challenged of the the current budget

battles, the idea

environment, System (MRS)

Maintenance

Requirement

was created.

The early stages of MRS process development came from the Availability Planning Improvement Process
3NAVSEA

(APIP - a process

is part of the shore based infrastructure responsible for executing the overhaul and maintenance schedule, established by the CNO, at a naval shipyard or a private shipyard under the jurisdiction of The Superintendent of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP).
4After the Department of the Navy reorganization this is

now N86. 6

used extensively

in

the

submarine

maintenance

community).

This process assigned risk to the deferral of work within the maintenance planning process. The original intent of APIP was regard to mission and expanded to

to help overhaul planners manage risk in readiness. This procedure was modified

address the new directives.

The concept of the Maintenance

Requirement System was initiated.

B. MRS NECENNICS BREAKDOWN

The Maintenance

Requirement System

(MRS)

is

a computer MRS

software program designed to run on a personal computer.

may be run in a stand-alone or network (multi-user) environment. For the most efficient results, it is recommended that

MRS operate on the following hardware/software: 1. A 100% IBM-AT compatible microcomputer following minimum configuration:
-

with

the

80386/33 MHZ (recommended) 640K RAM

Hard disk or file server with at least 20MB free space. (LAN environment [Ref. 4) First,

2. 3.

Novell Netware Version 2.1 or higher only)

HP LaserJet or Epson compatible printer. MRS is

principally made up of three processes.

regular maintenance actions need to be determined which must be satisfactorily completed while a ship is its in overhaul for

safe and reliable operation during the following operating A fundamental knowledge of this process is 7 necessary

cycle.

to understand the next two steps because this is

the foundabased.

tion upon which the Maintenance Requirement System is Second, required maintenance actions need to be

forecast

accurately over the POM years to ensure adequate funding is programmed to execute requirements. Third, given that

insufficient resources will result in program and budget short falls, the potential impact of these program short falls needs to be identified and articulated with respect to the ability of the surface Navy to carry out its assigned missions. 2)
1. Phase One: Defining Requirements

[Ref.

The maintenance

first

step

in

MRS

is

to identify

all in

of the

actions

required

by a given ship

order to

achieve operational goals.

The total maintenance requirements

that are assembled and engineered by Planning & Engineering For Repairs & Alterations (PERA Surface) 5 and presented to the Type Commander (TYCOM) loosely defined as for authorization and assignment can be fixed and variable inputs. [For an 5]

expanded discussion of the planning process please see Ref. The fixed inputs are comprised of time

directed

technical requirements (i.e., preventive maintenance actions such as weight test or hull painting), standard shipyard

routines (i.e., alterations

docking / undocking, waste removal) and ship

-

(SHIPALTS

jobs

relating

to

safety

or

to assist with overhaul and major availability work package development for designated ship types. 8

5Chartered

environmental protection compliance or design improvements). These inputs are less likely to change and therefore more [Ref. 2)

predictable for planning or programming purposes. The variable

inputs consist of maintenance

actions

based upon the actual condition of the equipment found during an extensive shipboard inspection program conducted during the availability planning process. The scope or amount of work

identified through inspection is variable and therefore more difficult to program for over the POM. (Ref. 2]

The fixed and variable inputs are compiled by PERA to make up the Preliminary Ship Alterations and Repair Package (SARP)6. PERA then adds the man-day estimates [Ref. and 2) in the their

respective rates to form the Proposed SARP.

Both fixed and variable maintenance actions

form of the Proposed SARP are presented at the Work Definition Conference (WDC)
7.

During the WDC, the Type Commander screens activity level (0 - ship's maintenance

the entire work package to the appropriate based on capability and capacity: force), intermediate (I ship

organization intermediate

activity (SIMA) authorizes

or depot (D - shipyard).

The Type Commander actions based on the Proposed

or defers specific maintenance

available funding.

Upon completion of the WDC,

6Displays the ship's total work package showing all work that has been identified, screened to the various repair activities and authorized for accomplishment or disapproved.
7 Held

availability performed.

approximately six months in advance of the for the purpose of authorizing work to be 9

SARP becomes the Authorized SARP,

which defines the scope of [Ref. 2]

work at the beginning of the availability. The ship enters its executed.

availability and that work is then

Growth and new work are experienced and captured in SARP at the end of the avail-

the form of the Completion ability.

The Completion SARP, together with information about

the material performance of the equipment during the follow on operating cycle, is analyzed by PERA and NAVSEA engineers.

The results of this analysis are fed back into the planning process for similar ship classes through updates in the Class Maintenance Plan(CMP)/Long Range Maintenance Schedule i.e., variable input) and Time-Directed Requirements (LRMS(i.e.,

fixed input).

The Completion SARP combined with equipment

performance data make up the basic building blocks for input into MRS. [Ref. 2]

The actual process doesn't appear to conform to the intentions noted above regarding the use of the Completion SARP. The reason is two fold. Number one, the first version

of MRS utilized the only available data in creating representative SARPs. availabilities: the three most recent Authorized

Growth and new work were incorporated into the data information collected from Emergent (RATAs) Restricted
8.

base using

Availabilities /
8 RA-is

Technical Availabilities

Number

an availability assigned for the accomplishment of specific items of work by an industrial activity with the ship present. TA-is an availability for the accomplishment of specific items of work by a repair activity, normally with the ship not present, during which time the ship is fully capable 10

two, and more importantly, the TYCOM has to spend repair fund dollars in order to "buy" a Completion SARP from PERA. When

the TYCOM has a compelling need to "turn wrenches" (fix broken equipment), reality is the disparity between [Ref. 6] the ideal process and

understandable.

Utilizing this information as the primary input to the MRS system (i.e., all required maintenance actions needed to

accomplish mission objectives) achieves the task of "clearly defining [Ref. 2] The first data input into the MRS system comes from developing a representative availthe maintenance requirements for surface ships."

the PERA VAX computer in ability.

The information provided includes fixed and variable Ship Work List Item Number (SWLIN) Equipment Identification Code
9,

SARP inputs, day

SWLIN manjob

estimates,

(EIC) 10 , These

numbers, represent

man-days, all

material,

and frequency. actions

inputs to on

required

maintenance

needed follow

accomplish

mission

objectives.

Additionally,

of performing its
9 Ship's

assigned mission.

Work Line Item Number, "SWLIN",is a term used to refer to a specific unit of work defined in the SARP. The SWILN is identified by the four digit SWAB Number, and a one digit number that identifies the reporting level breakdown within each SWAB. **Note "SWAB" stands for Ships work Authorization Boundary. This four digit number identifies specific systems to be worked on in a depot level environment.
IAn alpha-numeric code used in the 3-M system to identify

system,

sub-system,

and equipment
11

in

which maintenance

is

performed.

performance and cost data document the maintenance standards and projected cost of maintenance (Ref. 2] standards required to

achieve mission objectives. 2. Phase Two: The

Projecting Requirements the MRS process is to project

second step in

maintenance requirements over the POM years to ensure adequate funding is programmed to meet those requirements. This is

accomplished by comparing the phase one inputs requirements and respective cost data)

(maintenance scheduled The

to

availabilities and estimated probabilities of failure.

MRS system computes the probability for systems to fail over time using quarterly maintenance (3M Maintenance and

1 and equipment casualty reports Material Management System)"

(CASREP)1 base by

data that tape

has been transferred The MRS system

to the MRS data designates the

diskette.

probability of failure factor as "Pf."

This represents the

numerical value of the "need for repair" per system and can be used as an estimate of the probability of specific systems to fail in the future. [See Appendix A, for a detailed

discussion on the derivation of this value]

Estimated repair

costs are then multiplied by the probability of failure factor

"USystem used throughout Navy for controlling repair, preventative maintenance support which assures maximum equipment operational readiness 3M Corp.
2An expeditious 1 means readiness posture. Advises of personnel, equipment, operational readiness: also

of reporting a diminished combat the operational chain of command material condition which limit alerts logistical commands. 12

Pf.

This then yields an estimate of how often repairs are The MRS system then adds data from the Fleet System Once the

required and their respective cost. ship availability and scheduling Management

Modernization (FMPMIS)
13

Program

Information

via electronic

interface or diskette.

MRS system compiles the scheduling, repair probabilities, and repair cost data, the system can 1. 2. 3. Estimate the cost of required maintenance Project when maintenance must be accomplished Display how the timing of expenditures on maintenance coincide with POM. This accomplishes the second phase of the MRS system: forecasting and justifying the maintenance program and

requesting that adequate resources be programmed to execute maintenance requirements. 3. Phase Three: [Ref. 2] Sensitivity Analysis

Managing Risk:

The third step in the MRS system quantifies the risks to ship operations associated with funding below the level required to accomplish maintenance requirements identified in phase one. The third phase uses information previously

compiled in phases one and two and incorporates new data to achieve its goal. System importance, mission elements,

mission criticality and maintenance strategy designations are entered into the MRS system. [Ref. 1] This compiled

13 FMPMIS-Used

alterations etc.)

to schedule and control the installation of (e.g., ship alterations, machine alterations, 13

information becomes the severity of failure factor (Sf).

The

severity factor indicates the impact on mission readiness when specific equipment is Appendix A, this value] out of commission or degraded. (See

for a detailed discussion on the derivation of The severity factor and the probability factor

are used to compute the impact of reduced funding for surface ship maintenance at the work item level cally, the relative risk (R) (SWLIN). Specifi-

of reducing funds for surface

ship maintenance is

annotated as:

significance of outcome (severity or Sf) multiplied by the likelihood of outcome

R = Sf x Pf.

(probability or Pf)

Application

of this

computational

method

could be

critical given the present constrained funding environment. Chief of Naval Operations FLEET could result of staff (OPNAV), TYCOM's, and the the the

be better off at managing reduced maintenance funds

and predicting if they used

information provided by the MRS system. provide the following risk analysis

The MRS system can within a

information

"shipsheet"14 for a specific availability: 1. 2. Severity of failure if work not done work not done

Probability of failure if

14A shipsheet is

a listing of representative jobs and

associated cost and risk data for a given availability. 14

3. 4.

Missions affected if

system fails

Criticality of affect on mission. The following information identifies the impact of

less than full funding by applying any combination of "cuts" (user specified) to achieve decrement: 1. 2. 3. 4. A = C = U = V = Availability-percentage of one availability Class-percentage across an entire class Uniform-percentage across all availabilities Vertical-defer year. availability to another fiscal

To identify the impact on specific ities,

ship availabil-

the MRS computer ranks each representative job by order Jobs that support high value, critical mission areas The MRS system places a

of risk.

are placed at the top of the list.

dashed line, given a specific level of funding, at some point on the list. accomplished Those jobs located below the line can not be due to projected resource constraints. This

application of the MRS system shows the impact of funding cuts. Maintenance actions affected by reduced funding may be examined using MRS. instituted threat. as a Changes in mission requirements may be of scarce resources or changing

function

This flexibility allows rapid sensitivity analysis to data input to the POM process in surface ship

streamline maintenance. the impact

The management decision process should recognize of various and options. The MRS for system supports ship

programming

budgeting

decisions 15

surface

maintenance so that they may be made with an understanding of the risks involved in making decisions. The operational and

economic efficiency of the decisions within the surface ship maintenance program may be increased as a result of the

information provided by the MRS system.

C. REPRESENTATIVE READER EXAMPLE: SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION TO THE

Once

the user

has successfully [Ref. 7]

initiated

MRS,

logo

screen will appear.

SIR

Is
Ii-----Version 1.0 desiged and developed by
Inc. PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE)QUIT - <fIO)o

f & #-#-II

lI

MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM

American Mamagement Systems, NEXT GLOSSARY - <'fl

-

<ENTER)-

A window will then display prompting for the user's

name

and password.

