performance based logistics metrics workshop sole conference 15 16 may 2007 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Performance Based Logistics Metrics Workshop SOLE Conference 15-16 May 2007 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Performance Based Logistics Metrics Workshop SOLE Conference 15-16 May 2007

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Performance Based Logistics Metrics Workshop SOLE Conference 15-16 May 2007 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 240 Views
  • Uploaded on

Performance Based Logistics Metrics Workshop SOLE Conference 15-16 May 2007. Terri Schwierling Chief, PBL & Analysis Branch Maint Spt Div, Maint Dir IMMC, AMCOM. Performance Based Logistics Metric Workshop Topics of Discussion . Metric Policy and Guidance

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Performance Based Logistics Metrics Workshop SOLE Conference 15-16 May 2007' - xarles


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
performance based logistics metrics workshop sole conference 15 16 may 2007

Performance Based Logistics Metrics WorkshopSOLE Conference15-16 May 2007

Terri Schwierling

Chief, PBL & Analysis Branch

Maint Spt Div, Maint Dir

IMMC, AMCOM

performance based logistics metric workshop topics of discussion
Performance Based LogisticsMetric WorkshopTopics of Discussion
  • Metric Policy and Guidance
  • Metrics Relevant to Warfighter Requirements
  • Metric Selection
  • Metric Assessment
  • Metric Weights
  • Summary
life cycle sustainment outcome metrics
Life Cycle Sustainment Outcome Metrics*
  • Materiel Availability (Key Performance Parameter)
    • % of Entire Population Operational
  • Materiel Reliability (Key System Attribute)
    • Mean Time Between Failure
  • Ownership Cost (Key System Attribute)
    • O&S Costs Associated With Materiel Readiness
  • Mean Down Time
    • Average Total Downtime Required to Restore Asset to Operational Condition

* JROC Established Materiel Readiness/Sustainment Key Performance Parameter & Key System Attributes (DUSD (L&MR) Memorandum Dated 10 Mar 07)

slide4

PBL Policy and Guidance

Performance Based Metrics and Reporting

Overarching Metrics

Most Frequently Used Metrics

Reporting

Semiannual Report

DA and AMC

Automated System TBD

Operational Availability

Operational Readiness

Fill Rate

Customer Wait Time

Backorder Reduction

Operational Availability

Mission Reliability

Cost Per Unit Usage

Logistics Footprint

Logistics Response Time

Inherent Only:

Reliability

Obsolescence

Areas to Consider

Measurable Metric

Each Metric Does Not Require A Separate IPT

Data Collection

Automated Reporting Data Base Impact to Resources

Multiple Sub-Metric Options

slide5

Define the process

  • Determine customers, inputs, outputs, value-added
  • Use walkthrough to achieve common understanding

Measure process performance

  • Define metrics and identify data
  • Determine baseline performance
  • Diagnose performance drivers
  • Provide reports and feedback

Iterate for continuous improvement

Improve the process

  • Establish goals
  • Develop improved process designs
  • Implement changes

UAVS PMO PBL Metrics

Metric

Max Rating

System Status 85% or Higher

Readiness (SSR)

Customer Wait Time 90% or Higher

(CWT)

Logistics 12/1 or Higher

Maintenance Ratio

(LMR)

Field Service Satisfactory

Representative

Performance (FSR)

PBL Metrics

A

o

OR

MTBSA

What are we Buying ?

SSR

CWT

FSR

MTBF

MTBEFF

LMR

MTTR

Performance Metrics Pyramid

slide6

Intelligent Workload Allocation: Flexibility & Unity of Effort

  • PSI Workscope:
  • Contractor Managed Supply Support
  • Contractor Managed Maintenance Support
  • Field Support Representatives
  • Sustainment Engineering
  • Brigade Integration Team (BIT) Training
  • RESET/PRE-SET Efforts
  • Deployment Support (CONUS/OCONUS Trng Exercises, OIF/OEF, etc)

Performance Requirement: Operational Readiness and Availability Metrics

Scope has to match the desired outcomes.

slide7

SAMPLE PBL Metricsto ORD Crosswalk

Performance Based Product Support Metrics

PBL Metrics Crosswalk to ORD

  • Ao = Availability of 85%
  • SSR and CWT
  • Mean Time Between System Abort
    • 20 Hrs Threshold – 57 Hrs Objective
  • SSR and LMR
  • Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)
  • .5 hrs (AVUM)/ 2.0 hrs (AVIM)
  • SSR, CWT, and FSR
  • Operational Readiness (non-ORD) of 90%
  • SSR, CWT, and FSR
  • SSR– System Status Readiness
  • Defined as Total Time – Down Time (at Sub system Level)
  • Total Time
  • CWT – Customer Wait Time
  • Defined as Total Req’s - # of Unsuccessfully Filled
  • Total Req’s
  • FSR - Field Service Representative Quotient
  • Defined as Customer Satisfaction quotients evaluated via CSAP Report
  • LMR - Logistics Maintenance Ratio
  • Defined as Total Operating Hours
  • # of Unscheduled Maintenance Actions
slide8

