Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

steps to improve the application and tailoring of specifications and standards. The U. S. Army Development and Readiness Command, the Chief of Naval Material, and the Air Force Systems Command established procedures and issued instructions to their subordinate commands for conducting, reviewing, and reporting tailoring activity.4,5,6 Concurrently, the Armed Services Procurement Regulations were revised to mandate the tailoring of specifications and standards (ASPR 1-1201 (a)) and the feedback of contractual changes affecting specifications and standards (ASPR 1-1201 (e)).

"The concept of tailoring contractual requirements to satisfy system requirements is not new. It is basic, good management."

DMSSO also initiated a series of briefings with heads of the various system commands to review their methods of implementing specifications and standards application policies. A program of on-site visits and discussions was initiated with the DoD components and program managers to determine the degree to which the services were implementing the new policies and to view first-hand the difficulties that were encountered.

The information gained from these visits and other related activities made it evident that policies governing the application and tailoring of specifications and standards should be more clearly defined and specific responsibilities assigned to DoD components and program managers. Consequently, on April 9, 1977, DoD Directive 4120.21, "Specifications and Standards Application," was issued. This directive requires all DoD components to establish specific, continuing management controls over the utilization of specifications, standards, and related technical data in the acquisition process to assure that they are properly applied and

4 U. S. Army Materiel Command Letter, September 25, 1975, subject: Elimination of Nonessential Contractual Requirements of Specifications and Standards in RFPs and Subsequent Contracts.

5 U. S. Naval Material Command Letter, October 7, 1975, subject: Specifications and Standards Application.

6 U. S. Air Force Systems Command, AFSC Regulation 800-25, "Application of Military Specifications and Standards to DoD Procurements," June 12, 1975.

tailored to reflect the minimal, essential requirements for the particular system. In addition, the new directive specifies that existing management review boards assure that tailoring is accomplished, that records are maintained as to the degree of tailoring accomplished, and that feedback is requested from potential contractors during the solicitation stage.

Tailoring Philosophy

The concept of tailoring contractual requirements to satisfy system requirements is not new. It is basic, good management. At the outset of any new defense system development program, it is not practicable to define and describe all technical requirements down to the last detail which ultimately will be required for production of the system. The development of the definitive detail into the system specification is a progressive, evolutionary process which continues throughout the development and into the production phases of the program. At every major milestone in program development, reviews are conducted to ensure that all aspects of system requirements have been or will be adequately addressed. All military specifications and standards which enhance the success of the program are incorporated into the system specification and associated statement of work.

"Certain categories of specifications and standards, either by their structure or misuse, display a tendency to drive contract costs unnecessarily. These are typically non-end-item oriented in that they define procedural techniques."

In the past, this evolutionary process focused on military specifications and standards as a whole unless major deficiencies were found within required standardization documents. The detailed challenge of individual requirements to detect redundant, unnecessary, or untimely demands contained within essential specifications is typically not addressed.

The current DoD emphasis on specifications and standards not only expands upon previous practices but focuses on specific, formalized tailoring and application. This involves four

[graphic][subsumed]

basic steps (Figure 1). A degree of caution must be exercised in achieving the desired balance between performance and life cycle cost. While it is essential that specifications and standards be applied in a prudent and costeffective manner, essential operational capability requirements must not be sacrificed.

The process described is particularly applicable in the selection and use of nonproduct specifications and standards in a given materiel acquisition program. On the other hand, product specifications such as those for parts, material, components, and equipments are not as susceptible to tailoring when selected for use in a materiel acquisition, since they have been developed around a specific set of design or performance characteristics. The process of tailoring the requirements contained in the product specification would normally be accomplished during the development and promulgation of the document, independent of a specific acquisition program. For that reason, the decision regarding the use of product specifications in materiel acquisitions is normally a matter of adopting it in full or rejecting it completely. This does not mean that product specifications cannot be tailored for use in a particular acquisition program; they can and should be when conditions warrant such action.