16

rnR!5
PLeAe enter your user niRMe: Please enter your password:
NEXT GLOSSARY - <Ql> - <ENTER>

SYSTEM XXXXXXX
- <lO>

PREVIOUJS - 4BACKSPACE10 QUIT

After logging-on, the screen will display the five primary functions of the MRS system [Ref.
MRS M R S M A I N

7]:
M E N U 02/28/92

1 - Add ALts/Pkged Effects

2 - Tailor Shipsheets 3 - Assess Funding Cuts

4 - Tailored Shipsheet Report 5 - System Administration Menu

NEXT - <ENTER> GLOSSARY - <fl

PREVIOUS - <RACKSPACE> QUIT - <flO>

1.

Add Alts/Pkged Effects Selecting this option from the main menu allows the

user to add modernization jobs and packaged effects to any shipsheets. For example, if the user has a series of repairs

to accomplish on a number of ships of a particular class, this feature allows the user to tailor all the shipsheets in step [Ref. 6). assign one

Additionally, this function allows the user to alterations and packaged effects to an are

individual

availability.

These alterations

and packaged

effects

17

defined and maintained in class. 2. (Ref. 4]

the working tables for each ship

Tailor Shipsheets Choosing this option allows the user to tailor SWLINs

and associated risk factors within a specific availability. This function provides a means to make adjustments to the cost and risk factors associated with individual SWLINs for a given availability. Beginning with the "Official" versions

generated during the calculate Shipsheet process, the user may save multiple versions of an availability to facilitate 4]

sensitivity analysis and risk assessment. 3. Assess Funding Cuts

[Ref.

This option allows the user to enter across fiscal years. percentage uniformly, Horizontal by ship

funding cuts

cuts may be applied as a class, or by shipsheet.

Vertical cuts may also be applied by moving an availability to another fiscal year. Any combination of cuts may be entered;

however, the following rules of precedence will be applied: Availability cut--> over class and uniform cuts Class cut ---------> over uniform cuts Vertical cut---> applied in combination with horizontal cuts [Ref. 4]

18

4.

Tailored Ihipsheet Report This option allows the user to print the complete

tailored shipsheet in one of the following six sort options: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 5. Risk (descending order) SWLIN (ascending order) Prob of fail (descending order) Severity (descending order) MCC (mission criticality code (descending order)) Cost (descending order). Systea [Ref. 4]

Administration Menu allows the user to access options to and

This option

maintain the reference/working validate shipsheets. However,

tables used to generate access If is dependent

on the

access level defined for each user.

the user does not have

access to a given function, the menu option will not display on the screen. [Ref. 4]

In order to get started, the user selects option 2 on the main menu, the screen is [Ref. 7] Tailor shipsheets. a list What the user will see on in the POM.

of all the availabilities

19

MRS

Availability List

05/11/1992

Select the Availability to Tailor -ull AD 37 AD 38 AD 42 AD 43 AE 28 AE 29 AE 29 AFOL 6 AO 178 AD 179 AO 186 Descriptim. SAMUEL GCNIPERS, FY 1996, P14A - OFFICIAL PUGET SOUND, FY 1996, DPkA - OFFICIAL ACADIA, FY 1997, P14A - OFFICIAL CAPE COD, FY 1996, PkA - OFFICIAL SANTA BARBARA, FY 1997, DPMA -OFFICIAL MOUNT HOOD, FY 1994, PRA -OFFICIAL MOUNT HOOD, FY 1997, PRA -OFFICIAL DYNAMIC, FY 1997, SCO - OFFICIAL MONONGAHELA, FY 1995, PRA - OFFICIAL MERRIMACK, FY 1997, PWA - OFFICIAL PLATTE, FY 1995, PMA - OFFICIAL SELECTION LIST NEXT GLOSSARY
-

Start Date 12/15/1997 10/20/1997 11/04/1996 10/02/1995 10/16/1996 10/04/1993 10/07/1996 11/06/1996 12/04/1994 11/25/19%6 12/12/1994

-(ENTER>

PREVIOUS - <ACKSPACE> QUIT

-

-cl>Scen1)o

<010)

From left to right the user will see Hull Type (e.g., FFG 8) Description (e.g., Mclnerney, FY 1997, DSRA Start Date (e.g., 10/17/96). The user can choose to sort the jobs in the
-

OFFICIAL)

availability in any one of the six methods mentioned below.

M4RS Tailor Shipsheet Select the Sort Order for the Shipeheet Jobs 02/28/92

1 2 3 4 5 6

RISK (descending order) SWLIN (ascending order) PROS OF FAIL (descending order) SEVERITY (descending order) 14CC (descending order) COST (descending order)

NEXT GLOSSARY
-

-4NTER> o

PREVIOUS

<BACKSPACE>

(11)cee

QUIT

010)

20

The

sort method [Ref. 7]

of greatest

interest

is

the risk

ordered method.

Once selected, the screen presents a header across the top portion.

MRS

Tailor Shipsheet

05/08/1992

Availability Title: NCIUMEEY, FY 1997, DSIA - OFFICIAL Repair Activity: UIPSNIPS JACKSUILL Ship Eo: NCINERNEY Ship Class: FFG 7 Null Us.br: FF6 S Availability TmPe: DSIA Nwn-Day Rate: 420.22 sched 1egin Date: 10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997 Total Niwdmys: 32,5V2 Total Cost: 19,405,617 Alt/ Job Edit Prob SSUL iN--NCC-EAI--Nadays----Nateri at-Typ--Note?-Sev--Fai I-Ri sk83711 4 256 D N 0 0 0 9W821 2 1,157 D N 0 0 0 83011 6 164 D N 0 0 0 57011 7 109 D N 0 0 0 8441X 8 0 0 N 0 0 0 85321 13 880 D N 0 0 0 85311 17 266 D N 0 0 0 85711 10 6,463 D N 0 0 0 WIT LIST NEXT GLOSSARY tf1> (Screen 2 of 2
-

(000) Cost2 2 3 3 3 6 7 11

<ENTER)

PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE> QUIT

-

tf10>

The header contains:

-

Ship Name (e.g.,

McInerney)

Repair Activity (e.g.,

SUPSHIPS Jacksonville) DSRA see Appendix A for valid

10/17/96)

Availability Type (e.g., values)

Scheduled Start Date (e.g., Scheduled End Date (e.g.,

01/17/97)

Total Mandays

(e.g.,

32,582)

Total Cost (e.g.,

19,405,617).

[Ref.

7] of

The lower portion of the screen presents a list jobs. From left to right the user is given:

21

ALT/SWLIN (this is a numerical break down of all A help key (F2) displays maintenance tasks. the description for the user) MCC (mission criticality code identifies the relative importance of the system to the ship's missions, see Appendix A for further discussions) (identifies the importance of the maintenance
task: E
=

EAI

Essential,

A = Advisable,

Insurance) discussion) Mandays Material

Typ

(See

Appendix

for

further

(number of mandays for this system maintenance) (material cost for the maintenance item)
(job type: D -- > required R -- > overhead

of this
job, to

allow work package to be performed,

not assigned. repair jobs,

risk is
risk

This field has been modified in assigned. MRS Version 1.1. The new field is called job category (See Appendix A for valid values)
Note? (edit? can change to "Y" to attach a note

to this item. exists)

Sev Fail Risk

An asterisk indicates a note

(Severity of failure) (Probability of failure) (Risk = Sf x Pf)

Cost

(in thousands, the dollar cost of this item). [Ref. 4]

22

MRS Availability Title: Repair Activity: Ship CLass: Availability Type: Sched Begin Date: Total oandays: Alt/ ,SLIU-4ICC Idl#:-s AI 83711 98821 83011 57011 84lX 85321 85311 85711

Tailor Shipsheet

05/08/1992

NCINERNEY, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL SUPSNIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Name: NCINERNEY FFG 7 Null Ntmber: FFG 8 DSRA Nan-Day Rate: 420.22 10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997 32,582 Total Cost: 19,405,617 Job Edit Prab (000) Mteriei-Typ--Note?-4-g sai 1-Aisk----Cost4 256 D N 0 0 0 2 2 1,157 D N 0 0 0 2 6 164 D N 0 0 0 3 7 109 D N 0 0 0 3 8 0 D N 0 0 0 3 13 880 D N 0 0 0 6 17 266 0 N 0 0 0 7 10 6,463 D N 0 0 0 11 EDIT LIST PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE> QUIT - <fl> < Screen 2 of 2

NEXT - <ENTER> GLOSSARY - <fl> L

The items at the top of the list

are job type "D," 6].

depot routines, the "price of admission" [Ref.

For example, scrolling down to SWLIN number 99711 the user can see by selecting help (<F2>) docking and undocking the ship.
MRS

that this SWLIN is 6, 7]

for

[Refs.

Tailor Shipsheet

05/11/1992

Availability Title: NCINERNEY, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL Repair Activity: SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Name: NCINERNEY Ship Class: FFG 7 Null Number: FFG 8 Availability Type: OSRA Man-Day Rate: 420.22 Sched Begin Date: 10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997 Total Nandays: 32,582 Total Cost: 19,405,617 Att/ Job Edit Prob (000) -U LI N---NCC-EAI-Nandays----Nateri aL-Typ--Note?-Sev-Fa i 1--Ri sk-Cost99231 228 10,064 0 N 0 0 0 106 96011 256 3,843 0 N 0 0 0 111 AAAAA 0 132,783 D N 0 0 0 133 96211 304 8,381 D N 0 0 0 136 99311 328 10,068 0 N 0 0 0 148 OXXXX 456 7,501 D N 0 0 0 199 96221 496 37,292 D N 0 0 0 246 99711 295 133128 0 N 0 0 0 257 SNil.P W-IT LIST GLOSSARY NEXT - <ENTERO <f1> PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE> QUIT -"<1O>

Note that there is

not an assigned risk factor.

23

Scrolling

down

still

further

discloses

the

first

repair job, SWLIN number 63421 (flight/hanger deck nonskid). This is the SWLIN with the most risk. [Refs. 6, 7]

MiS

Tailor Shipeheet

05/11/1992

AvaiLability Title: NCINERNEY, FY 1997, OSRA - OFFICIAL Repair Activity: SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Name: NCINERNEY Ship Class: FFG 7 Null Number: FFG 8 Availability Type: DSRA Nan-Day Rate: 420.22 Schad Begin Date: 10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997 Total Nandays: 32,582 Total Cost: 19,405,617 Alt/ Job Edit Prob (000) SWI. IN--CC-4A---Nanday----ateri aL-Typ--Note?-Sev--Fai L--Risk----Cost99311 328 10,068 D N 0 0 0 148 OXXXX 456 7,501 D N 0 0 0 199 98221 496 37,292 D N 0 0 0 246 99711 295 133,128 0 N 0 0 0 257 304 0 0 0 50,150 D N 604 99221 99211 1,086 193,930 D N 0 0 0 650 Emom 1,724 470,081 D N 0 0 0 1,195 63421 2 E 69 5744 I U to0 a5 a5 35 MIT LIST NEXT - <ENTER> GLOSSARY - cfl> <Screen 2 of 2 PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE> QUIT - <cf10>

Scrolling down the list

will reveal that in

general

the probabilities and severities are decreasing. Some SWLINs however, such as laundry and dry cleaning spaces, [Refs. have a low severity and a very high probability. 6, 7]

24

MRS

Tailor Shipsheet

05/11/1992

Availability Title: NCINERNEY, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL Repair Activity: SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Name: NCINERNEY Ship Class: FFG 7 NuLL Number: FFG 8 Availability Type: DSRA Nan-Day Rate: 420.22 Sched Begin Date: 10/17/1996 Schad End Date: 01/17/1997 Total Nandays: 32,582 Total Cost: 19,405,617 Alt/ Job Edit Prob SWL I N---NCC-EA I--NnayS-----Neateri a -Typ-Note?-Sev--Fa I l--I sk31311 2 A 51711 2 A 2 A 11021 54211 2 A A 51311 1 26 103 20,328 R N 47511 2 1 12011 1 A 161 2,572 R N 26 27826 R N 40 65 26 655XX I A 175 UiYDiRY CLEM SPACES EDIT LIST NEXT - <ENTER> GLOSSARY - <>S PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE> 2 SScreen 2 of 2

