Naval Aviation Readiness Integrated Improvement Program NAVRIIP Daniel Nega AIR 3.3 NAVRIIP Metrics Team Action Office

2. Agenda NAVRIIP Overview Metrics

3. NAVRIIP Program Objectives Attain and sustain near & long-term non-deployed aviation readiness goals Balance and align interactions between O- and I-level maintenance and interactions with and dependencies upon NAVICP, DLA and the Depots Balance ILS items for the greatest positive impact to meet readiness goals Integrate, align and focus readiness initiatives and organizations to accelerate readiness improvements Multiple attempts made in past to accomplish the above with limited results� Must embark on a fundamental change in our business approach� process focus Requires outside assistance to attack entrenched cultural and business process barriers NAPPI has proven it highly successful� time to apply its lessons learned First step towards this new focus began on 25 June at JRB FT. Worth Today we are going to discuss how to move forward and how we will integrate the various organizations represented here today Would then insert Nathman�s slide (cleaned up) followed by Heimgartner�s slide and let Nathman talk to them Multiple attempts made in past to accomplish the above with limited results� Must embark on a fundamental change in our business approach� process focus Requires outside assistance to attack entrenched cultural and business process barriers NAPPI has proven it highly successful� time to apply its lessons learned First step towards this new focus began on 25 June at JRB FT. Worth Today we are going to discuss how to move forward and how we will integrate the various organizations represented here today Would then insert Nathman�s slide (cleaned up) followed by Heimgartner�s slide and let Nathman talk to them

4. Program Fundamentals Consider Naval Aviation Readiness preparation as a process Establish empowered cross-functional teams (CFTs) to solve problems as they are uncovered Develop integrated, hierarchical metrics tied to results Use the Total Cycle Time (TCT) reduction tools (Barrier Identification & Removal, Gap Closure and Managing by Metrics) to ensure process improvement) Leverage Cycles of Learning (COLs)

5. NAVRIIP Strategy Here is the underlying strategy to improve Naval readiness across the IDTC. We need to address improvement in the hardware allocation process, aircraft sortie generation and the planning/budgeting process that addresses relative need for and importance of all components of readiness. Lead-in to next slide: How are these components related to one another?Here is the underlying strategy to improve Naval readiness across the IDTC. We need to address improvement in the hardware allocation process, aircraft sortie generation and the planning/budgeting process that addresses relative need for and importance of all components of readiness. Lead-in to next slide: How are these components related to one another?

6. TMS Teams Established Type Model Series (TMS) Teams to identify and eliminate barriers to non deployed Readiness Include personnel from TYCOM, Commodore staff, PMA, ICP, DLA, Depots Utilize hierarchical metrics link to results Eliminate non-value-added process steps Eliminate disconnects Capture cycles of learning for leverage into other efforts (The �enterprise� here refers to the organization, not the boat.) This is the way Thomas Group assists clients experiencing problems similar to those that the Navy was experiencing. They apply to any discrete production process. Lead-in to next slide: What does the NAVRIIP dilemma look like? (The �enterprise� here refers to the organization, not the boat.) This is the way Thomas Group assists clients experiencing problems similar to those that the Navy was experiencing. They apply to any discrete production process. Lead-in to next slide: What does the NAVRIIP dilemma look like?

7. Installing Hierarchical Metrics TMS cockpit charts developed and installed Drill downs (wing,squadron and Depot) Bases for measurement (BFMs) finalized and validated Data sources and elements identified Measurement data collection underway Manual process now Auto tool development in work In interesting point: Just installing measurements tends to jump-start the production process (through the �Hawthorne effect�). Measurements will help the Team understand if it�s �pushing the right buttons� in its efforts to improve readiness processes. Meanwhile, the Team will continue to improve the quality and relevance of data collected. No lead-in to the next slide. In interesting point: Just installing measurements tends to jump-start the production process (through the �Hawthorne effect�). Measurements will help the Team understand if it�s �pushing the right buttons� in its efforts to improve readiness processes. Meanwhile, the Team will continue to improve the quality and relevance of data collected. No lead-in to the next slide.

