Title: Navy Logistics Interoperability and the Navy Integrated Product Data Environment
Author(s): Charles W. (CW) Chesterman, Jr., Donald Swift, CACI, Inc., Jeff Baur USFFC N43, and Joseph Bradley
Abstract:
Problem Statement:
Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) COTs applications are structured to be configured and in use prior to the stand up and start of a program. While the PLM is part of an ideal tool set that would maximize a collaborative environment, facilitate objective trade-offs, support object metric reporting, support operational capability modeling as well as reduce costs, for the most part this is not the current paradigm. As such in order to meet the expectation of gaining efficiencies and cost savings associated with the Maritime Enterprise (Construction and Operation and the Maintenance, Modernization and Supply support of Life Cycle Management of Naval vessels) there appears to be no common approach employed to migrate PLM functionality (and associated meta data) to execute lifecycle support more effectively.
Key Points:
Both the acquisition and lifecycle customers desire the availability of information (meta data) that is authoritative and when they desire it.
Within the Maritime Enterprise all data is created and approved by “authorities”.
Not all “authorities” are designated a Technical Authority.
All information (meta data) created in a properly configured PLM application is based upon product design and supportability concepts and business management and operational process. Much of the meta data created during acquisition is used to support acquisition processes; additionally, much of the meta data created during acquisition is needed to support sustainment processes.
From program to program, not all concepts of operation/business processes are based upon Technical or Commercial Standards or instructions of higher authority. Additionally, from program to program, the provision of information for use by concept of operation/business processes is not based upon Technical or Commercial Standards or instructions of higher authority.
Conclusion:
Revising instructions from higher authority for the provision of information (meta data) that bridges the acquisition to sustainment management stages of every program (which should include adopting technical or commercial standards) would enable the use of common PLM tools across programs during the full lifecycle. Ensuring instructions provide for compatible usage of new meta data in new PLM tools with existing, legacy data in existing legacy PLM tools would assure that the investment made in assembling new program data could be exploited across the program lifecycle without rework (and the associated costs).