(000) Cost13 83 660 12 63 64 70 101

QUIT -c10

Others

have

high

severity

and

low

probability

of

requiring depot repairs if lube oil piping. (Refs. 6,

the work is deferred, 7]

such as main

MRS

Tailor Shipsheet

05/11/1992

Availability Title: MCINERNEY, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL Repair Activity: SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Name: NCINERNEY Null Number: FFG 8 Ship Class: FFG 7 Availability Type: DSRA Nan-Day Rate: 420.22 Sched Begin Date: 10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997 Total Mandays: 32,582 Total Cost: 19,405,617 Alt/ Job Edit Prob SIL I N--SCC-EA I ys------Nater ia t-Typ--Note?-Sev-Fai 1-4 i sk6311X 1 A 569 6,139 R N 30 35 11 R N 30 35 11 6311X 2 A 539 59,625 643XX 1 1 308 157,361 R N 30 35 11 76311 1 A 21 385 R N 100 10 10 52211 2 A 18 5,521 R N 100 10 10 58321 2 I 15 21,5" R N 100 10 10 32111 2 1 45 1,798 R N 85 10 9 2621X 2 E 44 9187 It N 88 10 9 4MIN LUME OIL PIPINC DIT LIST PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE> of 2 c Screen 2

(000) ost245 286 287 9 13 28 21 28

QUIT " <110)

The bottom of the list assigned,

are items with the lowest risk (Refs. 6, 7]

for example stowage lockers. 25

MRS

Tailor Shipeheet

05/11/1992

Availability Title: NCINEENEY, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL Repeir Activity: SUPSNIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Name: NCINERNEY Ship Class: FFG 7 Hull Nutber: FFG 8 Availability Tyope: DSRA Nan-Day Rate: 420.22 Sched Begin Date: 10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997 Total Nandays: 32,52 Total Cost: 19,405,617 Alt/ Job Edit Prob (000) SIl N-C---CC-EAl--4ndays------M4ter i al-Typ--Uote?-Sev--Fai t-- i sk-Cost 665XX 1 I 201 26,091 I N 66 10 7 111 2513X 2 I 166 15,971 1 N 60 10 6 86 7 40 10 4 94 I N 1 A 16 52911 2642X 1 1 27 325 It N 40 10 4 12 52611 1 1 68 1,503 R N 40 10 4 30 N 40 10 4 71 52811 1 1 128 16,996 R 1232X 1 1 236 5,759 R N 40 10 4 105 6711X 1 1 19 3180 R N 30 10 3 11 SP EC IA L S.E & MIT LIST
-

4JACKSPACE~QI

-)

10

Screen 2 of 2

QUIT - -)t10> 1

This would be one of the first event of a budget reduction. At this point,

jobs deferred in

the

the user has completed reviewing and If the user were informed of a

updating various SWLINs. pending budget drill, select option 3:

he would return to the main menu and

Assessing funding cuts. of the set of cuts to be enters one of four scope

The user identifies the title evaluated choices: (e.g., TEST) and then

NWS

Assess Budget Cuts Enter Budget Cuts Title Cuts Title: TEST Identify the title of the set of cuts to be evaluated NEXT - <ENTER> PREVIOUS - (SACKSPACE>

05/11/1992

GLOSSARY - <fi> Screen 1 of 4

QUIT -

flO)>

26

C A U

Across a class A specific availability Uniformly across all availabilities

Move availability to next fiscal year. For purposes of illustration, he selects "U". (e.g., 94-99) Next and the

the user specifies the years affected percent to be cut (e.g., The dollars (in 10).

thousands) affected and cut are shown The total effect on each

in the "Pre-cut" and "cut" columns.

fiscal year is shown (in millions of dollars) in the "Pre-cut" and "Post-cut" totals across the top of the screen. [Ref. 7]

MRS Pre-Cut TotaLs (MS) Post-Cut Totals (NS) Dotters Cut (HS) Cut Class/ Sched Scope-utll N----SarttrtU I 1994 331 296 33

Assess Funding Cuts 1995 275 248 28 NOW I / 1996 195 176 1997 496 448 1996 382 344

05/11/1992 1999 439 395

20 so 38 Applied Pct Pre-Cut Cut -Cut FYs---Cut-----$ (000)-S (000)-9-99 10 2120913 212091

NEXT
GLOSSAY " 13,

AENTER

PREVIOUS - -ACKSPACE> QUIT " flO0

SScreen 2 of 4

Six reports show the effect of the cut:

-

Consolidated results Consolidated results

(by: (by:

availability

type)

program element) pre/post cuts)

Consolidated results (by: Mission effects

27

Shipsheet results Cut list/results.

(with cut line) [Ref. 7]

The user selects to consolidate results by program element. Furthermore, he selects all fiscal (Refs. years 6, 71 to be

included in the shipsheet consolidation.

The screen will then display one page for each budget line within the program element. [Ref. 7]

MRS Progrm Elemnt: 24221 Atlantic Fleet RON ullt Avait Start End Mandays FY 1994

PON DISPLAY

FY 1995

CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CD CG

48 51 55 56 58 60 61 64 66

ROMl ROMl RON RON RON RON ROM ROM ROM

09/26/94-05/26195 05/02/95-01/12/96 10/14/97-06/12/96 01/20/96-09/18/96 10/19/96-06/18/99 08/13/97-04/17/96 06/21/99-02/21/00 10/26/96-06/26/99 09/20/99-05/20/00

41,188 41,188 41,186 41,188 41,188 41,188 41,188 41,188 41, 188

24,328,491 24,672,687

The total cost is

listed by fiscal year.

> >),

Scrolling

down to McInerney and moving right ( < ---

the user finds

the dollars for the FY97 DSRA. review (in

Scrolling to the bottom he can

thousands of dollars) the total budget requirement [Ref. 7]

for each year in the POM.

28

FY 1994 GRAND TOTAL OVElUMRA (000) SiN.U RATA (000) LUT PAC Total LANT PAC Total 127,738 89,334 217,072 531,639 517,274 1,048,913

FY 1995

FY 1996

FT

69,255 37,010 106,2 479,663 746,726 1,22.389

367,082 135,946 503,029 624,067 630,196 1,254,264

72 363 435 632 664 1,297

Now the

user wants

to

assess

the

funding

cut

by

examining McInerney's shipsheet with the cut line. out to the "Assessing funding cuts" menu and

By backing selecting

"shipsheet results (with cut line)," he can examine the impact of this 10 percent cut on the USS McInerney's 1997 DSRA. The

screen will display the shipsheet in descending order of risk. [Refs. 6, 7]

"Its
AvailabiLity Title: Repair Activity: Ship Class: Availability Type: Sched Begin Date: SULIN 04211 10011 19211 40711 44621

MCINERNEY,

FY 1997, DSRA -

MCINERNEY, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Name: FFG 7 HuLL Nuber: DSRA Nan-Day Rate: 10/17/96 Sched End Date: _ Mission MCC EAI-MDays 456 128 77 30 30 C N

SWUM Description Progrm Mnagement Temporary Hull Access Compartmnt Testing ENI Survey TEMPEST Inspection

This is the shipsheet in descending order of risk.

Scrolling down the user will eventually come to the cut line. The items above the cut line represent the types of funding if this 10

jobs for which there would be adequate percent cut were made.

The items below the cut line show 29

those types of jobs which could not be funded. the shipsheet data,

In addition to

this screen also shows mission elements Items below the they

affected (see Appendix A for valid values).

cut line will likely have some impact on the mission if are not accomplished. The degree of impact is

illustrated by

a mission criticality code (MCC).

This represents the most

severe CASREP that failure of this equipment would produce. [Refs. 6, 7)

62111 62212 62311 62312 62411 62412 63111 63112 63113 64311 52211 58321 76311 2411X 241X 2621X 3241X

Non-StructuraL BuLkhead NCO Floor PLates Ladders, othe We have scrolled down to Ladders, othe the 10% cut-line. Non-Struc Cto Non-Struc Closures (Non NCO Bilge Painting NOs Interior Painting, Mech MOB Interior Painting, Non- NOB Living Spaces P"0,NCO Sea Water Sprinkling Sy SAFETY,AAW,ASW,ASU Lifesaving (not boats) SmaLl Arm & Pyrotechni Prop. Reduction Geer Prop. Shaft Bearings gain Lube Oil Piping Switchgear & Panels FSO,NOS,NCO SAFETY,FSO,NCO AAW,ASW,ASU,FSO,NOS AAW,ASW,ASU,FSO,NOS NOe (ALL)

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 2

1 1 1 1 I 1 A A 1 1 A 1 A E E E E

46 72 22 51 89 84 539 569 345 308 18 15 21 134 414 44 508

26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 30

MRS will then provide an

impact

statement that For example,

is

specific to the shipsheet being examined.

a 10 percent reduction in funding severely impacts maintenance requirements to mobility, quality of life, and environmental protection. [Refs. 6, 7]

30

MRS

MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM IMPACT STATEMENT (Example) o A 10% reduction in funding severely imqects mintenance requirements related to mobility, quality of Life, and environmental protection.

02/28/92

NEXT - <ENTER> GLOSSARY

-

PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE> QUIT

-

<fl>

<,1O0

31

III.

CURRENT ISSUES:

CREDIBILITY

Chapter III investigates the current issues relating to MRS. Section A looks at differences between MRS man-days and 4700 in notional man-days. Section B examines

OPNAVNOTE

irregularities

man-day costing used by MRS and the BAM.

Section C discusses the latest MRS software enhancements. At the present time, MRS meets the goals and objectives as they are delineated in DoD Directive 5000.2 by projecting ship maintenance requirements and articulating the impact of less than full funding for them. MRS projects requirements listed

in line items P2Fl and P2F2 under the activity group General Purpose Forces: Ship Maintenance [Refs. is 7, 8] in the OM&N appropriation. Ship Maintenance

Putting this into perspective,

the largest activity group under General Purpose Forces.

An average of 34.8% or 1.3 billion dollars of surface ship maintenance are examined by MRS for the POM and the budget on the basis [Refs. 7, severity 8] of of mission priorities and system performance.15

Specifically, the probability of failure and the failure define the risk associated with not

performing depot level maintenance and the subsequent impact on mission performance (i.e., a performance budgeting system). Performance budgeting, in the form of MRS, represents 6% of

tBased on FY 1994 and 1995 figures. "5

32

the OM&N appropriation and 1% of the entire Navy budget for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. With any budget tool, (Refs. 7, 8] credibility is of paramount

importance.

If credibility is called into question the tool The credibility of a performance

may no longer be helpful.

budgeting system is based upon the integrity and honesty of the underlying mechanics/methods [Ref. 9). To facilitate

system development and address problems associated with the mechanics of MRS, a MRS Users Group was organized by the

director of surface ship maintenance at NAVSEA (Code 915) and the membership made up of PERA (SURFACE),both Atlantic and

Pacific fleet, and surface type commander material officers. other members include representatives from the office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV): Division (Platform Maintenance Director Surface Warfare and Director The

Branch N-865X)

Support Maintenance and Modernization Divisions (N-43).

Users group identify, research, and contribute to the system development process. and enhance These strategy sessions solve problems by ensuring MRS integrity and

acceptance

credibility. The 1991. latest first MRS Users Group meeting was held in February with the

There have been eight meetings since then, on 3 March 1993 (Ref. 10].