8. Readiness M RATING ACCOMPLISHMENT As you can see, we have 3 Squadrons above their required readiness levels and 4 squadrons below. 1 squadron is 30% above its M rating. This squadron is HS-3. They returned from OIF in late May and are the current East Coast surge Squadron until January. Right below HS3 in readiness is HS7 and HS2. Both are also OIF SQDs that returned in late May, early June. Both had surge readiness requirements and the readiness we see in July is a result of allocating assets to maintain this readiness and high level of readiness each squadron had when it returned from OIF. Of the 4 squadrons below their entitled readiness levels, 2 squadrons are less than 20% below entitlement and 2 squadrons are less than 30%. If above the line shows good and below the line shows �not so good�, I propose that some of the story below the line has a lot of good news about how we are supplying training at the Wing level to keep readiness up while Squadrons are waiting for their normal IDTC periods. For example, when we drill down, one of those squadrons (HS11) that is less than 20% below entitlement is actually (.1) from meeting their M rating a (D-2) entitlement. Normally at D-2 a Squadron has completed C2X/TSTAIII and is at the beginning of JTFEX. At the end of July HS11 was still waiting to go on C2X, but was (.1) from the D-2 readiness. HS4 is within 30% of making theirs. Lost a lot of readiness due to not making their sorties. Came back from OIF and stood down for 1 month, then rolled into 2 CQ dets. We continue to improve the customer service we are providing our warfighters on the east and west coast seawalls to gain & maintain readiness: 3 squadrons did DLQ dets to Pcola IX 514 Sharing resources among Sqds (Buddy Lasing, multiple Sqds doing DLQs on single ships Coordinating ASU, ASW, and DLQ opportunities with our HSL brothers CREW AVAILABILITY 1 of 7 Squadron�s missed making their ACTC crew availability. What is amazing to me about this is that we have 2 ACTC areas and this graph encompasses pilots and aircrew. The 1 Squadron that missed their crew availability was short 6 pilots for ACTC Sea Combat Lvl III, the same squadron that has not done C2X yet. I expect that after C2X they will be back on glideslope. COMBAT CREW RATING This is a new chart. The west coast with 2 reporting squadrons was able to populate the data for this and what you see is one squadron above entitlement and one below (HS4 & HS2). The east coast with 5 reporting squadrons just got the new charts in late August and with 2 of 5 squadrons gone (C2X & Fallon) we were unable to gather the data to populate this chart. However, I expect that it would mirror image the M rating graph with 3 above and 4 below.M RATING ACCOMPLISHMENT As you can see, we have 3 Squadrons above their required readiness levels and 4 squadrons below. 1 squadron is 30% above its M rating. This squadron is HS-3. They returned from OIF in late May and are the current East Coast surge Squadron until January. Right below HS3 in readiness is HS7 and HS2. Both are also OIF SQDs that returned in late May, early June. Both had surge readiness requirements and the readiness we see in July is a result of allocating assets to maintain this readiness and high level of readiness each squadron had when it returned from OIF. Of the 4 squadrons below their entitled readiness levels, 2 squadrons are less than 20% below entitlement and 2 squadrons are less than 30%. If above the line shows good and below the line shows �not so good�, I propose that some of the story below the line has a lot of good news about how we are supplying training at the Wing level to keep readiness up while Squadrons are waiting for their normal IDTC periods. For example, when we drill down, one of those squadrons (HS11) that is less than 20% below entitlement is actually (.1) from meeting their M rating a (D-2) entitlement. Normally at D-2 a Squadron has completed C2X/TSTAIII and is at the beginning of JTFEX. At the end of July HS11 was still waiting to go on C2X, but was (.1) from the D-2 readiness. HS4 is within 30% of making theirs. Lost a lot of readiness due to not making their sorties. Came back from OIF and stood down for 1 month, then rolled into 2 CQ dets. We continue to improve the customer service we are providing our warfighters on the east and west coast seawalls to gain & maintain readiness: 3 squadrons did DLQ dets to Pcola IX 514 Sharing resources among Sqds (Buddy Lasing, multiple Sqds doing DLQs on single ships Coordinating ASU, ASW, and DLQ opportunities with our HSL brothers CREW AVAILABILITY 1 of 7 Squadron�s missed making their ACTC crew availability. What is amazing to me about this is that we have 2 ACTC areas and this graph encompasses pilots and aircrew. The 1 Squadron that missed their crew availability was short 6 pilots for ACTC Sea Combat Lvl III, the same squadron that has not done C2X yet. I expect that after C2X they will be back on glideslope. COMBAT CREW RATING This is a new chart. The west coast with 2 reporting squadrons was able to populate the data for this and what you see is one squadron above entitlement and one below (HS4 & HS2). The east coast with 5 reporting squadrons just got the new charts in late August and with 2 of 5 squadrons gone (C2X & Fallon) we were unable to gather the data to populate this chart. However, I expect that it would mirror image the M rating graph with 3 above and 4 below.

9. Providers As I mentioned earlier, we�re experiencing a shortfall in Aircraft RFT (Ent = 13.4, Act 11.6, Gap = 1.8). This is a result of: HS-15�s entitlement shortfall of 1.1 RFT Aircraft resulted from a lack of FLIR/Hellfire mission kits to install on their HH. This problem has been mitigated with the return of deployed squadrons and all squadrons will be appropriately resourced according to where they fall in the R+ construct. HS-5�s entitlement shortfall of .7 RFT Aircraft resulted from not having enough RFT F�s. Two aircraft were in Depot/Rework Modernization and one was NMCS for 24 days with multi-NORS requisitions to repair damages following a Class C mishap. They are now back on track. As I mentioned earlier, we�re experiencing a shortfall in Aircraft RFT (Ent = 13.4, Act 11.6, Gap = 1.8). This is a result of: HS-15�s entitlement shortfall of 1.1 RFT Aircraft resulted from a lack of FLIR/Hellfire mission kits to install on their HH. This problem has been mitigated with the return of deployed squadrons and all squadrons will be appropriately resourced according to where they fall in the R+ construct. HS-5�s entitlement shortfall of .7 RFT Aircraft resulted from not having enough RFT F�s. Two aircraft were in Depot/Rework Modernization and one was NMCS for 24 days with multi-NORS requisitions to repair damages following a Class C mishap. They are now back on track.

10. NAVRIIP CpC Automation Need for Automation Ease of use Current Manual process Cumbersome Help to Socialize NAVRIIP Analytical tool COTS Business Intelligence Software Common Picture: Web Enabled Eliminate �discussions� over data Focus on Issues

12. Questions?