OVERVIEW OF THE Defense standardization Program

OVERVIEW OF THE Defense standardization Program PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 368 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Statutes on Standardization. Public Law 82-436, Cataloging and Standardization Act"Establishes a Single, Unified Standardization Program in the Department of DefenseRequires Standardization of Items Used Throughout DoD to the Highest Degree Practicable Public Law 104-113, National Technology Tr

Download Presentation

OVERVIEW OF THE Defense standardization Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


1. OVERVIEW OF THE Defense standardization Program 1 Briefing covers major aspects of Defense Standardization Program, but does not attempt to address everything we do. It also does not address everything under the purview of the Defense Standardization Program Office.Briefing covers major aspects of Defense Standardization Program, but does not attempt to address everything we do. It also does not address everything under the purview of the Defense Standardization Program Office.

2. Statutes on Standardization Public Law 82-436, “Cataloging and Standardization Act” Establishes a Single, Unified Standardization Program in the Department of Defense Requires Standardization of Items Used Throughout DoD to the Highest Degree Practicable Public Law 104-113, “National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act” Unless Inconsistent with Law or Impractical, Federal Agencies Should Use Voluntary Consensus Standards Federal Agencies Should Participate in Development of Voluntary Consensus Standards, If Compatible with Agency Mission, Priorities, and Resources 2 Logic and good engineering management would suggest that there should be a single integrated standardization program; Sometimes it takes an act of Congress – signed into law in 1952 to address issues arising from the Korean Conflict – too many slightly different items designed to do the same things. NTTAA codifies long-time DoD practice to adopt an use Nongovernment standardsLogic and good engineering management would suggest that there should be a single integrated standardization program; Sometimes it takes an act of Congress – signed into law in 1952 to address issues arising from the Korean Conflict – too many slightly different items designed to do the same things. NTTAA codifies long-time DoD practice to adopt an use Nongovernment standards

3. DoD Policies on Standardization DoD Instruction 4120.24, “Defense Standardization Program” Implements Public Law Assigns Responsibilities for Defense Standardization Program DoD Manual 4120.24-M, “Defense Standardization Program Policies and Procedures” Establishes the Operating Rules for the Defense Standardization Program 3 Instruction implements law; establishes Council; directs compliance with Manual Manual establishes proceduresInstruction implements law; establishes Council; directs compliance with Manual Manual establishes procedures

4. 4 Sec Def ultimately responsible; Delegated to USD(AT&L) – Dr. Ashton Carter Delegated to DDR&E – Zachery Lemnios Delegated to Director Systems Engineering – Stephen Welby Defense Standardization Executive – Principal Deputy to Director SE – Terry JaggersSec Def ultimately responsible; Delegated to USD(AT&L) – Dr. Ashton Carter Delegated to DDR&E – Zachery Lemnios Delegated to Director Systems Engineering – Stephen Welby Defense Standardization Executive – Principal Deputy to Director SE – Terry Jaggers

5. DoD Standardization Leadership 5 Within Systems Engineering we come under Mission Assurance led by Nic Torelli. Defense Standardization Council is chaired by Terry Jaggers Council made up of senior execs from each Mil Dep, DLA, DISA, NSA Council provides overall strategic direction Oversees “hot 110” document decisions from the Mil Spec Reform era Only four cancelled proposed to be brought back: GIDEP – didn’t make it Soldering (Mil Std 2000) – didn’t make it Work Breakdown Structure – approved Space Parts Management – approved DSPO fits under Systems Engineering Specs and standards are key systems engineering process inputs to define requirements. They are key SE process outputs to establish product support baselines and measure compliance They reduce risk and cost in programs They document and communicate lessons learned, interoperability, and technologies across entire sectors to form a common understandingWithin Systems Engineering we come under Mission Assurance led by Nic Torelli. Defense Standardization Council is chaired by Terry Jaggers Council made up of senior execs from each Mil Dep, DLA, DISA, NSA Council provides overall strategic direction Oversees “hot 110” document decisions from the Mil Spec Reform era Only four cancelled proposed to be brought back: GIDEP – didn’t make it Soldering (Mil Std 2000) – didn’t make it Work Breakdown Structure – approved Space Parts Management – approved DSPO fits under Systems Engineering Specs and standards are key systems engineering process inputs to define requirements. They are key SE process outputs to establish product support baselines and measure compliance They reduce risk and cost in programs They document and communicate lessons learned, interoperability, and technologies across entire sectors to form a common understanding

6. Standardization Policy Centralized, but Execution Decentralized 6 Defense Standardization Program is centrally managed, but decentrally executed. DoD-wide policies and procedures all come from one organization, Implementation of those policies, the technical decisions, and the development, maintenance, and management of thousands of specs and standards come from over 100 different offices in the DoD. Defense Standardization Program is centrally managed, but decentrally executed. DoD-wide policies and procedures all come from one organization, Implementation of those policies, the technical decisions, and the development, maintenance, and management of thousands of specs and standards come from over 100 different offices in the DoD.