Improving Control

The investigation conducted by the Defense Science Board task force highlighted the need for closer management attention on controlling the format, content, proliferation, and application of nonproduct specifications and standards. The defense standardization program is commodity-oriented and defined by federal supply classes. The noncommodity-oriented stand

ardization documents (those not fitting within specifics FSCs) had been somewhat neglected, resulting in overlapping, repetitive documentation and voids. To correct this problem, the task force recommended that a comprehensive, top-level management program be initiated which would identify specific management standardization areas; integrate all ongoing projects in these areas together with their objectives, schedules, and required resources; and define future necessary projects and requirements for improving documentation control.

The task force developed an initial listing of nine DoD standardization areas needing immediate attention (Figure 2).

"The current DoD emphasis on specifications and standards not only expands upon previous practices but focuses on specific, formalized tailoring and application."

In December 1976, the Defense Materiel Specifications and Standards Office assigned to various lead-service activities the centralized management responsibility for developing DoD program plans to accomplish interservice standardization of appropriate documents. For each of the assigned areas, the lead-service activities are required to prepare, coordinate and provide DMSSO with a five-year standardization documentation program plan to:

• Identify existing military documents and related data item descriptions.

Figure 1. Basic Steps in Specifications Application

Selecting those documents that may have application to a particular acquisition program.

• Identifying from these the ones that have specific application.

Tailoring each document to include only the minimum necessary requirements in the solicitation or contract.

Specifically tailoring these requirements to support the particular system during acquisition and life cycle ownership.

• Assess the status of these documents with respect to current military requirements and the state-of-the-art.

• Highlight voids in document requirements. Plan for deleting unnecessary requirements, eliminating duplication, and consolidating specifications, standards, and related documents.

• Restructure and develop specifications and standards for cost-effective application.

DMSSO also expanded the list of areas needing improved management attention. These included such nonproduct-oriented disciplines as nondestructive testing and inspection, thermal joining of metals, soldering, electromagnetic compatibility, and long-haul communications. A reliability standardization document program plan was approved by the Defense Materiel Specifications and Standards Board, and draft program plans were developed for nearly all of the remaining areas.

"While it is essential that specifications and standards be applied in a prudent and cost-effective manner, essential operational capability requirements must not be sacrificed."

In conjunction with the emphasis placed on restructuring specifications and standards to make them more conducive to selective application and tailoring, the concept of sectionalization was introduced. In simplest terms, this promotes the construction of standardization

Figure 2. Standardization Areas Requiring Management Emphasis

• General design requirement specifications. Environmental requirements and test methods.

• Reliability and maintainability.

• Quality control.

• Human factors and safety.

• Documentation.

Configuration control.

• Integrated logistic support.

• Packing, packaging, preservation, and transportation.

documents to simplify the tailoring process by specifically grouping all mandatory requirements, specifically identifying optional requirements, ranges, variables, and the like, and structuring each requirement to be independent of any other requirement in the document. The purpose and objective of each separately structured requirement are defined together with a statement of how it should be utilized in acquisition programs. This sectionalization approach has been utilized successfully on such documents as MIL-STD-202, "Test Methods for Electronic and Electrical Component Parts," and MILSTD-810, "Environmental Test Methods," and the expansion of the concept and its application to other standardization areas is being fostered.

Program Assessment

Results from major defense system reviews conducted by the DMSSO have been encouraging. Because of the DoD emphasis on specification tailoring and selective application, flexibility provisions were incorporated into the solicitation and contractual packages for major acquisition programs such as the Navy's Electronic Warfare Suite and the Army's Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Subsystem (SINCGARS) and Advanced Attack Helicopter programs.

Competing contractors for the EW suite and the AAH were provided with considerable design latitude during the development of their system specifications. In issuing the RFP for the prototype EW suite development contract, the Naval Electronics Systems Command clearly specified mandatory operational performance requirements. Many of the military specifications and standards cited in the statement of work, however, were provided to the contractors to be used as technical guidelines. In a similar vein, the AAH competing contractors were encouraged to submit waivers, deletions, and alternatives to specifications and standards cited in the government-prepared system specification which the contractor felt were cost-effective and appropriate.

