LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT IN NATO

1. LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT IN NATO A Report from the CNAD Life Cycle Working Group Mr Cornelis Bouman NL Member NATO CALS Office 4-1

2. LIFE-CYCLE WORKING GROUP • NCMB “NATO CALS” • AC/250 “Quality Assurance” • AC/313 “Acquisition Practices” • AC/135 “Codification” • DSD “Defense Support Division” • SILCEP-Log “Logistics of SILCEP” • NAMSA • NC3A • IMS/ LA&S “IMS Logisitic Branch” • UK MoD - DLO “Defense Logistics Organisation” 4-2

3. Content • Introduction • The need for improvement • NATO’s Objectives and Benefits • Definitions • Key Enablers • A Model • Developments in NATO 4-3

4. Introduction • Task from the November 99 CNAD (NATO Armament Review Recommendation) “...the concept addressed by the NATO Armaments Review covers the optimization of all aspects of a defense system’s performance over its whole life cycle, including those activities relating to in-service support. In order to further elaborate this concept, it would be desirable to develop both a policy and a model. ….. A Life-Cycle Working Group will develop these products and provide its report to the Autumn 2000 CNAD meeting” 4-4

5. Introduction • Mission Statement “To propose guidance in the area of Life Cycle Management to CNAD by providing: A study of the basic elements (principles and definitions) needed to define a NATO-policy on LCM and a framework (high level process model) and a proposal to move forward.” 4-5

6. The Need for Improvement • Poor Management • Insufficient resources at the early procurement stages of projects • Cumbersome approval processes, rigid procedures • concentration on delivering short term, mostly financial, benefits. 4-6

7. The Need for Improvement • Ill defined roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders • Seldom a clear single customer • Definition of requirements, research, managing procurement projects and supporting equipment are performed separately • Not enough authority is delegated to those managing the various stages of the life cycle 4-7

8. The Need for Improvement • Difficulties of technology insertion • Defense equipment is becoming increasingly complex and diverse • The product life of current High Tech equipment has an stable baseline of 12 to 18 months for manufacturing and another 36 to 48 months for sustainment 4-8

9. NATO’s Objectives • Life Cycle partnership between all stakeholders in a project. • A total and shared view on the objectives of a project. • Seamless life cycle management processes from mission analysis to product disposal. • Continuous technology refreshment by commercial, non-developmental solutions 4-9

10. NATO’s Benefits • A "total", collective and shared view of the objectives of the project. • A strong capability to look forward in time to identify and prioritise needs before they become operational problems • A strong capability for investment analysis to ensure rigorous and impartial treatment of alternatives for satisfying a mission need 4-10

11. Definitions • System “An integrated composite that consist of one or more processes, hardware, software, facilities and people, that provide a capability to satisfy a stated need or objective” 4-11

12. Definitions • Life Cycle Management (LCM) “The management of a system, applied throughout its life, that bases all decisions on the anticipated mission-related, political, social and economic aspects of the system life cycle” 4-12

13. Key Enablers • A unified business process methodology will lead to a series of more integrated and seamless business practices and to be supported by business systems that provide full support for the war fighter across functional areas like logistics, and procurement and acquisition. For example the International Standard 15288 - Life Cycle Management, System Life Cycle Processes - from ISO 4-13

14. Key Enablers • Change Management It is the ultimate responsibility of senior management to align the organisation's people and culture to the new LCM-strategy. Lessons from the past teach us that, in general, insufficient attention is given to managing resistance and to skill people to operate in the new environment. 4-14

15. Key Enablers • An Information Policy • NATO will have to agree on a Reference Model for Information Management. • NATO needs some level of agreement on data definition, meaning and context, agreement on common business objects etc. • NATO needs implement an Information Policy that ensures that IT investment priorities cover the requirements of the LCM-concept. 4-15

16. Key Enablers • Performance Measurement Systems US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael E. Ryan said "Now, quite honestly, if you can't describe it, and then measure it, we probably ought to question whether we ought to be doing it". 4-16

17. Key Enablers • Performance Measurement Systems should provide the elements to evaluate each business area and process and should be linked to the overall planning system. The key to satisfying this requirement is the ability to deliver summarized data that directs managers to areas that require further investigation. 4-17

18. Key Enablers • Improved Requirement Management Requirements management consists of information capture, information storage and management, and information dissemination. Key to the success of any requirement management process is requirement trace-ability. 4-18

19. Key Enablers • Advanced Cost Management Techniques Efficient and effective product support requires the ability to view costs from a variety of perspectives 4-19

20. Key Enablers • Total Asset Visibility The capability to provide users with timely and accurate information on the location, movement, status, and identity of units, personnel, equipment, and supplies. It also includes the capability to act upon that information to improve overall performance of NATO's logistics practices 4-20

21. A Model 4-21

22. A Model 4-22

23. Developments in NATO • Present and future? • How could LCM be taken forward in NATO? 4-23

24. Present and future? • The SNLC looks to improve procedures for co-operative logistics planning and management and enhanced co-ordination between the relevant planning disciplines. • An Ad-hoc WG led by SILCEP with participation of other NATO groups is developing a NATO Policy on Co-operation in Logistics. 4-24

25. Present and future? • The Group of National Directors for QA (AC/250) has not only been focused on Quality considers the Process Approach as a main principle to Quality Management. • The SAS-panel has recognised the need for an improved LCC Model and has tasked Group SAS-028 to develop a generic life cycle cost breakdown structure with associated definitions. 4-25

26. How could LCM be taken forward in NATO? • Proposal for an Action Plan • Final Recommendations to CNAD 4-26

27. Proposed Roadmap for the Future Near term Medium term Long term • Define SMC mandate • (Identify target objectives) • (Develop the Context Model) • Identify SMC • Develop the LCM policy • Revise NATO documents • Implement changes • Organize training • Define metrics • Implement metrics • Adjust targets LCM working Group Senior Management Committee NATO 4-27

28. Final Recommendations to CNAD • Investigate the broadest possible participation of other organisations. • Task the NCMB to present this report to SNLC and NC³B • Distribute the report to all the NATO stakeholders • Task a high level Committee to investigate, in close co-ordination with SNLC and NC³B, how the road map could effectively be implemented in NATO. 4-28

29. CNAD tasking to continue • present this report to the SNLC and the NC3 Board and to distribute the report to all relevant NATO stakeholders involved in Life Cycle processes; • Investigate, in close co-ordination with other appropriate NATO bodies, how the roadmap for implementation of LCM can be effectively implemented in NATO. 4-29

30. Thank you for your attention 4-30

31. This slide has been deliberately left blank Diapositive intentionnellement blanche 4-31