7. Joint Standardization Boards Support interoperability and improve logistics readiness by promoting enterprise-wide commonality of systems, components, and architectures Current Joint Standardization Boards (JSB) Aerial Refueling Systems Fuze/Initiation Systems Intermodal Equipment Medical Materiel/Equipment Microcircuits and Semiconductors Mobile Electric Power (MEP) Generating Sources Power Source Systems Tactical Rigid Wall, Soft, and Hybrid Shelters Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems 7 JSBs bring together service, agency, and industry experts in technology or commodity areas that transcend our traditional FSC/FSG structure, to develop, document, and implement enterprise wide standardization decisions. Examples of accomplishments: Aerial Refueling has been working on a STANAG and a Tactical Publication to provide standardized abbreviations, nomenclature, and procedures to enable aerial refueling. Intermodal has developed a Mil Std on interface requirements for shipping containers for use on ships, planes, trains, and trucks. Tactical Shelters has established a DoD family of tactical shelters from very small – individual – to large enough to decontaminate a Joint Strike Fighter. Rigid, soft, and hybrid shelters cover challenges of extreme weather, detection, chem/bio agent protection, and blast/ballistic resistance. Mobile Electric Power has established families of portable generators Both Shelters and MEP have waiver processes that are ineffective People don’t know about them; they ask for approval after the fact; they’ve never been turned down.JSBs bring together service, agency, and industry experts in technology or commodity areas that transcend our traditional FSC/FSG structure, to develop, document, and implement enterprise wide standardization decisions. Examples of accomplishments: Aerial Refueling has been working on a STANAG and a Tactical Publication to provide standardized abbreviations, nomenclature, and procedures to enable aerial refueling. Intermodal has developed a Mil Std on interface requirements for shipping containers for use on ships, planes, trains, and trucks. Tactical Shelters has established a DoD family of tactical shelters from very small – individual – to large enough to decontaminate a Joint Strike Fighter. Rigid, soft, and hybrid shelters cover challenges of extreme weather, detection, chem/bio agent protection, and blast/ballistic resistance. Mobile Electric Power has established families of portable generators Both Shelters and MEP have waiver processes that are ineffective People don’t know about them; they ask for approval after the fact; they’ve never been turned down.

8. DoD Relies Heavily on Non-DoD Standards 9000 Adopted Industry Wide Non-Government Standards from 100+ Different Organizations (e.g. AIA, ANSI, ASME, ASTM, IEEE, ISO, SAE, UL) Federal Specifications, Standards, & Commercial Item Descriptions (CIDs) (Prepared by Many Federal Agencies, Including DoD) International Standardization Agreements (Mostly NATO, but also Air Standards Coordinating Committee, American-British-Canadian-Australian (ABCA) Army Standards, and others) 8 While Mil documents remain the core of our program to document military standardization requirements, we use thousands of other documents Over 9000 Adopted NGS plus thousands more – especially IT – non adopted Fed Specs & CIDs for items not unique to DoD ISAs While Mil documents remain the core of our program to document military standardization requirements, we use thousands of other documents Over 9000 Adopted NGS plus thousands more – especially IT – non adopted Fed Specs & CIDs for items not unique to DoD ISAs

9. 1,000s of Commercial and Military Specs/Stds Used in Weapon Systems (Over 31,000) 9 More than half of the inventory of documents used repetitively in acquisition are not military unique.More than half of the inventory of documents used repetitively in acquisition are not military unique.

