By Benjamin S. Blanchard, CPL, Fellow (1929-2019)
There is a tendency today to believe that the need for logisticians is declining and that in certain sectors, the word “logistics” is no longer a popular term and is in “disfavor!”
Further, there is often the feeling that what has been implemented in the past is no good and no longer valid today. In such instances, we have reverted to changing some terms and definitions and proceeding onward as if we had invented something new. As an example, I have experienced (through my many years both in industry and in the academic community, going back to the late 1950s) the maintenance task analysis (MTA), maintenance engineering analysis (MEA), maintenance engineering analysis data system (MEADS), maintenance analysis data system (MADS), maintenance level analysis (MLA), maintenance engineering analysis records (MEARS), logistic support analysis (LSA), and now the supportability analysis (SA).
[Editor: The devil is in the acronyms! When I entered the industry, we had End Item Maintenance Sheets (EIMS). Included now are: Logistics Maintenance Information (LMI), Logistics Management Data (LMD), Product Support Analysis (PSA), and Logistics Product Data (LPD).]These various terms have been used in applying “analysis” type of activities such as what is currently covered within the broad spectrum of “Acquisition Logistics.” Except for the advent of new technologies to facilitate the data processing requirements, I have observed no real differences in evolving from one program to the next, as the concepts and principles remain essentially the same and continue to be valid. The challenge has related to the proper implementation of such!
In today’s environment, I personally feel that the needs for our areas of expertise are greater than ever before. There is an ever-increasing emphasis on the design and development of systems (versus the design of components). Further, in defining the requirements for systems, we must address the maintenance and support infrastructure as being an integral element of the overall system structure, and not as a separate entity to be considered “after-the-fact.” If a system is to successfully accomplish its intended mission, the need to have a support infrastructure in place becomes evident.
This “life-cycle” philosophy has been inherent within the concept of Integrated Logistic Support (ILS), although not properly implemented in many instances. [Editor: Including the currently in practice “Integrated Product Support (IPS).”]
In dealing with systems, there are many examples where the same concepts can be applied across the board. There are defense systems, space systems, information processing systems, transportation systems, manufacturing/ production systems, power distribution systems, and so on. In each case, there are “life-cycle” implications to include activities dealing with requirements analysis, design and development, test and evaluation, production, distribution, utilization and support, and system retirement and materials disposal. While our emphasis has been primarily on the procurement, production, distribution, and the ultimate life-cycle maintenance and support of primarily defense systems, there is no reason why we cannot apply the same principles to any type of a system. The application of such tools as life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA), FMECA/ FTA, level of repair analysis (LORA), reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), maintenance task analysis (MTA), or whatever, is equally applicable whether we are involved in an analysis pertaining to a defense system or a manufacturing plant.
[Editor: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). I prefer to use the term Repair Level Analysis (RLA) to differentiate the overall LORA process of both economic and non-economic analysis from past commercial software products with “LORA” in the title/description.]At this point in time (and as I become equally involved in both defense systems and commercial systems), I am finding that there is a great need for the application of some of the methods/techniques that we have been effectively applying in the development and evaluation of defense systems to commercial systems.
This is particularly true as we see a greater degree of emphasis on the increased utilization of commercial systems and processes in support of defense-related objectives. There has been a growing emphasis relative to the application of a systems approach in dealing with material flow, transportation, and supply-chain management activities. [1] Further, there has been an ever-increasing level of interest in the area of system/product maintenance and support, and its impact as related to the ultimate costs of such. The rapid growth in the application of the concepts and principles of “Total Productive Maintenance (TPM),” as applied to the life-cycle support of the equipment/ processes used in manufacturing products, in many companies throughout the world is an example. [2] In some instances, there has already been a “rediscovery” of some of the techniques known to us (in the defense industry) in terms of their application to commercial systems.
As international worldwide competition continues to grow, combined with a reduction in the availability of certain resources, there will be an additional need for the development of systems that can be effectively and efficiently supported throughout their respective life cycles. Given such, it would seem to me that there are MANY opportunities out there where we can effectively apply our expertise, particularly in dealing with systems in a “business-oriented” environment where high costs (i.e., life-cycle costs) can be a major inhibitor for success. All that we need to do is to just implement what we have learned through the years and be able to tear down some of the semantics barriers of the past.
……………………………………………………
Reference: