1. LM-715 Supportability Analyses
Given a scenario, choose the appropriate supportability analyses tools and techniques.
Illustrate the need for supportability analyses and their role as integral part of the systems engineering process.
Discuss supportability analyses methods throughout the system life cycle.
Identify the applicable tools and techniques of supportability analyses in the systems engineering process.
Relate the appropriate supportability analyses tools and techniques.
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
- Briefly discuss the TLO and ELOs as the topics we will be discussing over the next 2 hours.
- The assessment is derived from the TLO and ELOs.
- The instructor should review the ELOs at the end of the lesson with the students to ensure adequate coverage and to reinforce learning.

2. Supportability Analyses
Logistics
Anything analytical that has something
to do with support
Supportability
Analyses
LMI ?
SUPPORTABILITY ANALYSES:
Tailored application of engineering efforts during acquisition, to identify/solve logistics issues through an iterative SE process of definition, synthesis, tradeoff, T&E. (Mil Handbook 502)
LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION (LMI):
Documentation associated with supportability analyses.
[See MIL-PRF-49506]
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
Supportability analyses used to be governed by MIL-STD A and call Logistics Support Analysis. It prescribed a strict format governed by numbered analyses. Supportability analysis are now governed by MIL Handbook 502.
LMI used to be governed by MIL-STD A and-2B and called Logistics Support Analysis Record (LSAR). It prescribed strict formats in terms of Input Data Sheets and Outputs (The old “A” sheets, etc.).
LOGSA www/logsa.army.mil
www/logpars.army.mil/alc/LogEngr.htm
LMI specification describes the information required by the government to perform acquisition logistics management functions. The principle focus of the spec is on providing DoD with a contractual method for acquiring support & support related-engineering and logistics data from contractors.

3. Policy “Supportability factors are integral elements of program performance specification. However, support requirements are not to be stated as distinct logistic elements, but instead as performance requirements that relate to a system’s operational effectiveness, operational suitability, and life-cycle cost reduction.”
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
Additional Readings/References:
DoD R

4. Policy
Supportability analyses are integral parts of Systems Engineering.
Supportability analyses form the basis for related design requirements in system specifications.
.Supportability analyses form the basis for decisions: how to most cost-effectively support a system over its life cycle.
Programs shall allow contractors maximum flexibility to propose most appropriate supportability analyses.
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
Supportability Analyses policy is eminently logical.
Supportability analyses are part of the systems engineering process. Systems engineers are the individuals who frequently conduct supportability analyses.
Supportability analyses, by themselves, do not influence design. Supportability analyses forms the analytical rationale from which design requirements are extracted and put into the system specification (which forms the basis for the technical requirement). Note that the operational requirements flow from the ORD and must likewise be translated into the technical requirements of the system specification.
Supportability analyses tradeoffs and analyses of alternatives provide the basis from which decisions (in the form of support plans) are made on how to cost-effectively support the system. Note that the technical implications of these decisions (such as the use of built-in test) must be reflected in the system specification.
Contractors must be encouraged to tailor and innovate what supportability analyses activities are to be undertaken and how (both methodology and data formats) to most cost-effectively execute supportability analyses. This is the only intelligent way to reconcile desires with resources.
DoD R

5. Integrated Supportability Analyses Can Include:
Maintenance Planning
Manpower, Personnel and Training
Facilities
Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)
PHS&T
Supply Support
Repair Level Analysis
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis.
Support & Test Equipment
etc. ....
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
Tell the students that you will go into more depth regarding these analyses in the RAM lesson, T5-720.
Integrated analyses can include any number of tools, practices or techniques:
Repair Level Analysis
Reliability Predictions
Reliability Centered Maintenance
Failure Modes Effects Critical Analysis (FMECA)
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Additional Readings/ References:

6. Supportability Analyses Process
Work
Breakdown
Structure
Candidate
Reliability
Prediction
FMECA
RCM
Common
Source
Engineering
Data Base
LORA
HILITE THAT IF SA ARE USED CORRECTLY AND ID COST DRIVERS YOU CAN LOWER O&S COSTS
SA IS SYSTEMATIC STRUCTURED PROCESS
Maint.
Planning
Spares
Training
PHS&T
Personnel
Technical
Data
Tools &
Support
Equip
Facilities
Computer
Resources
Support
O & S COST

7. BEST PRACTICE: Supportability Analyses
Tailored !
Part of iterative SE process
Assists in:
Defining support
Influencing design
Uses (not duplicates) other data & analyses
Documented and communicated
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
Supportability analyses are generally performed by a number of prime and sub-contractors. The Government normally reviews the quality and results of the supportability analyses.