10. Specs/Stds Are Basic to Weapon System Design, Acquisition, Operation, and Maintenance M-1 Tank cites 5,762 Specs/Stds Apache cites 8,141 Specs/Stds C-5 Galaxy cites 13,338 Specs/Stds F110 Engine cites 2,468 Specs/Stds Tomahawk Missile cites 1,876 Specs/Stds MIL-F-5509 used on 641 Weapon Systems Flared Tube Fitting SAE-AMS7276 used on 505 Weapon Systems High-Temp Low Compression FKM Rubber Fluid Sealing Ring MIL-C-38999 used on 606 Weapon Systems Quick Disconnect Electrical Connector, Environment Resistant 10 This chart simply illustrates how important specifications and standards are to design, development, acquisition, and support of weapon systems.This chart simply illustrates how important specifications and standards are to design, development, acquisition, and support of weapon systems.

11. Standardization Creates Benefits Total Life Cycle Systems Management considerations are incorporated through standards and standardization Interoperability for Joint and Coalition operations is enabled Logistics footprint is reduced Reliability, Safety, Availability, Maintain-ability Increase 11 Standardization creates benefits in a wide variety of areas. These are just some of the most obvious. On the next chart I’ll show a few examples:Standardization creates benefits in a wide variety of areas. These are just some of the most obvious. On the next chart I’ll show a few examples:

12. Standardization Achieves Results Life cycle costs were reduced $80 million dollars by standardizing to reduce parts on the Virginia class submarine from over 100,000 to less than 15,000. Weapons systems integration costs are reduced 40% and fielding of new systems accelerated 1-3 years when Air Force developed a universal interface that transforms the armament integration process from a program centric approach to a capabilities based process. A standard, commercial low voltage power supply in the Patriot Missile increased potential suppliers to 46, increased Mean Time Between Failure 100-300%, decreased procurement costs 30-40%, decreased Repair costs 90%, and addressed diminishing manufacturing source problems. 30,000 NATO troops from NATO nations operate in Afghanistan supported through multiple NATO Standardization Agreements Army launched battery standardization effort to reduce the 350 different types of 1.5-volt to 30-volt batteries, many of which were unique. As a result: Number of battery types went from 350 to 35. Army procurement costs dropped from $100M in 1996 to $75M in 2001. Materiel readiness improved. Army went from 85% stock availability to 90% battery stock availability. Standardizing on longer-lasting primary and rechargeable batteries resulted in higher unit readiness. 12 In the Virginia Class sub example we saved dollars, reduced logistics footprint, and improved reliability through an 85% reduction in part count. On the Precision Guided Weapons data interface saved money and increased availability by shortening fielding time On the Standard Low-Voltage Power Supply we improved competition, reduced both acquisition and repair cost, and resolved a DMS issue 100s of STANAGs are supporting our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan Batteries in the Army study – reduced variety from 350 to 35 at a cost of $10M reduced footprint, reduced cost by more than $40M in 4 years.In the Virginia Class sub example we saved dollars, reduced logistics footprint, and improved reliability through an 85% reduction in part count. On the Precision Guided Weapons data interface saved money and increased availability by shortening fielding time On the Standard Low-Voltage Power Supply we improved competition, reduced both acquisition and repair cost, and resolved a DMS issue 100s of STANAGs are supporting our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan Batteries in the Army study – reduced variety from 350 to 35 at a cost of $10M reduced footprint, reduced cost by more than $40M in 4 years.

13. DSP Challenges/Opportunities Resources to Maintain Currency 9177 documents are 10+ years 2506 documents are 20+ years 392 documents are 30+ years 218 documents are 40+ years MIL-C-7979B, aircraft hydraulic brake cylinders dated 1959 MIL-L-8552C, shock absorber landing gears dated 1965 MIL-B-16747C, high pressure steam boiler dated 1963 MIL-P-17454B, portable centrifugal pump dated 1954 13 DoD policy – and in most SDOs – requires review every 5 years. Services say they do not have resources. While some documents may be just fine at 30 or 40 years old (chemicals), it is hard to believe that for many of these products and processes that technology has not changed since the 50s or 60s.DoD policy – and in most SDOs – requires review every 5 years. Services say they do not have resources. While some documents may be just fine at 30 or 40 years old (chemicals), it is hard to believe that for many of these products and processes that technology has not changed since the 50s or 60s.

14. DSP Challenges/Opportunities Revitalize Systems Engineering-Related Standards Lost Under MilSpec Reform Re-emphasize Parts Management Ensure Participation on Non-Government Standards Committees Important to DoD Make Non-Government Standards Readily Available to DoD Personnel Feb 2009 DSB Report Recommended DoD-wide License 14 Systems Engineering related documents are being promoted for reactivation. Need to examine the issues, develop criteria for where we want to establish single solutions, when we want to document with Mil vs NGS, etc. Early consideration of parts management has made it into guidance. In order to be effective it must make it into policy and it must be checked. Resources for participation in NGS are diminished and diminishing. Without participation we risk changes that are unacceptable for Defense use. Access to NGS is expensive. Program offices are calling out NGS without the ability to see them; Labs, QA organizations, design offices, etc. cannot afford access. DSB recommends central license – long run savings expected to be more than 50%, but up front resources required.Systems Engineering related documents are being promoted for reactivation. Need to examine the issues, develop criteria for where we want to establish single solutions, when we want to document with Mil vs NGS, etc. Early consideration of parts management has made it into guidance. In order to be effective it must make it into policy and it must be checked. Resources for participation in NGS are diminished and diminishing. Without participation we risk changes that are unacceptable for Defense use. Access to NGS is expensive. Program offices are calling out NGS without the ability to see them; Labs, QA organizations, design offices, etc. cannot afford access. DSB recommends central license – long run savings expected to be more than 50%, but up front resources required.

15. DSP Challenges/Opportunities Better Compliance with STANAGs to Ensure Interoperability Consider Reinstating Program Manager Tool to Identify Applicable STANAGs Make STANAGs Available 2001 NATO Lessons Learned Study and July 2009 European Defense Agency Study Identify as Major Problem Make JSBs Pay Off Ensure Standards Support DoD Science & Technology Goals 15 PMs do not have access to STANAGs, and they have no way to determine which apply to their programs – implementation of STANAGS very spotty. PMT organized in WBS form helps with application decisions. PMT discontinued because Services had insufficient resources to support. STANAGS must be readily available. Lessons learned from Kosovo cited unavailability as one of the reasons for lack of compliance; EDA study cited unavailability as a major issue in contracting. JSBs have good ideas for enterprise wide standardization efforts, but need seed money. DSP must help to Reduce the cost, acquisition time and risk of our major defense acquisition programs, and must support technology in key technical areas such as directed energy weapons, CMBRNE protection, space systems, etc. PMs do not have access to STANAGs, and they have no way to determine which apply to their programs – implementation of STANAGS very spotty. PMT organized in WBS form helps with application decisions. PMT discontinued because Services had insufficient resources to support. STANAGS must be readily available. Lessons learned from Kosovo cited unavailability as one of the reasons for lack of compliance; EDA study cited unavailability as a major issue in contracting. JSBs have good ideas for enterprise wide standardization efforts, but need seed money. DSP must help to Reduce the cost, acquisition time and risk of our major defense acquisition programs, and must support technology in key technical areas such as directed energy weapons, CMBRNE protection, space systems, etc.

16. DSP Challenges/Opportunities Revitalize DoD Item Reduction Program Improve Automated Tools Populate Qualified Products Database Modernize GIDEP – Tool for Managing Counterfeit Revamp DAU Standards Courses and Transfer to Systems Engineering Functional Board Publicize Success 16 Item reduction reduces our logistics footprint but Services claim lack of resources to implement Qualified Products lists facilitate procurement – automation has simplified and made more user accessible GIDEP plays significant role in managing DMS and Counterfeit, but desperately needs modernization (modernization funds have been systematically removed from GIDEP budget for the past 10 years). DAU courses on Standardization need to be updated and moved from PQM to SPRDE We need to find ways to publicize our successes.Item reduction reduces our logistics footprint but Services claim lack of resources to implement Qualified Products lists facilitate procurement – automation has simplified and made more user accessible GIDEP plays significant role in managing DMS and Counterfeit, but desperately needs modernization (modernization funds have been systematically removed from GIDEP budget for the past 10 years). DAU courses on Standardization need to be updated and moved from PQM to SPRDE We need to find ways to publicize our successes.

17. Standardization’s Value is recognized 17 In conclusion, standardization and standards have been important to the efficiency and effectiveness of our military operations since the birth of our nation. Standardization, while it may undergo different transformation, is something that is important to DoD today and will continue to be important in the future.In conclusion, standardization and standards have been important to the efficiency and effectiveness of our military operations since the birth of our nation. Standardization, while it may undergo different transformation, is something that is important to DoD today and will continue to be important in the future.

  • Login