DTIC ADA534794: Hull Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Standardization Program

4.3 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
DTICfhas determined on 01/ lO /c?fl/f that this Technical Document has the
Distribution Statement checked below. The current distribution for this document can be
found in the DTICf Technical Report Database.
d
f/J DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
] © COPYRIGHTED. U.S. Government or Federal Rights License. All other rights and
uses except those permitted by copyright law are reserved by the copyright owner.
I | DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT B. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies
only (fill in reason) (date of determination). Other requests for this document shall be
referred to (insert controlling DoD office).
] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies
and their contractors (fill in reason) (date determination). Other requests for this document
shall be referred to (insert controlling DoD office).
] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D. Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense
and U.S. DoD contractors only (fill in reason) (date of determination). Other requests shall
be referred to (insert controlling DoD office).
] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT E. Distribution authorized to DoD Components only (fill
in reason) (date of determination). Other requests shall be referred to (insert controlling
DoD office).
] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT F. Further dissemination only as directed by (insert
controlling DoD office) (date of determination) or higher DoD authority.
Distribution Statement F is also used when a document does not contain a distribution
statement and no distribution statement can be determined.
] DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT X. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies
and private individuals or enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in
accordance with DoDD 5230.25; (date of determination). DoD Controlling Office is (insert
controlling DoD office).
DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM
CASE STUB?
Hull Mechanical and Electrical Equipment
Standardization Program
• CO
CM
O
CM
v . •-^
This case study describes how the Navy
is dramatically increasing standardization
of hull mechanical and electrical (HM&E)
equipment across Navy ships, thereby
conserving money, manpower, and time,
while improving the operational readiness
and availability of the fleet.
)N
PROGRAM CASE STUDY
Hull Mechanical and Electrical Equipment
Standardization Program
As shown in Figure 1, two activi-
er ships and had a total inventory of
BACKGROUND
ties—ship construction and conver-
seven or fewer installed units across
1
sion, and scheduled depot
the entire naval fleet.The existence of
In the 1980s, the Navy began exam-
maintenance—generated nearly 90
ining the proliferation of HM&F. APLs and NSNs for nonstandard,
low-population HMc\E components
percent of all new APLs and NSNs.
equipment.Why, for example, was the
Ship construction and conversion
increased lite-cycle tost and reduced
Navy managing multiple unique
alone accounted for 66 percent of the
pumps when a single pump could operational flexibility and availability
new API s. Furthermore, 50 percent
meet the requirements of several ships? to the fleet.
of all 11M&E items (e.g., a unique
Navy managers, faced with the need
In a 1988 study, the Navy found
pump) were installed on three or few-
to reduce operating and life-cycle
that proliferation of allowance parts
costs, are now required to select ship-
lists (APLs)- for like items of HM&E
1. Activities Generating
FIGURE
board systems, equipment, and com-
equipment had reached unacceptably
New APLs
ponents based on total ownership
high levels, causing significant support
problems.The fleet had more than cost (TOC), rather than the initial
acquisition cost alone. Although ini-
180,000 different types of'HM&E
equipment, each supported by indi- tial acquisition cost remains impor-
vidual parts lists, technical manuals, tant, additional lite-cycle factors such
preventive maintenance documents, as manning, reliability, maintainability,
and availability must be considered if
training courses, and training equip-
ment. Moreover, some 8,700 new the lowest practicable TOC' is to be
HMcVE APLs were generated each achieved. Standardization can result
in significant reductions m the num-
year, resulting in the annual assign-
ber of repairable items. Combined
ment of more than 28,000 new
with the deliberate use of common
national stock numbers (NSNs).
Ship Construction and Conversion
items in ship design, standardization
which added to the already volumi-
Scnedu.ed Depot Maintenance
can produce substantial cost savings
nous list of logistically managed sup-
Ml Other
over the life cycle of ships.
ply items.
into the Navy supply support sys- data package. Often, such changes
PROBLEM
tem and less-than-optimum life-
require generating a new APL
The proliferation of HM&E equip-
cycle costs being incurred by the
number in the Navy logistics sup-
ment was fueled by a number of factors:
government. port system.
Obsolescence.
A lanufacturer turnover.
• Lack of engineering awareness and
Many equipment items, especially
The turnover among original
responsibility for life-cycle costs.
electronic items, are subject to
equipment manufacturers is con-
Many working-level engineers
obsolescence due to rapidly
siderable; they go out of business
were simply not aware ot the
advancing technologies that pro-
impacts on logistics support activ- entirely or undergo mergers and
vide increased performance and
ities of selecting nonstandard buyouts. The discontinuation ot a
cost efficiencies. To a lesser
equipment. Moreover, program manufacturing line forces ship-
extent, this also is true with
managers were primarily con-
builders and suppliers to find
HM&E items because manufac-
cerned with the initial acquisition
alternative sources, which often
turers continually improve the
and delivery of the ship rather
results in the introduction of new
equipment, changing the configu-
than with life-cycle costs.
HM&E APLs and increasedTOC.
ration and hence the technical
• Lack of data access.
Engineers lacked the tools to
readily access current and accu-
rate data on the performance,
logistics, and cost of commercial
equipment. They also lacked clear
guidance regarding how HM&E
equipment selections affect logis-
tics and life-cycle costs.
• Acquisition incentives.
Unless contractually obligated or
greatly incentivized to select
equipment based on best life-
cycle cost, the shipbuilder awards
equipment contracts to the low-
bidders or to regional suppliers.
This practice resulted in thou-
sands of new equipment items
being unnecessarily introduced
Reduce, to the greatest extent The Navy's standardization approach
• Navy market share.
The Navy's influence on the possible, the number of sizes and is aimed at the use ot systems, equip-
commercial market has been in types ot equipment that have sim- ment, and components, both within
decline for several years as it ilar functions
ship classes and across ship types, that
downsized the fleet. The Navy's
are standardized to the maximum
Provide for common usage ot
share of the shipbuilding market
extent practicable.' Hence, standardi-
equipment, parts, and materials to
relative to the world market is too
zation is divided into tiers:
promote commonality among
small to induce manufacturers to
weapons systems
• hardship commonality.
make equipment that meets Navy
The first-tier objective is to
Maximize the use ot standard
requirements. The Navy's share of
ensure the use of identic al equip-
design equipment, parts, materials,
the marine equipment market is
ment tor similar functions on a
and processes to lower costs,
significant only for Navy-unique
single ship.
reduce downtime, facilitate inter-
equipment, such as replenishment
changeability, enhance maintain-
• Intraclass commonality.
and fueling-at-sea systems and
ability, and promote commonality
The second-tier objective is to
components and equipment built
attain the maximum level of inter-
Maximize repetitive use of exist-
specifically tor combat systems
changeability of equipment and
ing, reliable, and fully supported
or to withstand strict shock
components by reducing the
equipment
requirements.
number of unique items for like
Maximize the use ot common
APPROACH
functions installed within the ship
publications, manuals, drawings,
class.
training aids, and similar materials
Since the late I'JXOs, the Navy has
• Intrafleet commonality.
Conserve money, manpower,
focused its HM&E standardization
The third-tier objective is to
time, facilities, and natural
program on ship construction and
obtain commonality with existing
resources
conversion.To reduce the unnecessary
supported equipment and com-
introduction of new HMcVE equip-
During the system design,
ponents across different ship class-
ment—in other words, to reduce the
redesign, or production stage,
es within the fleet while meeting
number ot unique or nearly unique
exclude, to the maximum extent
all performance and other
HMeVE APLs—the Navy has worked
practical, equipment that is not
requirements.
aggressively with contractors and
fully supported
Objectives affecting all tiers include
managers ot major ship acquisition
Improve operational readiness and
limiting the range ot different types ot
and equipment procurement pro-
availability of die fleet
equipment and components used and
grams. The Navy established the fol-
Reduce the life-cycle logistics
provisioning tor the maximum use ot
lowing HM&E equipment standardi-
support costs of equipment.
common maintenance, test, and sup-
zation goals:
HM&E Equipment Data
installed in the fleet that warrant the
port equipment and training material
Research System
assignment of an APL number. The
at the minimum total logistics support
majority of previously available refer-
cost.
The Navy's primary tool for standard-
ence systems concentrated on part
To achieve those goals and objectives,
izing HM&E equipment during the
number/stock number relationships,
the Naval Sea Logistics Center's HM&E
1990s has been HEDRS, a collection
but had very little information on the
Standardization OtBce focused on
ot databases and analytical programs.
end-item equipment. HEDRS
two major efforts:
With HEDRS, maintenance, opera-
includes tour databases:
tions, engineering, planning, and
• HM&E Equipment Data
logistics communities can research • Components Characteristics File,
Research System (HEDKS),
HM&E equipment data and resolve which describes form, fit, and
developed in the late 1980s and
emergent or anticipated problems. For
function attributes and is indexed
early 1990s, which provides access
official use only, HEDRS was pro-
by APL number
and insight into the performance,
duced and distributed annually on
• Equipment Applications File,
logistics, and cost data requited to
compact disk and was provided as
which documents where within a
select the right equipment
government-furnished equipment in
particular ship the equipment is
• Navy Standardization Guide (NSG),
ship construction contracts.
installed
a desk guide that summarizes
Now, HEDRS brings enhanced data
• Supportability Database, which
current HM&E standardization
and analytical capability directly to
contains information derived
policies and data and provides
the fleet.Two Navy products, HEDRS
from a manufacturers survey and
templates for developing a stan-
and SeaLink, constitute one web-
expressed in terms of an engi-
dardization program plan.
based product available via a password-
,(
neering support code '
The two efforts address some ot the
4
protected Internet site. HEDRS is
• Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)
key factors contributing to the prolif-
available through the Naval Sea
Database, which reports whether
eration ot HM&E equipment,
Logistics Center home page
notably, the lack of engineering ILS data have been developed for
(www.nslc.navsea.navy.mil) and the
awareness and the lack of data access. the particular equipment.
Navy's Distant Support Anchor Desk
They also moderate the effects of
HEDRS also contains data about
(www.anchordesk.navy.mil), the fleet's
obsolescence and manufacturer
equipment populations in the fleet.
single point of access for technical
turnover. Together, they improve
problems, logistics help, supply ques-
HEDRS has user-friendly features
designers' and engineers' awareness of
tions, and ordnance issues.
that enable users to query, retrieve,
and ready access to equipment TOC
analyze, and store data for specific sit-
databases and tools that provide the
HEDRS contains unclassified infor-
uations. Examples of analyses that can
information necessary to enable the
mation on approximately 150,000
be performed using HEDRS follow:
selection of best-value equipment.
HM&E nondevelopmental items
Feasibility of equipment substitution.
mine the application of specific
The NSG contains several standard-
It equipment replacement is equipment across the fleet.
ization program planning documents,
required, a user can query
including military handbooks, l)ol)
Navy Standardization Guide
HEDRS, using component char-
directives, SECNAV instructions, and
acteristics data of the equipment
sample standardization program plans.
Another critical tool is the NSG.
to be replaced, to find equipment
It also contains standard profile
1 )eve!oped to aid in training and
installed in the active fleet that
reports (SPRs) and an II S cost-avoid-
awareness, the NSG is a simple, easy-
meets the desired specifications
ance package that includes ll.S cost
to-use guide addressing current
and is supported by the original
tables and a cost calculator. I he SPR
HMeVE standardization policies and
equipment manufacturer. This
provides indicators of IIMc\E stan-
data. The NSG conveys the impor-
ability is one of the most power-
dardization by ship, ship class, and the
tance ot selecting standard parts and
ful utilities in HEDRS.
entire active fleet by listing the num-
equipment m the design process. It
ber ot times an APL is used through-
summarizes the policies that support
Identification of potential problem
out the fleet. Managers can use .u\
standardization and organizes the
equipment.
SPR to determine the relative degree
ideas from many documents to help
A user can identify HM&E
of standardization for HM&E equip-
managers better implement standardi-
equipment that is obsolete, obso-
ment used in the fleet.
zation in their programs.
lescent, or foreign-source depend-
ent. Once such equipment is
identified, the user can further
investigate and possibly replace
the equipment.This capability is
essential in helping programs
avoid selecting equipment that
will cause problems downstream.
Application of the equipment.