[See Appendix B for overall

system development time line]

The following sections of this

chapter detail current issues and proposed solutions relating to the utility and credibility of MRS. 33

A.

MRS REPRESENTATIVE AVAILABILITIES AND THE OPNAVNOTE 4700 NOTIONAL KAN-DAYS: CURRENT DIFFERENCES

The December 1992 OPNAVNOTE 4700 contains the man-days used for programmed availabilities (the notional man-days

contained in ship

the 4700 NOTE are derived from MRS for surface and Class Estimating Standards (CES)16

availabilities

for submarine availabilities. used: in the

These notional man-days are Memorandum (BAM) costing

Baseline Assessment

methodology, in FLEET POM submits, and by FLEETs and TYCOMs to set funding caps on availabilities). One hundred nine surface

ship availability types are delineated in the OPNAVNOTE 4700 (e.g., Docking Phased Maintenance Availability-DPMA, Restricted Availability-DSRA,etc.) Only 14 MRS and Docking their

Selected respective

notional man-days.

representative

availability man-days from the 9 October 1992 data-the most current-are reflected in the OPNAVNOTE 4700: another 58 have man-days from February 1992 MRS data and 27 have pre-MRS mandays. Furthermore, MRS treats AD14/37 and 41 ship classes Also, MRS

separately:

OPNAVNOTE 4700 treats them as one.

calculated LCC 19 availabilities based on the past and future CNO schedule (two availabilities per fiscal year). However,

the OPNAVNOTE 4700 contains a footnote which says to consider every two LCC 19 availabilities as one.
16 Created

[Ref.

9]

(In

this

for submarine maintenance planning (both the 687 and 688 class), the Class Estimating Standards (CES) were designed to 1) help naval shipyards control cost 2) standardize the estimating base and 3) aid in budget development. CES does not perform a risk assessment nor does it show the impact of under funding the work package. [Ref. 10] 34

case the MRS man-days 4700).

should be doubled

in

the OPNAVNOTE

These differences give rise to three distinct problems. Firstonce the budget analyst compares the MRS and OPNAVNOTE 4700 man-days, both current loss of credibility could lead to the loss of and programmed funding. Second, MRS impact

assessments may be less useful due to the fact that MRS is starting from different totals than the Baseline Assessment Memorandum (BAM - provides for the costing of the ship depot the BAM

maintenance program for the six year period covered in future years defense plan (FYDP). Additionally, the

identifies prior year expenditure requirement for availabilities from that start one or two years beyond the FYDP). a long-term will [Ref. perspective, budgets for Thirdly, individual (substitute

availabilities credible) data.

be built without 9]

the best

The Users Group discussed and analyzed matters relating to this situation and their implication to the POM and budget. Consensus of the Users Group was achieved on the following points: 1. Publish the next OPNAVNOTE 4700 in September 1993. In

support of this: Prepare the next MRS data by 1 July 1993 The Users Group will review the results of the data development to ensure that the process is producing reasonable and converging man-day estimates (i.e., that the difference between the average Representative Availability man-days of the MRS data sets is declining from year to year) 35

The MRS man-days will be submitted to OPNAV on 1 August 1993 for inclusion of all MRS man-day estimates in the OPNAVNOTE 4700 update OPNAV will coordinate change 9, 10] promulgation with the FLEETs and TYCOMs. 2. [Refs.

The updated OPNAVNOTE 4700 and all subsequent updates

for use in FY96

to the notice would include the caveat "... and latter years ....
"

[Refs.

9,

10]

The intention of this

is to avoid a disruptive budget impact in the current and next years. 3. In the future, new MRS man-days should be distributed If POM development is

only during POM development years. required in an unpredictable manner,

new MRS Representative annually by 1 July and This action attempts

Availability data will be generated

forwarded to OPNAV for PON development.

to ensure that validated program changes coincide with the budget [Refs. recent) 9, 10]. Additionally, all of the latest (most

MRS man-day estimates will be incorporated into the

OPNAVNOTE 4700. To facilitate the acceptance of a periodic update to the OPNAVNOTE personnel in 4700, both of the User G..oup the two POM and consensus process albeit is that require key an

Budget

understanding

fundamental,

conflicting,

development issues:
-

The MRS process is the best way to achieve an honest, credible and defensible POM (i.e., a through understanding of what and how MRS works:including a demonstration of the capabilities of MRS) Since the MRS process hinges upon the feedback of actual condition-based maintenance data, man-days will vary.
36

With regard to the best way to achieve an honest and defensible POM, MRS provides a solid, technically engineered, method to measure the relative risk of not fully funding

surface ship maintenance, performance.

and portrays the impact on mission

However, a "catch-22" is present in the need to

provide a smooth projection of requirements to budget analysts in the comptroller's office (i.e., in the Navy -NAVCOMPTOffice of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). tive Availabilities will have larger and

Initial Representastandard deviations

associated with their data sets, a normal occurrence with any developmental performance budgeting system such as MRS. As

more availabilities (i.e., Completion SARPs) are included into the data base used to generate a Representative Availability, the standard in deviation man-days should be dampened. Therefore, to

variances

(from Representative will decrease. cost

Availability Thereby, in

Representative accurate

Availability) of

more this

reflections

the

(represented

hypothesis in

man-days)

of the condition-based

maintenance

philosophy will be produced. The generated evoke Budget programs execute by spikes and valleys in program requirements system

a developmental in are resource

performance sponsors to in

budgeting

skepticism analysts that budget

and budget

analyst. for and

motivated resources

protect

resources fashion

obligate

a timely basis.

authority

on a steady

Performance

budget systems that do not immediately (within a short period 37

of time,

12

to 36 months)

produce

stable projections

are

subject to failure.

Temporary fixes (such as partial updates,

splitting the difference in man-day differences, or assigning arbitrary percentage factors) to avoid spikes or valleys only accentuate the inconsistencies between the actual budget and a plan based upon feedback of actual expenditures. This may

be viewed as a critical issue related to the success of MRS. The Users Group has reached consensus to resolve other inconsistencies noted as follows: PERA (SURFACE) and Logistics (CNO N43) will jointly determine whether the differences between AD 37 and AD 41 ship classes warrant a separate representative availability Additionally, they will ensure that the historical basis for special availability strategies (e.g., LCC 19) are clearly articulated and consistent in both MRS and OPNAVNOTE 4700. [Refs. 9, 10] The definitive actions/procedures will be discussed at the next Users Group meeting in July 1993. B. ADVANCE PLANNING AND FARM-IN/FARM-OUT BAN FACTORB In October 1992, the Users Group reached a consensus that (MDDS)1
7

the MRS data development

process should develop not but also develop (AP) and Farm-

only the OPNAVNOTE 4700 notional man-days, recommendations for the Advance Planning

in/Farm-out (FIFO)

factors in the BAM.

This would provide an

independent feedback [Ref. 10]

17For

into the generation of these factors.

an in depth discussion of the MRS data development [Ref. 38 12]

process see Appendix C.

1.

MRS and BAM Factors:

Current System
planning (AP) as
" ...

The BAM defines Advance

the

historical percentages of the availability costs associated

with work further package development
.... "

[Ref. (FIFO) as

11] "

The ...

BAM the

defines

Farm-in/Farm-out

historical percentages of the availability costs contracted outside the shipyard for ship systems repair. in FIFO costs are

addition to the yard costs and are considered elective by As a result, FIFO factors are capped at 4%. If a

the TYCOM.

TYCOM chooses to Farm-out greater than 4% of an availability's

work package, it should reduce the man-days accordingly ....
"

[Ref.

11] MRS and BAM factors currently use the following

formulas to price out an availability:

Labor Cost Material Cost AP Cost
-

MD x MD Rate MD x Material Rate AP x Labor Cost

FIFO Cost Total Cost

where: MD

FIFO x Labor Cost Labor Cost + Material Cost + AP Cost + HIFO

Cost
Material Rate (Man-days from OPNAVNOTE 4700)MD Rate - (Manday rate from N80) ($84.00: from N80, same for CVs,SUBs,& SURF)

[Ref. 11]

2.

Problems With Calculating AP and FIFO Prom Current Data The MRS data scatter using current MRS data resulted

in the following: AP ( 0
FIFO (0
-

36%)
13%)

an average of 10%
an average of 4%

39

The average AP factor (i.e.,

10%)

is more than three

times the factor used by carrier and submarine maintenance planners (i.e., 3%). While 10% may be close to the real

average for Advance Planning costs, the BAM definition of AP is narrower (i.e., work package development costs). [Ref. 9]

For example, Advance Planning Tasks for the Phased Maintenance Program (PMP) include 63 distinct activities conducted by six [Ref. in 13]. the disparity between the

independent organizations The problem lies

definition of AP (cost associated with work package development vs. all advance planning tasks) and the derivation of the FIFO factor (specifically the FIFO factor is based upon costs associated with where work was performed [Ref. 10]. vice the actual

maintenance requirement) If

AP and FIFO costs are not accounted for in excess MRS man-days combined with the BAM result in a shortfall.
18

of the current factors, costing methodology

will

The

process of creating man-days for a Representative Availability from historical SARPs will drive the MRS man-days lower in

each iteration of representative availability data development. In other words, work that is contracted out (farmed

out) in excess of the 4% cap will lower the man-days for that availability. Additionally, the 10% average AP factor

18If AP Cost include production work items then MD is lost and if FIFO Cost is capped at 4% then MD is decreased, Total MD for third availability < second availtherefore: availability. ability < first 40

includes labor and material costs that should be represented in the man-days for the availability Prefabrication, (e.g., long lead time just to name a

material (LLTM), few).

3.

Gas freeing,

[Ref.

13]

User Group Reoomuendations

The potential benefits from reconciling AP and FIFO accounting include: For the TYCOM:
-

Eliminate the downward spiral in Representative man-days

Eliminate the potential FIFO penalty

Full cost will be reflected in the completion SARP. For OPNAV:

FLEET POM/BUDGET submissions more defensible

More consistency in MRS year to year

POM correct amount for surface ship maintenance Consistency of POM/BUDGET justification among, TYCOM, & SPONSOR. For PERA: FLEET,

Retain flexibility of TYCOM payments to/via PERA for tasks other than SARP preparation Easier to complete MRS data development process. Fewer factors to screen for lost man-days, simpler reconciliation process. For NAVSEA:

Simpler maintenance data development system (MDDS)/MRS process Ease of defense of and consistency with the BAM Accurate POM should increase probability [Ref. 9] funding for proper repairs. 41 of correct

The User Group has decided on four actions in response to AP and FIFO anomalies. 1. Instead of the current Advance Planning data in MRS, PERA should identify actual work package preparation This will more costs to validate the AP factor. accurately reflect the historical man-days reflected in work package development mentioned in the BAN. Furthermore, PERA should capture and identify all availability costs, including advance planning and farmin/farm-out in the completion SARP. Advance planning costs in the SARP should be identified as one of two This work package preparation or other. categories: attempts to ensure a more accurate reflection of an availability's total maintenance requirement costs. Additionally, this should avoid the possibility of losing track of those costs and inadvertently creating the downward man-day projection during the iterative process of generating a Representative Availability. Farm-in/farm-out cost should be included in man-days and material costs in separate work items of the MRS Representative Availability and not accounted for separately as a factor. This should provide a method of attaching costs directly to the cost driver, giving maintenance to the total granularity additional requirements. Advance Planning costs (except for work package preparation) should be included in MRS Representative Man-days. This too, should help to ensure that actual maintenance requirements are accounted for in an availability and [Refs. 9, 10] reflected in the man-day projections. IMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY IN XRS VERSION 2.0 The MRS project manager from American Management Systems, Inc. has briefed The Users Group on the enhancements currently in the MRS Version 2.0 software ready for the next release. The Users Group concurred with the requirements for the

2.

3.

4.

