In January, I will be attending the AIAA SciTech Conference in Grapevine Texas (next to the Fort Worth airport). The paper I will be presenting at that conference is "First Steps..." in implementing a model for complex systems sustainment.
Just to tease you and get you to come to SciTech to hear my presentation, here's the introduction to my paper:
USTAINMENT managers and their teams would
benefit greatly from a practical management model that describes the core
activities they must perform for effective and affordable management of their
complex systems.
This paper is written for the leader who has spotted the
historical trend to long-lived complex systems and realizes that they are
working in an organization responsible to sustain a complex system. This person
may be motivated to use this model, but be at a loss as to where to begin. This
individual will most likely not have sufficient positional authority to simply
declare that everyone must use this model. But this is actually a position of
strength. Simply enforcing it as an edict will not yield any benefit.
Management support and team support is essential for success. Implementation by
edict will be seen as selling a product you never owned to begin with, that is,
yet another management scam. For the model to become a permanent part of the
organization’s culture, this support must be earned by executing it and then
celebrating its successes.
Refer to my paper
[i] from
AIAA’s SciTech 2016 for details of the model. It describes the method used to
keep ICBMs a viable deterrent by considering the warfighter’s mission, the
definition of the system, and the system’s readiness factors such as
reliability and availability. It goes on to describe a method to observe the
system, identify risks to sustainment, and how to mitigate the risks with
sufficient lead time to satisfy the warfighter. Key enablers of people,
process, and technology are discussed. It points out that the novice’s anxiety
over the disconnect between warfighter needs and organizational funding is
understandable and revealing. It is the sustainment organization’s task to
close that gap, not simply expect requirements to arrive with funding. And the
sustainment risk management model is key to mounting a campaign to get the
funding. The model demands some hard work, top skills, and courageous leadership
to be successful. But successful and affordable sustainment cannot occur
without it.
The SciTech paper suggested that the model could be applied, not
only to any weapon system, but to any complex system requiring sustainment. (Sustainment
of non-complex systems would find costs outweigh benefits when applying the
rigor and discipline of this model.) So another paper
[ii]
by the author and Kugler, presented at AIAA Space 2016, described how this
model could be applied to one category of complex systems, commercial space.
The author has also presented this model at an Internet of Things conference in
Provo Utah, authors a blog on the subject, and proselytizes the model in other
ways as well. When the model is applied outside of weapon systems, “warfighters”
are “operators”. And “government funding sources” become “commercial funding
sources”. But the model remains pretty much the same.
The Space 2016 paper also presented a short discussion on why
this practical model is needed now: Complex systems are becoming more common
and they are expected to live longer.
This sustainment management model is practical in that it is a) directly
applicable to the sustainment of complex systems employed today; b) integrated, that
is, internally consistent; c) easily called to mind on the fly; d)
self-improving; and e) constant, that is, unaffected by changing public laws,
regulations, and management fads.
However, it is merely a model. That is, it is an idealized
concept, albeit based on decades of practical experience. In response to a
question at AIAA’s Space 2016, I responded that this management model is very
much like Camelot: a idealized place or time. Or if the reader prefers, it is
Plato’s “shadows on the cave wall” that reflect some idealized reality that
exists somewhere, but only its shadows exist in our world. Like Camelot or
Plato’s Shadows, the closer it is followed, despite the forces acting against
it, the more ideal the outcomes. Unfortunate activities such as “management by
crisis” are avoided, funding is more sure, and the warfighter (or operator) is
happier.
An apparent oxymoron like “practical model” must have a practical
approach to implementation to be taken seriously. To be practical, the approach
must take into account the organization’s current path to better sustainment
management, the implementer’s sphere of influence, and the forces acting
against its implementation.
Since the risk identification function touches and influences all
the other aspects of this management model, it is the best place to start. It
can be used to assign a risk to poor system observation, create the information
needed to create projects to mitigate the risks, tutor the team in relevant readiness
metrics, and generally instill a devotion to the mission. Questions of “what is
sustainment”, “what is included in my complex system”, and “why process
discipline?” will repeatedly be raised, and hopefully answered, at risk management
meetings.
This paper begins with a review of the standard definitions and
an overview of the model. It then discusses in each subsequent section,
evaluating the organization, advice to 3 types of leaders, and forces the
implementer should anticipate. The conclusions section expounds on how to tell
that the approach is working.
[i]
Vono, Charles, “Fundamentals of Weapon System Sustainment”, AIAA SciTech 2016,
January 2016
(available at growkudos.com)
[ii] Vono, Charles
and Kugler, “
Application of a Weapon
System Sustainment Model to the Space Industry” AIAA SPACE 2016, September 2016
(available at growkudos.com)
