EMPHASIZE SUPPORTABILITY EARLY
several logistics-based references such as the Product Support Manager Guidebook, Independent Logistics Assessment—a document used to analyze the support- ability planning of a program—and Army Regulation 700-127 “Integrated Prod- uct Support”. Furthermore, experts and lessons learned helped take the informa- tion contained in the reference documents and tailor which questions should be answered, to better be in line with what projects should be looking for. Example questions include:
• Does this technology require new main- tenance skillsets and levels?
• Does this technology application require facility modifications such as handling, storing, operating or maintaining?
• Is nonstandard test equipment needed for this technology?
• Does this technology require special handling equipment or other enablers to use?
• Does the design optimize the use of common parts and material and mini- mize the use of peculiar or unique parts within the system?
• Does this technology application require standard personal protective equipment for using or maintaining the technology?
• Does the technology power source?
• Does this technology require a humid- ity-controlled environment for storage?
Tese example questions are simple and relatively straightforward but are often overlooked during early design develop- ment. In addition, these questions can be customized to include additional detail for a more specific situation.
require a
The questions contained within the Life Cycle Impact Analysis Tool are all- encompassing and touch on all 12 of the integrated product support elements. Tese questions help drive discussion and identify potential supportability burdens. Te tool takes it a step further, providing a qualitative analysis based on answers to the questions.
Te tool uses the answers to these ques- tions to assess “high,” “medium” and “low” impacts on sustainment. These impacts then help derive associated risks so that plans can be developed to miti- gate, eliminate or track. Te tool provides an iterative process to analyze alternatives for design, to assess risks at each stage of the project and to provide valuable input to life cycle sustainment plans. Te tool
is intended to be ever-evolving, allowing for questions to be refined and customized based on lessons learned.
Tere have been several early successes in the implementation of LOGMAP, the Life Cycle Impact Analysis Tool and support- ability project officers. In one situation, a design review revealed potential issues with maintenance and cleaning and with supply of barrel-shroud components for a weapon system in development. Te supportability project officer identified several implica- tions with the design, recommending that the team explore the use of 3D printing to produce a better geometric venting design of the shroud, which would be easier to maintain and would reduce the need for additional spare parts.
SHOW ME THE MONEY
A Life Cycle Impact Analysis Tool impact summary report at the product support category level. These reports also show the user how assessments have progressed through each iteration as the project goes through major programmatic or technical reviews. (Image courtesy of the Science and Technology Supportability Cell, CCDC AC Logistics Research and Engineering Directorate)
56
Army AL&T Magazine
Summer 2020
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172