C.

following: 1. Flexible POM year selection (in version 1.1 the user only has access to the current POM year, with flexible POM year selection the user can tailor shipsheets using 42

the most recent POM data for any year covered in the Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP). The user will be able to look at the impact of Program changes on the current and budget years in addition to the years covered by the PoN). 2. Shipsheets for all future availabilities in FMPMIS (this modification will allow the user to review any availability that is in the FMPMIS data base in a shipsheet format. The user will be able to conduct budget/program sensitivity analysis on any shipsheet. Use of BAM factors for:
-

3.

Advance

funding

(funds

required

for

prior

year

expenditures relating to ship overhaul), Advance Planning (work package development costs), Farmin/Farm-out (this will be zeroed), and Material (only for availabilities with out a MRS Representative Availability, i.e., newly constructed ships placed into a maintenance cycle, for example, MCM 1 AVENGER class and MHC 51 OSPREY class mine warfare ships). This enhancement will establish more consistency between MRS and the BAM. 4. Display SWLIN line item information as an option in Tailor Shipsheets. This option will allow the user to review and modify all the various line items under a given SWLIN, providing additional granularity. Alteration handling:
-

5.

K Alteration (K-ALT) schedules will be loaded from Fleet Modernization Program Management Information System vice manually tagged to each availability. These can be used to call the user's attention to the effect of K-ALTs on other work in a specific availability and help tailor the effect of the KALT. For example a K-ALT may require the replacement of an entire system (e.g., the forward 5 inch MK 45 gun mount on a SPRUANCE DD 963 class) with a new system (vertical launch system (VLS). The user can eliminate maintenance requirements associated with the old system, thereby precluding double counting. Actual D & F alteration estimates can be loaded from FMPMIS and used instead of the MMMMM SWLIN averages. This option will provide a more accurate estimate based on actual D & F alteration experience (learning curves) vice an average of all D & F alterations. (Refs. 9, 10]
43

It

appears that the

ties between MRS

and performance

budgeting have been accepted in the development of the POM by the TYCOMs, FLEETs, Resource sponsor, and Program manager for surf ace ship maintenance. MRS has been recognized and brought

forth to justify the 1994 fiscal year budget by the Office of the Comptroller of the Navy (NAVCOKPT) as a definitive way to
"go...

[define) Baseline Assessment Memorandum

(BAM) require-

ments for maintenance [which) has allowed the surface Navy to specify maintenance requirements by ship class across the FYDP (future years defense plan) [Ref. 14]. However, after

reviewing the current issues and stage of development, (i.e. differences in: MRS and the OPNAVNOTE 4700 man-days, the BAM's (i.e., AP and FIFO) ability to capture the correct costs) , NAVCOMPT may resort to the steady, incremental approach of budgeting based upon their reluctance to support variances that come out of MRS. How can this be defended before

NAVCOMPT?

The answer appears to be to educate them about MRS

and performance budgeting. The fourth chapter outlines the future faces and action by Congress through challenges MRS "The Government

Performance and Results Act" initiate a new form of

(S.20) that would attempt to within government

accountability

programs through the use of performance budgeting techniques.

44

IV.

FUTURE ISSUES: PROJECTING PERFORMANCE AND COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW

The

purpose

of

Chapter

IV

is

to

explore

three

future

issues facing MRS. proposed federal

Section A examines how MRS compares with regulations dealing with performance

measurement

and budgeting called

for under

the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1992.

Section B lays out the

time line for major milestones called for under the Government Performance and Results Act. issue: the proposed expansion Section C examines the last and

of the MRS projection

justification technique to include other surface maintenance resources.

A. ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM: AND SIMILARITIES TO MRS KEY ELEMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs as prescribed in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1992, the building blocks of an effective performance

measurement system are:

Strategic plans, Annual performance plans, Annual performance reports.

[Ref.

15]

1.

Strategic plans are required to provide the starting

point and desired end point or destination in the future in terms of program goals. A strategic plan is necessary to [Ref. 15]

implement the overall organization's mission. 45

MRS is
...

based upon the following strategic goal:

funding in budget requests to meet ....

Include adequate

system readiness objectives [Ref. 3] It understood is and important defined. a 15] high that

and identify the readiness

impact of failing to provide the requested funding

strategic is

goals

be

clearly true in

This

especially rate in

organizations positions.

with [Ref.

turn-over

managerial

For example,

only three out of ten

members of the MRS User's Group have been involved with MRS since its 2. development. Annual performance plans should link daily operations 15]. MRS projects maintenance maintenance for overhauls

to the strategic goals [Ref. costs of scheduled depot

le".el

(i.e., ROH, COH, etc.) and scheduled RATA based upon extensive inspections and the collection of historical maintenance data conducted during maintenance planning. described projecting in chapter II (i.e., By using the processes defining requirements, and managing

requirements

to support budgeting,

risk in a constrained funding environment), achievement readiness. of the strategic goal

MRS supports the ship

of maximum surface

MRS also shows the impact on readiness defined by as a result of a reduction

the mission criticality code (MCC)

to the surface ship maintenance program on any given ship down to the system level of detail. 3. Annual program performance reports provide feedback to

managers, policy makers, and potentially even to Congress and the public as to what was actually 46 accomplished for the

resources

expended-i.e.,

to what extent [Ref. 15]

and how

well

the

original goals were met.

MRS takes into account program performance reports in the form of feedback from the following sources:
-

3M
CASREP

Maintenance and Material Management System quarterly reports

Equipment Casualty Reports

MRMS
INSURV PEB CSA

Maintenance Resource Management System

Board of Inspection and Survey Propulsion Examining Board Combat System Assessment

Emergent RATA
AEC

Unscheduled restricted availability/ technical availability

Assessment of Equipment Condition

Program. These various inspections, reflect how well a ship is commitments. However, it assessments, and reports

prepared to meet its operational must be noted that MRS is used to

project funding for future mai.itenance requirements and the impact of less than full funding. MRS does not reflect the

performance of repair work at a ship yard (public or private). MRS does not take into account the level of training,

experience, maintenance.

or expertise of equipment operators in preventive To imprcve management and budget decision making

the annual performance reports (i.e., outcomes) for ship yard workers manner and ship's such as, force could the be handled work in a different preventive

utilizing

centers

maintenance accomplishment rate (an indicator of how well the

47

crew takes care of a piece of equipment) between failures after re-work for be

and the mean time All program ship, and

by the yard. the ship yard, in an

performance support manner

reports

(i.e., could the

organization) to determine

reviewed overall

integrated readiness

Navy's

mission

(i.e., effectiveness).

The Government Performance and Results

Act asks that annual performance reports include an explanation when goals are not achieved [Ref. 15]. This element of

the annual performance report is not specifically addressed by MRS. However, the reports shown above do provide narrative when passing grades are not obtained (e.g.,

descriptions

Combat System Assessment) or where systems fail to function at desired Board). specification levels (e.g. Propulsion Examining

MRS uses these reports as feedback to determine the

probability of failure Pf and the severity of failure Sf; this quasi-automatic mechanism provides a self correction to MRS projections. The Government Performance and Results Act offers the possibility of waivers for increased managerial accountability and flexibility, and it suggest the need for development of The Committee on Governmental

program performance budgets.

Affairs recognized the limitations placed on federal managers in shifting resources within their programs. Instead of being

accountable for results, managers are accountable for adhering to specific procedures mandated for the program. In other

48

words, managers are evaluated on following procedures, program performance. [Ref. 15]

not on

An example of this problem is where the assigned type desk officer for a given ship undergoing an availability is not allowed to move I level funds (e.g., CIS) funds used by SIMA or

into a depot level account to accomplish non-skid reIn budgeting this might incur a

surfacing on a flight deck.

violation of Title 31 of United States Code (USC) section 1517 of The Anti-deficiency Act and/or a violation of appropriation law, i.e., the use of appropriated funds for other than their 16]. If the constraint implied above

intended purpose (Ref.

were to be relaxed somewhat, better program and cost decisions could be made at the appropriate level, desk officer level. in this case the type

The type desk officer would also be held

accountable for the performance outcome for that repair item, as well as would those who did the repair. Presently, the decision to move resources from one

account to another within a budget activity such as, General Purpose Forces: Ship Maintenance, resides at the Type

Commander staff level and, Commander to be briefed. providing all the reasons

consequently,

requires the Type

Typically,

the process begins with funded

why the work can not be

through the normal account followed by all the reasons why the work is required. (e.g., The process can take from two or three days item) to two or three weeks to

on a TYCOM interest Time is

reach a decision.

a most valuable resource when a 49

ship is to

in an availability. the work,

Even if the

the funds can be acquired of opportunity to

accomplish

window

accomplish the repair may be narrow or shut.

Furthermore, the

federal budget and resource allocation system promotes the "use it" or "lose it" approach to program execution. This

approach does not address the priority of program demands for resources. MRS ranks repair work by the risk and associated Specifically, MRS shows the most

cost of not funding an item.

important work needed to be accomplished at the top of the priority listing followed by repair work with lower associated risk. When a reduction in funding is imposed, MRS draws a

line on the list the proposed impact on

showing what jobs will not be accomplished at funding level. Additionally, in the form MRS of a shows the

mission

readiness

statement

detailing the mission areas degraded by the cut. The preceding analysis indicates that MRS fulfills

some of the intent of the Government Performance and Results Act with respect to many of the key elements that the Act deems necessary for implementation of a performance

measurement system.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

The Government Performance and Results Act is far reaching and will require federal agencies to conduct a top to bottom review of program goal-setting, reporting. performance measurement and

The scope of the task requires careful planning 50

and thoughtful execution. agency and managerial

The ultimate objective is to alter but not to create [Ref. another

behavior,

burdensome bureaucratic information system.

15]

The Act calls for the following time line for implementation: October 1, 1993 10 pilot projects in annual performance plans and reports (FY 1994, This will give the 1995, 1996). Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the opportunity to study the examples and develop guidance for full scale implementation. 5 pilot projects in managerial flexi1995, 1996). (FY bility waivers These five pilots will be among the This will see if 10 mentioned above. incentives will increase the success of implementing better accountability systems. OMB will issue reports to Congress on pilot project test findings. GAO will issue reports to Congress on pilot project test findings. Joint resolutions introduced in both house of Congress, requiring phase-in government wide of the Act's performance goal-setting, measurement and both reporting requirement (note: houses would have to approve the resolution for the statutory mandate to be implemented). Resolution reported : voted on. 1997 All agencies submit 5-year strategic 3 years there (and every plans after), and annual performance plans submit (and each year there after). in pilot projects at least 5 performance budgeting (FY 1998 and 1999). 51

October 1,

1994

May 1, June 1,

1997 1997

July 1, 1997 (approx)

August 1, (approx)

1997

September 30,

January 1998 (approx)

OMB submits Federal Government performance plan with FY 1999 budget (and each year there after). The FY 1999 budget will also show pilot projects in performance budgeting in a performance budget format. All agencies submit annual performance reports for FY 1999 (and each March 31 there after). OMB report on performance budgeting pilot projects. [Ref. 15] Roth, Jr. (R-De) the sponsor of the

March 31,

2000

March 31,

2001

Senator William V.

Government Performance and Results Act stated on October 2,

1992: ... This bill is aimed squarely at the issue of government

performance... the source of much of the public's frustration towards Washington.... For the first time, agencies would have to develop specific goals for program performance, relating to efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, quality, and customer satisfaction.... Agencies would then have to measure and report the results annually to Congress and the taxpayers.... Any goals not met would have to be explained.... This type of reform, a systematic focus on measuring and reporting program results, is spreading throughout State and local governments here, and at the national level in several major foreign countries.... Now it looks like it might reach our own federal government, and not a moment to soon The public is angry about how government performs, and demands a real change in the way Washington does business.... This reform is just such a major change.... [Ref. 17] Roth's legislation implements several of the key ideas and has been co-author

advocated in the book "Reinventing Government," strongly endorsed by David Osborne, 17].

the book's

(along with Ted Gaebler) important topic of

[Ref.