Scoring Methodology

  • Performance Metrics are weighted as follows:
          • SSR 50%
          • CWT 25%
          • FSR 20%
          • LMR 5%
  • A Wrap up/Composite Score is calculated to determine incentive award (Fee), on a quarterly basis, as follows:
  • (SSR x .50) + (CWT x .25) + (FSR x .20) + (LMR x .05)
slide9

Incentive Model

versus

Minimum Acceptable Performance

  • The Composite Wrap Up Score is calculated and Fee is then determine via the following Table found in Section H of the PBL Contract.
  • As an example, the PSI achieved a Composite Wrap Up Score of 91% – the incentive would be 3 % (MIN) + 7.2 % (INC) = 10.2 %
  • In this example, the PSI missed the SSR and CWT scoring a Composite Wrap up Score of 84%. The incentive would be 8.0 % due to missing the PBL metric requirements.

Plus

Score .91

Minus

Score .84

slide10

Effective Metrics, Performance Management, and Continuous Improvement Culture

  • PBL Process Review - 1st QTR FY 06
  • Focused on the processes required to achieve the PBL Metrics:
    • Scrutinized the processes used to maintain PBL Shop Stock .
    • Determined quantities of items in the ROR [Repair of Repairables] cycle and identified the processes currently used to move items expeditiously through the depot’s ROR line.
    • Reviewed all aspects of FSR Utilization (Training, Management, Technical Documentation, etc.)
    • Reviewed the current processes used to reduce the Mishap Rate and identified ways to enhance these efforts.
    • Identified and quantified Integrated Material Management Activities as they relate to all aspects of the PBL Effort.
    • Developed new Metrics that can reduce the Mishap Rate and improve process efficiency !

It’s really not about what you say. It’s about what you do.

system status readiness no change to current metric
System Status Readiness(No change to current Metric)

SSR= Total Time (TT) – Down Time (DT)

Total Time (TT)

    • Sub-systems that count against NMC criteria include:
  • 3 of the 4 AVs
  • 2 GCSs
  • 2 GDTs
  • 1 PGCS
  • 1 PGDT
  • 2 TALS
  • 1 LAU
  • 2 of the 4 RVT’s
  • A fielded system consists of 4 AVs. The fourth AV is considered a spare AV and shall not be included in SSR DT calculations for the first 30 days after the fourth AV, as a spare, is used to replace a NMC AV. After 30 days, if an additional AV becomes NMC that AV will be included in DT calculations unless the PSI has added back a fourth spare AV to the unit.
slide12

Current Metric Customer Wait Time (CWT)

Goal 90% Weighted at 25%

CWT= Total Number of Soldier Requisitions – Late Solider Requisitions (LR)

Total Number of Requisitions

Terms And Conditions

Contractor Shall fill 90% of unit requisitions per the following CWT:

Priority Designator (PD)CONUS (Days)OCONUS (Days)

01 thru 03 3 7

04 thru 08 7 10

09 thru 15 10 15

CWT begins on the day the requisition is submitted by a soldier either

through the FSR or the Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS)

when it is implemented as evidenced by the document number. When

Government personnel, as evidence by the carriers shipping document,

receive the part CWT calculations end.

A LR is a soldier requisition that is not filled within the number of

days delineated in the table based upon the unit location (CONUS/OCONUS)

slide13

Customer Wait Time (CWT)

CWT= Total Number of Soldier Requisitions – Late Solider Requisitions (LR)

Total Number of Requisitions

PROS

Desired Result- Responsiveness

Measurable

Data Collection Process In place

Known out come

CONS

Unit Relies on FSR to Submit Requisition

FSR Relies on Depot to Submit Requisition

Delay with FSR closing out Requisition

Misuse of Priority Designator

Does not take into account demands filled

thru repair process

Government Transportation

slide14

New MetricConsideration

Customer Response Time (CRT)

CRT = Combination of Requisition Processing and Repair of Repairables (ROR)

  • Considerations
  • Goals
  • Meet Customer Requirements
  • Improve Inventory Control Process
  • Improve Repair of Repairables Process
  • Measurable – Yes
  • Data Collection Process In Place – Yes
  • Achievable – Yes
  • Weight Factor Adjustment
  • Impacts
    • Improve System Status Readiness
    • Cost
    • Funding for Long Lead Items
    • Competing Resources with Production

Recommendation for Supply and ROR

Count all Requisitions

User

FSR

Depot

Implement Automated Inventory Control Process

Update LMI Data Base with Provisioning Type Data

Address all Lead Times

Recoverability Codes

Refresher Training on UPAS

Reduce all ROR lead times by 20%

Track all ROR actions in UPAS

Implement Tracking Process for Unserviceables

Identify Direct Exchange Items

Subcontractor/Vendor Support Agreements

Flow Metrics to subs

Conduct Subcontractor/Vendor Conference

slide15

New Metric Consideration

Customer Response Time (CRT) – What we think it is !