8. Supportability Analyses in Practice
Maintenance Concept A
Maintenance Concept B
Maintenance Concept C
Logistics IPT
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
Supportability analyses are like the list a Store Manager keeps of all the food stocked on theshelves of one of the new Mega-Supermarkets. An acquisition Manager is like the shopper who comes into the store to buy groceries for his/her family. You can’t buy everything in the store - you normally carrya (tailored) shopping list. Supportability analyses must be likewise approached.
Note that supportability analyses applies to both commercial and non-developmental items - especially if such items will be used in a new environment and /or supported with a new logistics concept. These may render previous studies/analyses obsolete or not applicable.
Supportability Analyses Results
Specification
Support Plan

9. Supportability Is a Design Requirement - Not the Result of the Design
Early focus results in:
support parameters stated in operational terms
readiness objectives
support costs
Achieving & sustaining affordable system supportability [AKA - Affordable Readiness] is the result of sound systems engineering
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
Early focus of supportability analyses should result in the establishment of support related parameters or specification requirements.
- Parameters should be expressed both quantitatively and qualitatively in operational terms. They should be related to system readiness objectives & support costs of the system.
- Achieving & sustaining affordable system supportability is a life cycle management activity and is the result of sound Systems Engineering.
- A common term thrown around in the commercial world today that relates to this is “PBS” Performance Based Supportability. Refer to PBS briefing given to LM instructors on 13 Nov 97 by Charles O. Coogan for more info, if needed.
- Relate this lesson back to T5-610 slide regarding “Engineers don not
-- assess the system as a whole.
-- view the system in terms of LCC
Prevailing philosophy “design-it- now & fix it later”
Ex: Operating Cost per Seat mile < $0.4
Operating Cost per hour < $350
Additional Readings/References:

10. Supportability Analyses Provide Input to the Systems Engineering Strategy
Strategy should address all supportability analyses needed to:
analyze, define and verify supportability threshold & objectives
assess the risk in meeting
the thresholds & objectives
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
A strategy for performing systems engineering activities should be developed early in the program by the performing organization. As such, selected S.A. should be identified as input to the systems engineering strategy. The S.A. input should be an integral part of the program’s systems engineering strategy. The strategy input should identify, & give the rationale for, the inclusion or exclusion of specific analyses. Each activity that is included should be assigned to an organization responsible for it’s conduct.
S.A. should be scoped to the objectives & level of desing anticipated. The strategy should address all S.A. needed to analyze, define, & verify supportability thresholds & objectives for a system & to assess the risks in accomplishing the thresholds & objectives.
Additional Readings/Reference

11. Supportability Analysis Provides Input into the TEMP
Methods & techniques encompass:
technical reviews
modeling & simulation
demonstration
testing
All support performance requirements should be tested & verified.
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Notes:
Assessment & verification of supportability starts with early planning for verification of support concepts & continues on an iterative basis. Assessment & verification methods & techniques encompass technical reviews, modeling, simulation, demonstration & testing. Assessment & verification procedures, like all S.A. acitivities, need to be tailored.
Supportability demonstration & test requirements & criteria are developed for the particular performance characteristic to be tested. These requirements are included in the Test and Evaluation Master Plan. All supportability performance requirements, including those which apply to the support system, should be tested & verified.
Results of supportability assessment & verification activities are used to update other S.A. information & estimates. Issues resulting from analysis of supportability assessment results are used to develop improvement recommendations.
Additional Readings/Reference

12. Supportability Analyses for Commercial and NDI?
Questions:
Commercial and NDI have sufficient data?
Commercial and NDI used in the same “operational” environment?
Commercial and NDI supportable with the same maintenance/logistic concept?
Results impact choice of supportability analyses

13. Supportability Analyses Reports Examples
Phases
Concept
Exploration
Program Def.
and Risk Red.
Engineering
& Manuf. Dev.
Prod., Fielding/
Deployment,
Operational Spt.
Preconcept
Maintenance Planning Summaries
Repair Analysis Summaries
Manpower, Personnel and Training Summaries
Supply Support Summaries
Date of Last Update: 1 May 98
Instructor Noes:
As shown above some supportability analysis activities (such as the definition of intended use) are most appropriately executed “early on and up-front”, while other supportability analysis activities (such as post-production support analyses) are best executed subsequent to the initial phases.
Years of experience have shown that an effective supportability analyses requires the availability and use of an integrated analysis process and an integrated data management process.
Support & Test Equipment Summaries
Facilities Summaries
PHS&T Summaries
Post Production Support Summaries
These “and other*” reports to be tailored to Program needs.
*not all inclusive nor exclusive Source: Mil-Hdbk-502

14. HOW DO YOU DO SUPPORTABILITY ANALYSES?
Scientific Method Process
Observation
Problem Formulation
State Research objectives
Determine Casual Relationship
Formulate Hypothesis
State Research Methodology
Test Hypothesis
Formulate conclusions
Communicate findings
Nine Phase Decision Process
Monitor Environment
Define Problem
Specify objective
Diagnose the Problem
Develop alternatives
Establish Evaluation Criteria
Appraise alternatives
Choose Best Alternative[s]
Implement Decision
When all else fails, use your
Common Sense!