The Act also was an the Committee on

discussion

during

52

Governmental Affairs confirmation hearings for OMB Director designate Leon Panetta in January of 1993 [Ref. C. MR8 FUTURE ISSUES As explained in the beginning of Chapter III, MRS 18).

projected maintenance requirements on average for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 for approximately 35% or 1.3 billion dollars of the total activity group for general purpose forces: maintenance. requirements (ROH, COH) Specifically, MRS projects ship

the maintenance (i.e., overhauls

for surface ship maintenance

and scheduled restricted availabilities/technical (RATA) [Ref. 10]. The remaining 65% or 2.5

availabilities

billion dollars of general purpose forces: ship maintenance not covered by MRS represents the maintenance requirements of aircraft carriers and fast attack submarines [Ref.10].

Representatives of both the aviation and submarine maintenance communities are presently reviewing the applicability of MRS to their respective programs [Refs. 9, 10].

Although MRS projects requirements for regular overhauls (ROH) and scheduled (RATA), for restricted MRS does availabilities/technical not project maintenance (SIMA) jobs, RATA

availabilities requirements repair work

intermediate

maintenance (I)

activity scope e

(i.e.,

intermediate

level

including Contractor Industrial Support (CIS)), or voyage repairs. This is

particularly significant in view

of the changing nature of ship maintenance philosophies (i.e., the move from time-directed 53 repair to conditioned-based

maintenance

and,

moving

further

down

the

spectrum

of

maintenance philosophy, to continuous maintenance). 10] A new policy proposal is

[Refs. 9,

to perform maintenance

just

before an equipment casualty occurs, readiness 100% of the time. flexibility in SIMA, CIS, In

thereby ensuring 100%

practice this would require

repair planning and execution best suited by As resources are maintenance, and

or Emergent RATA capabilities. regular overhauls, phased

shifted

from

scheduled RATA as a result of reduced funding for shore based support infrastructure, requirements the at all and importance levels of of projecting

maintenance (i.e.,

accomplishment becomes

depot,

intermediate,

organizational)

increasingly apparent in the form of operational In other words, as infrastructure SIMA, is

readiness. in an

"right sized" CIS,

effort to cut defense spending, (maintenance budgeting resources like not MRS)

and Emergent RATA a performance ship

currently will

using

format

determine

surface

readiness in the Navy. The MRS Users Group recognizes the potential impact of

moving away from depot level maintenance toward the shorter, more flexible method of repair offered by SIMA, CIS, and

Emergent

RATA called

for under the continuous maintenance

philosophy.

The Users Group also recognizes the potential In an attempt to get a handle on

effect on overall readiness.

the problem, the Users Group asked that NAVSEA Code 915 try to 54

find a way to use MRS and the MRS Data Development System (MDDS) to project and defend Emergent RATA costs over the POM. The results of the research into the Emergent RATA question will be discussed at subsequent Users group meetings. also must decide how to treat jobs initially The

Users Group

screened to the depot but later re-screened to the SIMA due to insufficient depot maintenance funds. agreed whether these costs should The Users Group has not be projected as depot

maintenance requirements with MRS or whether these costs are truly SIMA maintenance requirements. PERA (SURFACE) agreed to

study the magnitude of SIMA work and report the results at the next User Group meeting in July 1993. time, However, in the mean

MRS will not project these jobs as depot maintenance not violated.

requirements to ensure that MRS credibility is [Refs. It 9, 10] remembered that the purpose

must be

of MRS

is

to

project depot (D) level repair requirements. can be accomplished (I) by a SIMA is, by

Repair work that definition, an

intermediate

level job.

The reality is (e.g.,

that there are

many system installations

MK 45 chain gun or Joint that would, under normal But, because

Operability Tactical System (JOTS) circumstances,

be completed at the depot level.

of operational covmitments,

the work must be scheduled during CIS, or ship's

a shorter availability and completed by SIMA,

force in conjunction with the manufacturer's representative. If a system for gathering and projecting these requirements is 55

not developed the end result will lead to the under funding of these alternative maintenance capabilities and the subsequent backlog of maintenance repair work, that led to the development of MRS. i.e., the primary problem

56

V.

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter provides answers to the research questions presented in Chapter I. and whether it Navy. Section A addresses how MRS is used the

has had a direct impact on budgeting in

Section B examines the current and future issues that implementation. Section C points out areas for

face MRS in

further research. A. HOW I8 MRS USED IN THE NAVY? DOES MRS HAVE A DIRECT

IMPACT ON BUDGETING?

MRS

systematically

reports

surface

ship

maintenance

priorities for programming and provides resource justification in three distinct phases: defining requirements, projecting

requirements and managing risk. of funding below the requested readiness, to weigh

MRS also evaluates the impact level in terms of mission

thereby allowing resource managers an opportunity the risk and potential outcome associated with

resource allocation decisions. First, MRS is used by N86 in the POM development process Second, MRS is

for surface ship maintenance cost estimation.

used in the budget development process at the FLEET and TYCOM to set funding caps on the cost of ship maintenance availabilities), both in (i.e.,

budget preparation and execution.

Finally, MRS has also been used in the budget reclama process

57

in

1992 for surface ship maintenance dollars at the NAVCOMPT

level.
B. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING XRS?

A current issue that the architects of MRS are working on is to establish overall system credibility and integrity.

Inconsistencies need to be resolved between: -

MRS man-days and OPNAVNOTE 4700 man-days

MRS and BAM man-day formulation.

This issue has been addressed and the following corrective actions initiated: Revised OPNAVNOTE 4700 update procedures: Current MRS man-days will be incorporated in during only 4700 and distributed OPNAVNOTE development years. Release of MRS version 2.0 enhancements: Eliminates discrepancies in costing and farm-in/farm-out) advance planning factors (i.e. the POM

Increases user flexibility for sensitivity analysis. There are two primary future issues that MRS must address.

First involves expanding MRS capability to include intermediate level maintenance, The second is emergent with RATA, and voyage repairs. legislation that

compliance

proposed

attempts to initiate a new form of accountability within the Federal government through the use of performance budgeting techniques.

58

C.

AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

First, in view of strategic planning in the public sector, how is lines? maintenance being integrated across warfare community Second, What is being done or can be done to improve How integrated should the availability Third, is MRS really projecting Past data on MRS the operating is MRS cost

the feedback for MRS?

planning process and MRS be? the actual

impact on mission readiness? and resultant CASREPs

availabilities

during

cycle could be analyzed and compared. effective?

Fourth,

Do all the savings in the form of resources saved

from budget marks exceed the life cycle cost of MRS or the development cost of MRS? Fifth, can the MRS approach be

applied to other areas (i.e., training, base support, etc.) in the Navy?

59

APPENDIX A VALID DATA VALUES AND DATA DERIVATION GUIDELINES Availability Tybe

Valid Values COH CONV DPMA DSRA ESRA PMA RCOH ROH SCO SRA
Job Categorv

Description Complex Overhaul Conversion Docking Phased Maintenance Availability Docking Selected Restricted Availability Extended DSRA Phased Maintenance Availability Refueling Overhaul Regular Overhaul Service Craft Overhaul Selected Restricted Availability

Valid Values D M 0

Description Depot Routine Modernization Job (valid in Tailored Shipsheet only)

Mandatory Override allows user to

prioritize a particular SWLIN apart from its risk values, causing the job (valid to move to the top of the list in Tailored Shipsheet only) R Repair Job
60

Kission

(NOTE: No mission capability identifier is required for non-shipwork SWLINs such as shipyard routines or advanced planning work.

Valid Values AAW ASW AMW ASU ELW CCC MIW LOG INT FSO MOB NCO SAF ALL Anti-Air Warfare Anti-Submarine Warfare Amphibious Warfare Anti-Surface Warfare Electronic Warfare Command, Control, and Communications

Mine Warfare Logistics Intelligence Fleet Support Operations Mobility Non-Combatant Operations Safety Affects All Missions

Mission Criticality Code (MCC) Valid Values 1 2 3 4 Pisription Failure of equipment would result in C-1 CASREP Failure of equipment would result in C-2 CASREP Failure of equipment would result in C-3 CASREP Failure of equipment would result in C-4 CASREP 61

One of three letter designators is assigned to each SWLIN that categorizes the proposed work as essential (E), or insurance below. (I). advisable (A)

The criteria for each category are shown

Valid Values E

Descrivtion Essential Work

"legislated" work from NAVSEA

(NSTM) Technical Manual technical authority

Class Maintenance Plan

or
(CMP)

other
work

requirements for MCC-3 & 4 systems or equipments

work that can be done only in the

depot
mandatory shipyard routine items mandatory advance planning work items

for the availability A Advisable Work

all other MCC-3 & 4 work

MCC-l & 2 work with high probability

of failure
other justifiable work (e.g.,

habitability requirements) I Insurance Work

MCC-l & 2 work with a low probability

of failure
work accomplished early because its

engineered periodicity does not match availability scheduling (accomplish early rather than late) 62

complete

rework

(including

change

out) authorized in lieu of selective repair because depot capability to deal with growth in scope is limited (where this can be determined on a ship class basis)
work accomplished early because pre-

availability condition inspection combined with material condition trend indicates failure will occur before next scheduled availability

Table A-1 was used for determining values for severity of failure S(f). This table stratifies consequences of failure

into four levels and assigns descending values for severity of failure accordingly: 1. 2. Safety 3. Repair Economics 4. Other

Mission capability

The decision

table (RCM) of

follows logic the

reliability-centered recognizes different the types

maintenance difference of in

which four

importance consequences.

failure

The table is used by first

determining whether the failure the

poses a direct and adverse threat to personnel safety, same entry point used in the RCM decision logic. failure severity is 100. on mission capability further consideration is is is If "No," If

"Yes,"

the consequence of failure next. whether In a this step, or is

considered given to

primary

secondary mission area

involved,
63

whether the effect

complete loss or degradation of the mission area, and whether other systems are or are not affected by the failure

(independent or associated failure). If the failure does not affect personnel safety or ship may still be the type of failure that must be

mission area, it

corrected by the depot or is most economically repaired within the confines of the depot where necessary facilities are close at hand, ship. or where depot capabilities may be brought to the category 3 of the table.

This is

There are other remaining failures which do not affect safety or mission capability and for which there is no

compelling reason for depot repair. Table.

This is category 4 of the

64

PRIORITY 1 2

CATEGORY OF FAILURE EFFECT Personnel Safety ship Mission Capability

SEVERITY FACTOR 100

Effect On Mission Areas Systems Primary/Secondary xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

3

Mission Effect Loss/Degradation xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

Repair Economic.

Effect On Other Yes/No xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 90 88 85 82 78 74 70 66

Failure Requires Depot Facilities For Correction Failure Does Not Require Being Physically Located In a Depot But Requires Depot Personnel or Facilities for Correction Failure Does Not Require Depot Facilities of Personnel for Correction But Work Can Be Done Economically During Assigned Availability in Depot 4
**

60 55

40 Most

Other Remaining Failures

30

To use this table, identify the effect of failure and locate the failure severity value that corresponds to that effect. Table A-1

PROBABLIT
The probability of failure P(f) for each SWLIN represents the likelihood systems or equipments covered by those SWLINs will fail during the period between the budgeted availability and the next scheduled availability when the work If could be

accomplished as a result of work being deferred. 65

the work

can only be done in dry dock, the probability of failure would cover the period between dockings. done during regular overhaul, overhaul to overhaul. SRA, however, If If the work can only be would be

the period covered

the work could be done during an of failure would cover the

the probability

period between the SRA being budgeted and the next scheduled depot availability whether it be an SRA, DSRA or ROH.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING 8(f)

AND P(f)

1.