CRT = Combination of Requisition Processing and Repair of Repairables (ROR)

  • Requisition Processing
  • Include only requisitions for LRU/SRU’s
  • (Short list – few consumables)
  • Decision made not to use LRU/SRU or RPSTL. Recommendation is to include all field requisitions
  • Include only requisitions coming from the ‘field’ do not count requisitions coming from OEM Depot
  • Include all other Priority 01 thru 03
  • Decision made to include all priorities.
  • Notes: Clock starts date/time of requisition. Clock stops when shipment tracking number is entered (which means customs clearance is received). Success is 90% completion fill on time.
      • ROR Completions
  • Determine Top 15 ROR Items (by Quantity/Cost)
  • OEM Action to Provide List NLT Wed at 0830
  • Govt will review list during telecon
  • Recommend a short list of top 15 Items to put a metric against
  • Establish Standard Repair Time
  • OEM to provide standard repair time for each item on the ROR list above. Govt will review during the telecon and determine concurrence or non-concurrence.
  • Track these ROR actions in UPAS using Standard Repair Time for Due out Date
  • Notes: Clock starts when item transfers into ROR warehouse (UPAS) and is assigned a PO or MO. Standard Repair Time completion date is entered into the UPAS data base at the same time item is transferred to ROR warehouse. Success is 90% completion of repair with in the established standard repair time.

CRT= Total Number of Requisitions and ROR’s – Late Requisitions and ROR’s

Total Number of Requisitions and ROR’s

slide16

Result of Customer Response Time (CRT) Discussions

2 Metrics

Customer Wait Time and Depot Maintenance Ratio

Customer Wait Time (CWT)

  • Depot Maintenance Ratio (DMR)

CWT= Total Number of Requisitions – Late Requisitions

Total Number of Requisitions

DMR= Total Hours

# of Open Maintenance Actions

  • Includes all field requisitions
  • Includes all Priorities
  • Success is 90% completion fill on time
  • Incorporate Data Field to track
  • complete Requisition TAT
  • Maintenance Actions Per Flight Hour
  • Improve ROR TAT and Reduce Backlog
  • Includes all Depot Level Maintenance
  • actions not a specific list.
  • Actions: - Establish Ratio
  • - Starting point (snap shot of data)
  • which should include all depot
  • ROR backlog
  • - Run Data Analysis
current metric logistics maintenance ratio goal 8 thru 12 1 weighted at 5
Current Metric Logistics Maintenance Ratio Goal 8 thru 12:1 Weighted at 5%

LMR= Total Hours

# of Unscheduled Maintenance Actions (UMA)

Terms And Conditions

The contractor shall maintain a LMR of 8 through 12:1

TH= Total System Flight Hours. All fielded system TM shall be summed into a

Quarterly total.

UMA= Maintenance actions that are required to return the systems or subsystem

to a mission capable status due to component failure beyond the routine preventive

maintenance actions defined in the UAVS TMs. UMAs include stand alone UMAs

and, in some case of the parent child MAs, only the subordinate UMAs will be counted.

The LMR shall be calculated using both actual data and data obtained by analysis when

Recommended engineering changes have not been funded for implementation.

logistics maintenance ratio
Logistics Maintenance Ratio

LMR= Total Hours

# of Unscheduled Maintenance Actions (UMA)

CONS

Engineering Services currently not included

in PBL Contract

Requires up front investment

PROS

Measurable

Data Collection Process In place

new metric consideration logistics maintenance ratio lmr
New Metric Consideration Logistics Maintenance Ratio (LMR)

LMR= Total Hours

# of Unscheduled Maintenance Actions (UMA)

Considerations

Goals

Reduce Mishaps

Reduce Unscheduled Maintenance Actions

Improve Reliability

Accountability

Improve Maintainability

Measurable

Data Collection Process

Achievable

Adjust Weight Factor

Impact

Cost

Cost Sharing Associated with

Mechanical Failures

System Status Readiness

Recommendations

Include Engineering Services in PBL

Cost Study/Trade Analysis

Include Mishap Investigation in PBL

current metric field service representative fsr goal satisfactory weighted at 20
Current Metric Field Service Representative (FSR) Goal Satisfactory Weighted at 20%

FSR = Field Service Representative Quotient

Defined as Customer Satisfaction Quotient

Terms And Conditions

The parties agree that the contractor shall achieve a minimum

Satisfactory FSR rating:

The FSR Customer Assessment Report (FCA) will be used to determine

the FSR quarterly rating. All FCA reports will be summed and a straight

Average will be used to determine FSR rating.