A user can identity- all HMisH
equipment APLs installed on a
particular ship and can retrieve a
breakdown by equipment cate-
gory (valve), equipment class
(relict valve), or service (main
propulsion boiler safety relief
valve).The user also can deter-
The I IS cost calculator is a repeat-
Amphibious Assault Ships
STANDARDIZATION
able method, validated by the Naval
ACHIEVEMENTS
A study of the construction of the
Audit Service, for evaluating the life-
LHD 1 amphibious assault ship class
cycle costs associated with a program's As a result of its HM&E standardiza-
revealed poor standardization results—
equipment needs. The calculator helps tion program, the Navy has dramati-
only 60 percent of the HM&E equip-
to identify and quantify the life-cycle
cally reduced the unnecessary
ment used in the LHD 1 was already
costs that should be considered in an introduction of new HM&E equip-
in the Navy's fleet inventory at that
economic analysis relevant to the ment in the fleet. In the following
time. LHDs 2, 3, and 4 were built
competitive procurement of function- subsections, we described the
using the same approach—one that
ally interchangeable equipment. The significant achievements in standardi-
relied on monetary incentives to
ILS calculator accounts for the fol- zation that have occurred in two
achieve standardization—and with the
lowing logistics support costs: classes of ships—amphibious assault
same disappointing results.
ships (LHD) and amphibious trans-
• Development and assembly of
port dock ships (LPD)—and in the
It was clear that a new approach
technical documentation
overall fleet.
was needed. So beginning with con-
• Provisioning
• NSN/APL maintenance
Market Research Yields Better Standards
• Training
• Technical manuals
The LPD 17 baseline system description called for a standard
• Installation drawing changes
Navy saltwater strainer—large and cumbersome equipment
that must be manually cleaned, a time-consuming process.
• Configuration control
The logisticians and design engineers conducted market
• Testing
research to select an alternate: a Navy-standard self-cleaning
• Planned maintenance.
saltwater strainer that offers higher operational availability
Given known factors for particular
with full functionality. Cleaning occurs in 30 seconds without
equipment, such as number of parts,
disassembly. The strainer also has a smaller space and
expected life cycle, unit price, and
weight profile. By selecting an alternate standard, the Navy
number of classes of ships receiving
estimates a $12 million cost avoidance for the 12-ship class
the equipment, a program manager
over a 40-year life cycle.
can compare life-cycle costs for inter-
changeable equipment.
struction of LHD 5, and continuing
Table 1. Reduction in HM&EAPLs from LHD 1 to LHD 7
with LHDs 6 and 7, the Navy used
the LHD ("lass Standardization Pro-
Ship
Total APLs Fleet-unique APLs
Class-unique APLs
gram Plan and HEDRS, along with
LHD1
5,143 810 252
monetary incentives, to achieve dra-
LHD 7 193
4,437 36
matic improvements in standardization."
Reduction in APLs
76%
14% 86%
The LHD Class Standardization
Program Plan required the shipbuild-
achieve the maximum level of inter-
manufacturer or through the Navy In
ing contractor to maximize the use of
changeability of equipment and com- addition, the plan required that all
equipment and components on the
ponents by reducing the number of
HM&E equipment have a minimum
following lists (in order of precedence):
unique items of like function installed
of five applications (on one or more
• Navy Standard Design list, a list
in the ship (intraship standardization). ships) throughout the fleet.These
of Navy-wide equipment for
All requests for nonstandard equip-
requirements helped to moderate the
which the Navy has developed a
ment—that is, items not contained in issues of manufacturer turnover and
complete technical data package,
the above three lists—were submitted obsolescence.
including production drawings
to the Navy for approval.The con-
The standardization results for
for manufacturing
tractor submitted quarterly progress
LHDs 5. 6. and 7 were dramatic in
• LHD Class HM&E Supportable reports to demonstrate the degree of
terms of intraship. intraclass, .i\-\d
Equipment List, a list of equip- standardization being achieved during
intrafleet standardization.The number
ment installed on LHD 1 and
the design and construction of the
of new HMc\E equipment items
LHD 2 and fully supported by
ship. These reports provided the pro-
introduced into the fleet as a result of
the Navy or the original equip- gram manager real-time insight into
the construction of these three ships
ment manufacturer the level of standardization being
was significantly lower than that of
achieved and was critical to the suc-
• HMcVE Supportable Equipment
the four earlier LHD-class ships. Table
cess of the program.
List, a list of additional HM&E
1 compares standardization results tor
equipment used in the Navy
The LHD Class Standardization
the LHD 1 and LHD 7 based on
and fully supported by the Navy
Program Plan required that all select- FY02 data. As the table shows, the
or the original equipment manu-
ed HMcVE equipment and associated
number of API s dropped significantly,
facturer.
spare and repair parts be available reflecting a high degree of standardi-
zation within this ship class
either from the original equipment
The contractor also was required to