Redundant Systems:

In order to take the most conserva-

tive approach,

treat severity and probability separately for For severity, assume that all redundant For probability, individual

redundant systems.

equipments in a system fail simultaneously. use the probability of the most

significant

equipment failure.

2.

Distributed Systems:

Distributed systems fall into four electrical distribu-

basic categories:

hull and structures,

tion, damage control systems,

and equipment cooling systems.

Each of these categories affects mission areas in significant but not easily identifiable ways. While this presents

problems in determining the severity of failure, the process for determining the probability of failure is process for discrete systems. similar to the additional

The following is

66

guidance for determining severity of failure in systems: a. Hull and Structures:

distributed

Those repairs which are required

to ensure watertight integrity are treated as effects on a primary mission of the ship. All other hull and

structural repairs are treated as effects on a secondary mission. b. Electrical Distribution: Electrical distribution is

treated as a primary mission of the ship. c. Damage Control: Damage control is treated as a primary

mission of the ship. d. Eauioment Cooling Systems: In general, the loss of

equipment cooling is considered a degradation of primary mission. However, with some equipments on some ships,

loss of equipment cooling can cause a loss of a primary mission.

3.

Support and Piping Systems:

In general,

support and

piping systems are assigned a severity commensurate with the degree of degradation that a failure would cause to their

parent systems.

4.

Personnel safety:

The severity factor of 100 is assigned A "personnel safety"

only when personnel safety is involved.

failure is one which harms people directly at the time of the failure and as a result of the failure:
67

for example,

by

spraying shrapnel or noxious fumes. harm people if time, it

If

the failure would only

some unrelated problem takes place at the same For example,

does not deserve this weighting factor.

a combat system failure that permits enemy missiles to hit the ship is not considered an "unsafe" failure for the purposes of depot repair risk assessment, because no repair job can

prevent someone from shooting at the ship. ailure that injures is a watch stander as

A combat system a result of the

failure mode -

considered an "unsafe" failure,

because a

repair job can prevent the failure from injuring the crew.

5.

Level of Repair:

Failures which do not require depot

level repairs are not given severity codes greater than 50.

68

APPENDIX B MRS DEVELWPME14T TIMELINE

".

olCI*llmilm

WI&o

"

wu

] 3a wIA

1"o

-YO

106ULT

ABSWAGET

___

BUD 41-

-5

SOFWAASIhtN

GROUP

hSj7J

W1U/1

/61

4/.41

/16.

DATAA
DOOMAMDRE

M~W

DATA~
U& WL IrMO~N
1

=7A

~ AA ~
j*,W*I

PAAFO

,AVI

AT

DATAIM

RUV AVAILj

Uvdm

bW 9

94t'p'

A.a.'.'0.

u'. 9i6

M.

A.'&.'

xJ..'Ipo

.. J.';m*%

(A Aw)DU9M

AM."

vsorm69KP~M

APPENDIX C MAINTENANCE UNQUIRMNNTS SYSTEM 9 DATA DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM (NDDS)'

The

Maintenance is

Requirements

System

Data

Development

System (MDDS)

an automated tool which produces Representa-

tive Availabilities for the Maintenance Requirements System (MRS). To accomplish this, MDDS takes historical information The SARP data (SLIS). are used The to

from SARPs, departure reports, and total costs. is correlated to a Standard Line Item Structure reports and total cost information

departure

determine the Final man-days and costs of the availability. These man-days and costs are distributed over the SARP into a SUMMARY file. The SUMMARY File is used to create an average MDDS then historical

for each ship class/ availability type combination. allows engineering review to ensure that the

information is

accurate and consistent.

When this review is

complete, MDDS creates a Representative Availability for each availability type for each ship class. passed to MRS for use in Projecting This information is future maintenance

requirements.

"1 Information contained in MDDS Version 1.0 User's Manual. 70

this appendix comes from the [Ref. 12]

SADBaWd

Figure 1

Data Structure

MDDS Data resides at six levels as shown in Figure 1: 1) 2) SADB and Other Customer: Departure Report: Original SARP line items.

SWLIN level departure reports from the PERA Corporate History Database.

3)

Total Cost: Total Availability Return Cost Data and TYCOM Ledger data.

4)

Line Item SUMMARY File: -

Prorated MRS line items

Correlated SARP line items are rolled up and prorated with the best return cost data

5)

DDT Line Item AVERAGE File: Summary file is

Averaged MRS line items by Ship Class and

averaged

Availability type. 6) MRS Representative Availability:

-

SWLIN level

Sum of Man-days/Material times Frequency of Repair for each SWLIN in the DDT Line Item Average File. 71

Function&
The MDDS import function takes historical SARPs and

Departure

reports

from the

PERA

(SURFACE)

SARP system and

corporate history database and converts them into a relational database format. Prior to running import, the SARP files must be downloaded to the PC and named with the class type, the four digit reference number, For example, a dot, an underscore, and

and the data type.

AD_0001.SA stands for the authorized SARP for The SARP Information menu

destroyer tender reference 0001.

button in the import function will decode this and display the information to the screen. As the SARP is being imported, the line items are divided into two databases. The SADB (SARP Analysis Database)

contains all of the TYCOM funded repairs which were accomplished by the Shipyard or Government Activity. CUSTOMER funded, Database contains all other jobs The OTHER NAVSEA

(e.g.,

not accomplished,

alterations,

IMA screened etc.)

After a SARP is imported, the description of the problem and recommended repair (Block 35) is compared to a standard set of line items (SLIS) through the Auto-correlate process. The

SLIS line items have been defined with keyword uniquely identify the work.

sets which

Synonyms are entered for those

keywords which appear in different forms or as abbreviations. The auto-correlate process checks the Block 35 description for 72

each keyword (or its until a match is match is found,

synonym)

in each SLIS line item key set a key set. left for If no

found for all keywords in the SARP line item is

manual

correlation.

The correlate function allows the user to review each SARP line item and review or select the proper SLIS Line Item it correlates to. There are two main functions within correlate:

Manual Correlate and View Auto-Correlation. Manual Correlate allows the user to deal with SARP Line Items which or were rejected by the automatic Within the correlation the SLIS Manual or its

process, Correlate

uncorrelated

manually. can

function,

the user

change

keywords and synonyms and then try the auto-correlation again. Alternatively, the user can manually choose which SLIS line

item to which the SARP line item should correlate. View Auto-Correlation allows the user to review the

correlation within an availability, with are improperly correlated, Correlate to fix the correlation.

uncorrelate those items

and jump directly to Manual The View Other Availabil-

ities allows the user to review all the line items for one SWLIN across availabilities. This enables the user to check

the consistency of the correlation process. Prorate and Average The prorate and average functions operate back-to-back. First, the prorate function takes the correlated SARP data and
73

distributes the total man-days and material dollars from the chosen source to create the SUMMARY (or Item History)

database. After the SUMMARY database is created, the user is

prompted for an anomaly threshold.

Anomalies are line items

from the SUMMARY database which differ from the AVERAGE line item by more than the threshold amount. defined as a man-day difference, considers material cost). After the user chooses an anomaly threshold, the selected availabilities are averaged together to form the line item AVERAGE database. A note then is added to each existing Thresholds can be

or as a percent (which also

AVERAGE line item detailing the changes made. After change to the the initial SADB prorate or Total and average Costs operation, affect any that To

which

availability type, will trigger a pending proration flag.

clear a pending proration flag, the system administrator must re-prorate change is that ship class/availability minor, type. Unless the the system class/

or does not affect the average, also re-average the

administrator

should

ship

availability type. Caution: A re-average will recalculate all the values in the average database for that ship class/

availability type. captured in the

All previous values will be note. However, all to avoid

significant

rework, 74

perform

functions

affecting

the

proration

before

performing

Tailor Line Items. The prorate to and average the function allows the system will be

administrator averaged,

select

availabilities

which

and the source of proration data to use.

However,

the system will default to those availabilities which meet the criteria specified by the MRS User Group. The system

administrator should be prepared to defend any deviations from these criteria. The criteria are:

All availabilities for the past three years If data is available on less than five availabilities of a given type, are found continue back until five availabilities

Do not use any availabilities more than ten years old. The TYCOM ledger normally will provide the best, most

complete source of proration data. unavailable, is available or if

If

the TYCOM ledger is

a better and more complete source of data then

(such as a SWLIN level departure report),

the system administrator should choose the return cost or departure report options. If no return cost data is

available, the SARP can be processed without proration. processing the SARP without proration, since the

Avoid SARP

estimates historically have underestimated the actual cost of reps.

75

The Tailor Line Items function allows the user to review the averages for type. and each The 5115 line item for a ship is class/

availability consistency

intent of this of the data.

review

to ensure the

accu-acy

Specifically,

planners and engineers should check to see if

the line item

reflects work which could reasonably be expected to occur in the future, and that the SARP man-days and material costs

contain no gross errors. several data. features

The Tailor Line item function has user to review historical

which allow the

The Item History function allows the user to review the SUMMARY database availabilities for each availability of that in the database. From the

line item in type,

or for all

Item History function,

the user can choose to exclude abnormal

jobs from the average or include a broader range of jobs in the average. The View Correlation option jumps to the View

Auto Correlation function and allows reviewing the actual SARP work statements and the correlation. wrong, it If the correlation is

can be changed directly from this

function, without

affecting the proration. Create/Tailor ReDresentative Availabilities and Add P(f) Create Representative Availabilities and Add Probability of Failure (P(f) functions take the results of the Tailor Line Item function and roll them up into an MRS Representative

Availability.

The Tailor Representative Availability Function

76

allows

reviewing

and

editing

the

Representative

Availabilities. A Representative Availability lists the average man-days

and material cost for each Ship Work List Item Number (SWLIN), a system-level breakdown of the work accomplished on a ship. Additionally affected if mission, each SWLIN is annotated with the missions

that system were lost, the criticality of that the system were lost, and

the relative severity if

the probability that the system would need depot-level repair prior to the on is next that scheduled system depot not availability accomplished. projecting if the This future

maintenance information

was

passed to MRS

for use in

maintenance requirements.

The utilities producing

include reviewing and editing all databases, duplicating availabilities to allow

reports,

averaging similar availability types together when actual data is unavailable, erasing SARPs, SARP, recorrelating all or part of a

and various other system administration functions. the From

One of the most critical parts of the MDDS program is Maintain SARP/Departure Report and Total Cost function.

this function, mistakes in the SARP or departure report can be corrected. Additionally, the values entered in Total Cost

function dictate the ultimate number of man-days in the MRS Representative amount of ship Availability, maintenance and therefore in the determine future. the The

funding
77

following calculations are used to determine the man-days and material dollars for proration. TYCOM ledger: Man-days=(IndustrialS +FIFOS +Government WorkS)x (1-Mat'l Fraction)
Industrial Activity Man-day Rate

Material -(Industrial$ + FIFO$ + Government WorkS)x(Mat'l Fraction)

Where: Industrial$ = the total amount paid by the TYCOM to the

primary industrial repair activity.

Industrial Activity Man-day Rate
=

The primary industrial labor, activity repair profit and overhead, (LOP) man-day rate or the average LOP rate for the SUPSHIP.

amount paid by the TYCOM directly to other FIFO$ = the total repair activities. Government Works = the total amount paid by the TYCOM to Government Activities for anything except work package preparation. the portion of the shipyard costs spent on material (different for every SUPSHIP and Naval Shipyard)

Material

Fraction -

Return Costs information: Man-days Industrial Material Where: Return Man-days - the total amount of labor man-days performed by the primary industrial repair act ivty Return Material
-

Return Man-days + (SubcontractS+FIFOS+ GL&M$I x (I-Matui frjtiQnI

Activity Man-day Rate FIFO$ + (Subcontract$ Mat'l Return GL&MS)x(Mat'1 Fraction)

the total amount of material !-osts ir, urrol by the primary industrial repair act ivity

Subcontractors =

the total amount of subcontractor costs incurred by the primary industrial repair activity. The primary industrial repair activity labor, overhead, and profit (LOP) man-day rate or the average LOP rate for the SUPSHIP.