The SINCGARS program extended the specifications and standards flexibility provisions to include contractual latitude in the submission of technical data. Offerors were requested to propose alternative data items, cross-referenced to stated requirements, with justification and

[graphic][subsumed]

cost estimates for the Army Electronics Command's evaluation.

Progress is clearly being made in improving the climate of specifications and standards application, tailoring and control. A comprehensive program has been initiated to control and coordinate requirements cited in managementoriented documents. The gulf between specification preparers and specification users is being narrowed. Flexibility, judgment, and contractual latitude have been introduced in the application of specifications, but there is still room for significant improvement. The leadership of managers at all levels is needed to educate and motivate both government and contractor personnel in the continued, cost-effective development and application of specifications and standards. PMJ

LESTER FOX is Director of the Defense Materiel Specifications and Standards Office under the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics). In that position, he administers the Defense Standardization Program with responsibility for policies and procedures relating to the development, maintenance, and cost-effective application of specifications, standards, and related engineering documents.

Mr. Fox has been a federal employee for over 28 years. Throughout his career he has worked to establish uniform specifications and standards between government and industry, and has published numerous articles on standardization.

JEFFREY S. ALLAN is currently a staff engineer at the Defense Materiel Specifications and Standards Office under the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics).

Before joining the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 1976, Mr. Allan served in the Defense Contract Administration Services Region, Boston Regional, as a value engineer.

Mr. Allan holds a B.S. degree from Boston University and has done graduate work at Northeastern University.

DEPARTMENT

OF DEFENSE

SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS

A-Z

OASD (MRA &L)

Operational Influences on Avionics Reliability

Despite the much-publicized horror stories about avionics equipment unreliability, the average level of the field operational MTBF achieved for Air Force avionics equipment is 51 percent of that required by contract when compared by the same failure definitions and time base.

Experienc

Ixperience has shown that the reliability performance of U. S. Air Force avionics equipments in the field does not generally agree with the predicted or demonstrated values. In recent years logistic support costs of such equipments have become increasingly prohibitive; hence, an increased interest in identifying the causes of the differences, as well as a requirement for better predictive methods for estimating field operational reliability. 1,2,3,4

An underlying principle connecting the required, predicted, and demonstrated mean time between failure of avionics equipment is that each index attempts to measure the same parameter; namely, the inherent reliability of the equipment. Certainly some disparity among these indices is expected due to the different procedures that are employed to generate them. The required MTBF is established by consideration of mission requirements, costs, pre

by George A. Kern
Program Manager
Hughes Aircraft Company
Culver City, CA

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense.

vious experience, and so forth. The predicted MTBF is an analytical assessment of the inherent reliability based on equipment design characteristics, while the demonstrated MTBF assesses inherent reliability on the basis of the failure and operating-time experience of a specific sample of equipment under controlled laboratory test conditions. The field MTBF, on the other hand, is an assessment of the achieved operational reliability of the equipment in actual operation.

In principle, therefore, the four indices should be reasonably alike since they are measures of the same parameter. In practice, however, it

1. S. Miller et al., "Research Study of Radar Reliability and Its Impact on Life Cycle Costs for the APQ 113, -114, -120, and -144 Radars," ASD-TR-73-22, Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, April 1973.

2. B. Swett, "Avionics Reliability Study-Phase II," Air Force Systems Command, Andrews Air Force Base, MD, March 1974.

3. A. Burkhard et al., "Environmental Effects on Reliability and Maintainability of Air Force Avionics Equipment," AFFDL-TR-74-113, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, August 1974.

4. J. Nelson et al., "A Weapon-System Life-Cycle Overview: The A-7D Experience," Headquarters United States Air Force, Washington, DC, October 1974.

« PoprzedniaDalej »