15. FAILURE MODES, EFFECTS AND CRITICALITY ANALYSIS (FMECA)
Number
SYSTEM NAME
SPACE SHUTTLE MP SRM
10-00
SUBSYSTEM NAME
SRM CASE
10-06
COMPONENT NAME AND
PART NO.
CASE ASSEMBLY, FORWARD
SEGMENT 1U
AUTHOR AND
COMPANY
W. L. HANKINE
THIOKOL CORPORATION
DATE
JUNE 1983
REVISION
COMPONENT FUNCTION
MISSION
PHASE
COMPONENT FAILURE MODE
AFFECTED COMPONENT
FAILURE EFFECT ON
A. SUBSYSTEM FUNCTION
B. SYSTEM FUNCTION
C. MISSION
D. VEHICLE AND PERSONNEL
CONTROL METHODS
TO INSURE A
RELIABLE PRODUCT
ASSEMBLY JOINTS LEAK. 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U
PART NAME
CASE SEGMENT, CYLINDER
CASE SEGMENT, FORWARD
PACKING (O-RINGS)
TEST PLUG
PACKING (TEST PLUG) 2 1
2/JOINT
1/JOINT
1/PLUG
QUANTITY
PER
COMPONENT
1. TANG-A-DIAMETER EXCEEDS UPPER LIMIT OR SURFACE
FINISH NONCONFORMING, OR IS GOUGEDRFACES.
2. CLEVIS NONCONFORMING (DIAMETER, THICKNESS, FINISH).
3. CLEVIS O-RING GROOVES EXCEED WIDTH AND/OR DEPTH
UPPER LIMITS OR CORRODED.
4. 0-RINGS NONCONFORMING OR DAMAGED DURING ASSEM-
BLY.
5. LEAK CHECK PLUG LOOSE OR WITHOUT O-RING, INNERMOST
SEAL INEFFECTIVE PER 1 ABOVE OR THE CONDITIONS OF O-
RING ARE PER 4 ABOVE.
6. FOREIGN MATERIAL IN O-RING GROOVES.
7. IGNITER FLANGE NONCONFORMING, FLATNESS FINISH.
8. CASE ASSEMBLY JOINT ROTATION CAUSES “LIFT-OFF” FROM
SECONDARY O-RING (PRIMARY O-RING WILL REMAIN IN
COMPRESSION).
9. EXPANSION OF CLEVIS GAP BECAUSE OF RESIDUAL STRAINS
RESULTING FROM MANUFACTURING PROCESSES.
A. HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS FLOW
WILL CAUSE METAL EROSION
AND PROBABLE BURNTHROUGH
AND CASE BURST.
B. CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF
SRM.
C. MISSION LOSS.
D. VEHICLE AND
PERSONNEL LOSS.
(1)
(1R)
SEE CIL
1. TRAINED, QUALIFIED
MACHINIST TO PERFORM
MACHINING OPERATION.
2. SPECIAL PROFILE TEMPLATE
TO CONTROL LATHE CUTTING
HEAD.
% INSPECTION OF TANG-
DIAMETER, CLEVIS, DIMEN -
SIONS AND O-RING GROOVES
USING PI TAPE AND STAND-
DARD MEASURING INSTRU-
MENTS . SURFACE FINISH
SAMPLE INSPECTED BY
SURF-INDICATOR.
7. A. TRAINED, QUALIFIED
B. 100% INSPECTION OF
IGNITER FLANGE FLATNESS
BY TIR READOUT FINISH IS
SAMPLE INSPECTED USING
PAGE OF
CRITICALITY
CATEGORY
Example
Example of FMECA and a possible Category 1 failure for the Space Shuttle O-Ring seals.
FMECA example: Solid Rocket Motor (SRM)
Challenger disaster: 28 Jan 86
Identified potential problem back in Jun 83
Component failure made affected component - assembly joints leak
#6 - foreign material in o-ring = ice
Didn’t think ice because it wouldn’t be cold enough - not within operating envelope.
Control methods - looked at it from a manufacturing processing stand point.
Emphasize to the students:
1. FMECA is only as good as the people who perform it. Ensure the contractor hires and keeps the best people possible.
2. After the FMECA is delivered, read and act on it. If there are any Category 1 failures possible, act to correct as soon as possible. Backup/redesigned systems may be needed.
3. It is good practice to eliminate all single points of failure.