TOMCAT: A Framework to Assess Obsolescence ...

DMSMS & STANDARDIZATION 2011

TOMCAT A Framework to Assess Obsolescence Management Capability Dr Francisco J. Romero Rojo Prof Rajkumar Roy Mr Stuart Kelly – MoD

August 30th, 2011

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Report Documentation Page

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE

3. DATES COVERED 2. REPORT TYPE

30 AUG 2011

00-00-2011 to 00-00-2011

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

TOMCAT A Framework to Assess Obsolescence Management Capability

5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

Cranfield University,Decision Engineering Centre,UK, 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Presented to: DMSMS and Standardization Conference, Hollywood, FL August 29- Sept 01 2011 14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: a. REPORT

b. ABSTRACT

c. THIS PAGE

unclassified

unclassified

unclassified

17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER OF PAGES

Same as Report (SAR)

19

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

Overview

    

Introduction TOMCAT Development Capability Metrics TOMCAT Validation Concluding Remarks

Shifting the Risk Traditional

Spares Exclusive Upkeep

Spares Inclusive

Spares Inclusive Upkeep

Incentivised Upkeep Cost Reduction

Incentivised Reliability Improvmnt

Availability Asset Availability Service

Asset Availability Service

(On)

(Off)

Capability Capability Service

Capability Service

(On)

(Off)

SUPPORT SOLUTION

As the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) moves across the Support Options Matrix away from the Traditional Support Solutions contracts to Availability / Capability contracts (Performance-Based Logistics), it is essential that MoD has confidence in Industry’s capability to manage the risk of obsolescence.

Obsolescence Management Capability Assessment If the MoD can measure OM capability, they will: • • • •

Be able to improve OM capability across the supply chain. Be able to report on the status of an OM strategy. Provide incentives for a contractor. Ensure the risk is placed in the right place.

How can we do this consistently across Defence? TOMCAT Total Obsolescence Management Capability Assessment Tool

Collaborators Project Sponsored by UK Ministry of Defence

Industrial Collaborators

 BAE Systems  Selex Galileo  General Dynamics  Component Obsolescence Group (COG) Joint Obsolescence Management Working Group (JOMWG)

TOMCAT Development Aim To develop a set of metrics for the MoD which will allow them to measure the current capability in obsolescence management of the contractors

Development • Developed over two years at Cranfield University • 3.5 man years of effort • Phases: • MSc group project • Commercial development • Knowledge Transfer project for professional tool development

• Extensive data collection from the major stakeholders within both MoD and Industry (semi-structured interviews, workshops and document analysis)

Capability Metrics Development Data collection from Industry and MoD Academic Study Mindmap Ranking IIF Study

Classification in terms of Importance, Impact and Feasibility

Capability Metrics Development O. M. Governance Supplier Design for Obsolescence Obsolescence Management Dimensions

Risk Assessment Obsolescence Monitoring Communication Obs. Resolution Process

60 metrics in 7 categories

Capability Metrics Development

How is the impa ct of chan ge to legis lation asse ssed and actio ned as part of the risk asse ssme nt proc ess? [10% ]

How often is the risk asse ssme nt, form ally reval idate d? [20% ]

How is the proc ess to ensu re the accu racy of data for the risk asse ssme nt defin ed? [10% ]

How is the risk asse ssme nt cond ucted to ident ify and imple ment mitig ation proce sses for the obso lesce nce risk? [40% ]

RISK ASSESSMENT How are decis ions from the obso lesce nce risk asse ssme nts, obso lesce nce appr oach selec tions and the deriv ed mitig ation actio ns recor ded on an appr opria te OM risk regis ter? [20% ]

www.cranfi eld.ac.uk

Metrics selection

60 metrics

Workshops

25 metrics finalized

TOMCAT Assessment Model

Project Team OMP A

TOMCAT A

Contract A

Prime Contractor OMP B

Contracts / OMP’s / Others

Supplier

Supplier

TOMCAT C TOMCAT C TOMCAT C

Sub Contractor

TOMCAT B

Contract B

Defa ult Assessments

.. [ RISK ASSESSI'lENT •

J SectionWeight ~

•

~%

.. 1'-letric 4.1 Metr ic

How is t he r isk assessment conducted to identify and implem ent m itigation processes for the obsolescence risk?

Definition

This m etric is intended to validate if an effective risk assessment and m itigation process is in place.

Reg ulatory BS EN 62402 :2007, paragraph 7.1.3 - Obsolescence Managem ent in Com pliance t he context of risk management to paragraph 7.1.5 - Assessment of

. .

..

,.,

r

.

.

Recommend ed OMP, procedu res, reports from an OM risk register Ev idence Relativ e Weights

~

•EJ%

"' Sub qu estion 1

Is t he risk a!>se!>s ment process conducted in accordance with the IEC 62402: 2007 triplet of Impact, Probabili ty an d Cost?

.. Extra question 1

~

Sub qu estion

[ DESIGN FOR OBSOLESCENCE • ] SedionWeight

~

•

140 1% ..___ s a_v_e_ _,] [

Cancel

)

Default Assessments .. [ OM GOVERNANCE • ] SectionWeight •

~

El%

.. Metric 1.1 Metric

How has the MOD defined the appropriate requirements I contractual conditions in order to proacti vely manage the obsolesce nce risk?

Definition

This metric is to evaluate how well t he responsibility for managing the obsolescence risk has been defined contractually or withi n

.

.

. ..

Regulatory JSP 886 Volume 7 Part 8 . 13 Obsolescence Managem ent and I or t he Compliance Commercial Policy Statement Recommend ed Con t ract, Requirement Document Evidence Relative Weights

•

~ ~%

.. Sub question 1

Was an OM specialised involved in developed the init ial OM requirements for the contract.

.. Ext ra question 1

'>

Sub qu estion

[ DESIGN FOR OBSOLESCENCE • ] SectionWeight •

~

f4ol•;. I C

save

~

J[ can; l j

TOMCAT Obsolescence Metrics

70

C \let ~pl kable

IIIHoA· I-as Obsolesce1ce-Nanagement Je-en conside-red a-s p.:nt of t1e-or~anisa:iona st...:.t: gy for ch: xoj:ct?

100 '

L

B

0

wr-at evicenc: s t 1e-r e of an indhlidJel who has che delegated responsit,i it'/ for menagi 1g the ot.so escence ris< co tl"is xoj:ct?

Sectlclt 2

l l lwl-at a rrc:ng: n e nt£ ere. in placs, with

S Jpplier~c), to :nure that t , e. c bcole.c:: r ce rick to the project i£ -n:~rag:c effect ve y?

IIIHoA·ere the-paym: r t .:nr .:.r ge1l: r ts de-finec for che obsolesce1ce-n itigetio1s .:.r d reso uti•Jrs thet .:.re-id: r tifi:c by Supplier(s:P

B

~ot ,\ppli·: •ble

HoA· I"as Obsolesce1Ce-l\lanagement capaJility be:r conside ..ed .: .sa facror for Su:>pl er ev.:.luat on?

80

v112:t :xte.nt is ITOdJiarsatior I cec1r olc•Q'/ transx renc)" applied n tte system? (If s.:>, to vn at ind: nture- leve-1?) :~c rt of

50

ti-c dcjg , process?

20

is th ri-s