Ratings on the FCA report are 5=Outstanding

4=Good

3=Satisfactory

2=Below Average

1=Poor

The contractor shall only retain FSR Teams that maintain a performance

rating of “Satisfactory or better on the FCA appraisal”

field service representative fsr
Field Service Representative (FSR)

FSR = Field Service Representative Quotient

Defined as Customer Satisfaction Quotient evaluated via CSAP Report

CONS

Subjective not Quantitative

Limited feedback from OIF Units

Minimum measurement of FSR performance

FSR have limited control of unit operations

PROS

Customer Feedback

Measurable

Data Collection Process In place

Subjective

FSR Represent OEM and GOV PMO

new metric consideration field service representative fsr accountability
New Metric Consideration Field Service Representative FSR Accountability

FSR Performance = Mishap Reduction

  • Considerations
  • Goals
  • FSR Accountability
  • Reduce FSR Footprint
  • Minimize and Reduce Mishaps
  • Mentor Unit
  • Increase Data Collection via UPAS
  • Measurable
  • Data Collection Process
  • Achievable
  • Ability to influence unit/ unit leadership
  • Incentivize FSR that take on Challenging
  • Unit
  • Impacts
    • Cost
    • System Status Readiness
    • FSR Personnel Turn Over/Transfer to
    • another unit

Recommendations

Enhance FSR Training

Measure FSR by UPAS Transactions

Measure FSR by Mishap per flight hour

Improve MOA with Gaining Units

Reduce FSR Footprint

Collocated Unit

Division FSR Support

reliability growth rate rgr
Reliability Growth Rate (RGR)
  • Identify Reliability Growth Rate Slope over a

two year period with quarterly goals

  • Government would like to see a cost share on AV mishaps that fail above the RGR goal
  • OEM interested in a cost share against the incentives
  • Actions:
    • OEM RGR Slope under review by GOV PMO engineering staff.
    • Need final agreement on RGR
    • Establish desired weight of this metric and cost share approach
slide25

Alignment to Known Warfighter Requirements

ORD Requirements and Corresponding PBL Metrics

UAVS PBL Metrics Definitions

  • Ao = Availability of 85%
  • SSR, CWT, and RGR
  • Mean Time Between System Abort
    • 20 Hrs Threshold – 57 Hrs Objective
  • SSR andRGR
  • Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)
  • .5 hrs (AVUM)/ 2.0 hrs (AVIM)
  • SSR andCWT
  • Operational Readiness
  • (non-ORD) of 90%
  • SSR,CWT, andDMR
  • System Status Readiness (SSR)
  • Defined as Total Time – Down Time (at Sub system Level)
  • Total Time
  • Customer Wait Time (CWT)
  • Defined as Total Req’s - # of Unsuccessfully Filled
  • Total Req’s
  • Depot Maintenance Ratio (DMR)
  • Defined as Total Flight Hours current QTR
  • # Open Depot Maintenance Actions
  • Reliability Growth Rate (RGR)
  • Defined as Performance against a Reliability Growth Curve

Colors show where

PBL metrics

Support

ORD Requirements!

metric weights
Metric Weights

Current

Recommended ?

  • System Status Readiness (SSR) 50 % 50%
  • Customer Wait Time (CWT) 25% 10%
  • Depot Maintenance Ratio (DMR) 10%
  • Reliability Growth Rate (RGR) 25% (FSR & LMR) 30%
slide27

Scoring Methodology

  • Performance Metrics are weighted as follows:
          • SSR 45%
          • RGR 30%
          • CWT 5%
          • DMR 20%
  • A Incentive Score is calculated to determine incentive award (Fee), on a quarterly basis as follows:
  • (SSR x .45) + (RGR x .30) + (CWT x .05) + (DMR x .20)

To facilitate the change from Cost contracts to Fixed / Incentive Fee type contracts – The FY 06 efforts will review collected actual cost during each scoring meeting to determine how much cost can be quantified and compared to the definitized cost target proposed.

slide29

Determination of Incentive

Based on Performance

The Composite Incentive Score (IS) is calculated and Fee is then determined

via the following Table found in Section H of the PBL Contract.

  • Example 1: The PSI exceeded the metrics and the Incentive Score is 93. Therefore, the incentive would be 8.0%.
  • Example 2: The PSI achieved all metrics – the IS score is 85. The incentive would be 5.2%.

Exceeded Metrics

IS = 93

Achieved Metrics

IS = 85

summary
Summary
  • Metric selection must support the scope of the PBL program and the desired outcome
  • Specific details in the metric calculations must be clearly defined and measureable
  • Constant improvement process to achieve performance outcomes