Industrial Activity Man-day Rate =

FIFO$ = the total amount paid by the TYCOM directly to other repair activities. GL&M$ - the total amount of Government Labor and Material spent for anything except work package preparation. Material Fraction = the portion of the shipyard costs spent on material (different for every SUPSHIP and Naval Shipyard)

The MRS data development will be completed annually by 1 July in order to provide the most current input to MRS and the US Navy's Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System.

APPENDIX D GLOSSARY Activity For example, a Describes an organization. An ship, a squadron, a naval station. individual unit or command designated by a five or six figure numeric unit identification code (UIC). Describes the degree of maintenance capacity There are three levels fram and capability. least to most in terms of capacity and capability they are: O Organization-a ship or squadron I Intermediate-SIMA, or tender D Depot-Shipyard APIP Availability Planning Improvement Process (APIP- a process used extensively in the This community). submarine maintenance process assigned risk to the deferral of work within the maintenance planning process. The original intent of APIP was to help overhaul planners manage risk in regard to mission readiness. worked A product of the appropriations bill by the appropriations Sub-Committees through A legally available the Full Committee. authority to obligate the Treasury to make an eventual expenditure. A product of the Authorization through the Armed Services
Provides no funding. Most

Activity level

Appropriation

Authorisatioo

Bill worked Committees.

obviously,

provides weapons Availability A period

for the systems of time

authorization to procure if funded and to pay set aside to perform

entitlements which normally must be funded.

preventative and/or corrective maintenance. 80

CASRUP

Describes a naval message for an expeditious means of reporting a diminished combat readiness posture. Advises the operational chain of command of personnel, equipment, material condition which limit operational readiness: also alerts logistical commands. For example, DD-963 Describes a ship type. SPRUANCE class destroyer, AE-21 SURIBACHI class ammunition ship. Created for submarine maintenance planning the Class (both the 687 and 688 class), Estimating Standards (CES) were designed to 1) 2) control cost help naval shipyards standardize the estimating base and 3) aid in CES does not perform a budget development. risk assessment nor does it show the impact of under funding the work package. Describes standard maintenance requirements The class maintenance for a class of ship. plan can be broken down into two parts 1) the Long Range Maintenance Schedule (LRMS-i.e., variable input) and 2) Time-Directed Requirements (i.e., fixed input). Describes a Public or Private shipyard. An alpha-numeric code used in the 3-M system to identify system, sub-system, and equipment in which maintenance is performed. For Begins 1 October and ends 30 September. example 15 September 1992 is in fiscal year 92, 5 October 1992 is in fiscal year 93.
commander-in-chief. Atlantic or Pacific fleet Describes (a budget submission activity) a unified command. Describes the Fleet Modernization Program

Class

Class Estimating Standards f lBs)

Class Maintenance Plan (CXP)

Depot KIC

Fiscal year

FLZZT

lPKIS

Management

Information

System--Used

to

the installation of schedule and control alterations (e.g., ship alterations, machine alterations, etc.). 81

Funding FYDP

Method of applying dollars to some activity. The FYDP is a Future Year Defense Program. publication of the decisions that have been approved for DOD's program by the Secretary The FYDP displays the manpower of Defense. (military & civilian) and dollars involved in the approved programs for eight years. Force levels (such as aircraft inventories) are displayed for these eight years plus three additional years. FYDP is organized by major It is updated program and appropriation. five times during the biennial budget cycle. The FYDP for the 92-93 budget covers the following years:

1990
PY NP IBM-AT

21
CY

92
BY

2a
BY+l

94 95 96 97

98 9Q200

+3 YEARS +4 YEARS (FORCES ONLY)

Hewlett Packard. A micro-computer or personal computer (PC) Business by International manufactured Machines, Inc. Local area network. Describes a preventative or corrective repair job. Describes required preventative and corrective
repair jobs that should be accomplished for the ship to perform all primary and secondary mission tasks. A decision information tool that defines maintenance requirements, prolects those and indicates over the POM, requirements impact of less than full fundlnq on mission capability.

LAN Maintenance Action Maintenance aequirmoents

Maintenance Roquirements systems (=3a)

82

Man-day (MD)

Describes input measure to direct labor. For example a job may require 300 man-days which is an estimate of the required direct labor
to accomplish the job.

labor hours (DLH)

-

(300 MD times 8 DLH per MD

Same as 2400 direct

2400 DLH).

MB MRS Mission

Megabyte or 1 million bytes. Megahertz or 1 million cycles per second. Describes an organization's function or job. There are primary and secondary missions for various weapon platforms (i.e., a ship or plane - see appendix A for more information).

National Maritime strategy (UMs) Naval gas Systmas Command

NKS is the Secretary of the Navy's input to the Secretary of Defense's Defense Guidance. The current NMS is titled "From The Sea."

NAVSEA is part of the shore based infra structure responsible for executing the overhaul and maintenance schedule, established by the CNO, at a naval shipyard or a private shipyard under the jurisdiction of The Superintendent of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP). Chief of Naval Operations staff, office c'odes are similar to Joint Chief staff (JCs) NI, N2, etc. vice OP 01, OP 02, atc. Chartered to assist with overhaul and wai)?o availability work package development for designated ship types (i.H , PFRA Surface PYRA CV, PVRA Submarinvi

OPMV

Plaaaaq a aqlimeerimq

For Iepeirs a Alterstions (PEWA

POX

Program Objectives Memorandum-the Department of the Navy's (DON) PON is the Secretary of the Navy's (SECNAV) annual recommendation to the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) for the detailed application of DON resources. Covers the objectives, planned activities and cost of each program. Contains information on the Navy programs planned for a six year period, prior & current year data, and documents changes to the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) proposed by DON. The first two years of the PON will later be changed into the budget that is submitted to the Congress. The P0N highlights the first two years of the six years of new data it contains. For example, the information in PON 92-93 (sometimes referred to as P0N 92) will be used as the basis for the 92-93 budget. Also shown in PON 92-93 are the prior and current budget years (90 and 91) and the next four
years (94,95,96, and 97). the following years: P0N 92-93 covers

9091U
PY
Program

92
BY

93_
BY+I

94

95

96

97

CY

NEXT 4 YEARS
broad

Eleven programs currently identify areas of both mission and support

1-Strategic Forces
2-General Purpose Forces 3-Intelligence and Communications 4-Airlift/Sealift 5-Guard/Reserve Forces 6-Rose,:rch and Development 7-Central Supply & Maintenance 8-Traininq,Nedical and Other General Personnel Activities 9-Administrative and Associated Activities 10-Support of Other Nations 11-Special Operations Forces Pregram buMqetiaq Concerned with the output of proqrams. Sets forth what accomplishments can be expected from the resources made available. A subdivision of a proqam. Identifies mission who performs mission. Is a basic building block of the Future Years [)oense Plan (FYDP).
R4

Progrim
3iasts

(F)

RAx RA/TA

Random access memory. Restricted Availability-is an availability assigned for the accomplishment of specific items of work by an industrial activity with the ship present. Technical Availability-is an availability for the accomplishment of specific items of work by a repair activity, normally with the ship not present, during which time the ship is fully capable of performing its assigned mission. Ship Alterations and Repair Package. Displays the ship's total work package showing all work that has been identified, screened to the various repair activities and authorized for accomplishment or disapproved. Describes the amount or size of a job. A listing of associated cost availability. representative jobs and and risk data for a given

OARP

Scope
Ihipsheet

SWAD

Stands for Ships work Authorization Boundary. This four digit number identifies specific systems to be worked on in a depot level environment. Ship's Work Line Item Number, "SWLIN," is a term used to refer to a specific unit of work defined in the SARP. The SWILN is identified by the four digit SWAB Number, and a one digit number that identifies the reporting level breakdown within each SWAB. Type Commander, for example SURFLANT L
SURFPAC are the surface type commanders for the Atlantic and Pacific fleets respectively.

IMWLI

TTCOM

Type commanders exist for the Aviation and Submarine communities as well (i.e., AIRLANT, SUBPAC, etc.).

85

WDC

Work Definition Conference. Held approximately six months in advance cof the availability for the purpose of authorizing work to be performed. Maintenance and Material Management System. System used throughout Navy for controlling repair, preventative maintenance support which assures maximum equipment operational readiness 3M Corp.

3-X

86

LIST OF REFZRBNCZB

1.

Perkins, John L., Analysis, Masters Postgraduate School,

Surface Ship Overhaul Decision Thesis, pp. 4, 34-46, Naval Monterey, December 1992.

2.

Williams, Robert Luke, "Maintenance Requirements System Brief," paper presented at the MRS User's Group, 1st, Washington, D.C., 15 May 1991. Department of Defense Directive 5000.39 (replaced by DoDD 5000.2 dated 23 February 1991: part A, section 7: 'Mrgrated Logistic Support." American Management Systems (AMS) Incorporated, Maintenance Reguirements Systems User's Guide Version 1.1, pp. 3-1, 5-2, 5-9, 5-18, 5-24, 5-25, July 1992. Dewitt, Amy, Surface ShiD Maintenance Planning Process, Masters Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, December, 1991. Video tele-conference between Kenneth H. Jacobs, (915), (NAVSEA), Robert Luke Williams, (913), (NAVSEA) and CINCPACFLT 13 September 1991. American Management Systems, Maintenance Requirements System (MRS) Version 1.1 keystroke demonstration disk, 1 October 1992. Department of the Navy, Office of the Comptroller of the Navy, Fiscal 1994/1995 Biennial Budget and Revised Fiscal 1993 Buduet Plan, p. 29, 1 October 1992. Seventh MRS User's Group Meeting, MRS briefing document presented at the MRS User's Group Meeting, 7th, Norfolk, Virginia, 3 March 1993. Interview with Grant Soderstrom, MRS project manager, American Management Systems, Inc., and the author, 3 March 1993. Chief of Naval Operations UNCLASSIFIED Letter Ser. N433F/2U599537, Subject: Ship Depot Maintenance Baseline
Assessment Memorandum (BAN), 21 October 1992.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

87

12.

American Management Systems, Inc., Maintenance Data Development System (MDDS) User's Manual Version 1.0, pp. 2-2 to 2-8, 7 May 1993. Naval Sea Systems Command, Phased Maintenance Program Advance Planning Project Report, NAVSEA Code 9316, pp. 213, 2-17, & 4-1, 25 November 1987. Department of the Navy, Program Budget Decision (PBD) Reclama, PBD No. 008, PBD subject: Ship Maintenance, Issue Title: Restricted/Technical Availabilities (RATA), 22 November 1992. Roth, William V. Jr., The Government Performance and Results Act (S. 20), Report No. 102-429, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, pp. 14-19, 29 September 1992. Interview between Professor Lawrence Jones, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, and the author, 31 April 1993. Roth, 1992. Bill Senator (R-De): press release, 2 October

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

Telephone conversation between John Mercer, minority counsel on the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the author, 25 April 1993.

88

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 1. Defense Technical Information Center Cameron Station Alexandria, Virginia 22304-6145 Library, Code 52 Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93943 Professor L. R. Jones (Code AS/Jn) Naval Postgraduate School Monterey California 93943-5000 Professor Jerry L. McCaffery (Code AS/Mm) Naval Postgraduate School Monterey California 93943-5000 Mr.Kenneth Jacobs Surface Ship Maintenance Office Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters Washington D.C. 20362-5101 Lieutenant Commander Michael A. Commanding Officer Naval Reserve Center 1300 Teege Ave. Harlingen, Texas 78550-5363 (913/915) 2

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Palmer

89