Full text of "DTIC ADA268939: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Maintenance Requirement System"

See other formats

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Monterey, California

_ THESIS _

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT SYSTEM

Michael Andrew Palmer
June 1993

Principal Advisor: Larry R. Jones

Associate Advisor Jerry L. McCaffery

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

93-20696

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Form Approved

OMB No 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information n estimated to average 1 hour per response. including the time fO r reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for information Operations and Reports. If IS Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204. Arlington. vA 22202-4302 and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington. DC 20503

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE MAINTENANCE
REQUIREMENT SYSTEM

S. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S)

Palmer, Michael A.

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AOORESS(ES)

Naval Postgraduate School

Monter^r, CA 93943-5000

B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSEES)

10. SPONSORING / MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.

12b DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Navy’s efficiency and effectiveness is dependent on the material readiness of its ships. It
is essential that the programming mechanism for surface ship maintenance account for all required
repair work and the relative risk associated with resource allocation, especially during this era of reduced
defense spending. The Maintenance Requirement System (MRS) is a tool that appears to accomplish
this by defining maintenance requirements, projecting those requirements into the future, and assessing
the risk of not fully funding maintenance requirements in terms of degraded mission capability. This
thesis examines MRS, current and future issues that impact MRS, and the similarities between MRS
and performance budgeting.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Maintenance Requirement System (MRS), Performance Budgeting, Availabilities,
Severity, Probability, Risk, Maintenance Requirements, Defining Requirements,

IS. NUMBER OF PAGES

_ 26 _

IS. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

IB. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE,

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01*280-5500 : Standard Form 298 (Rev 2 89)

1 Preterite* by ansi Std 239 ’8

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT SYSTEM

Michael Andrew Palmer

Lieutenant Commander, United States Naval Reserve
B.A., University of Illinois, 1981

Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
June 1993

ABSTRACT

The Navy's efficiency and effectiveness is dependent on
the material readiness of its ships. It is essential that the
programming mechanism for surface ship maintenance account for
all required repair work and the relative risk associated with
resource allocation, especially during this era of reduced
defense spending. The Maintenance Requirement System (MRS) is
a tool that appears to accomplish this by defining maintenance
requirements, projecting those requirements into the future,
and assessing the risk of not fully funding maintenance
requirements in terms of degraded mission capability. This
thesis examines MRS, current and future issues that impact
MRS, and the similarities between MRS and performance
budgeting.

DTIC QUALITY iNirAjCTED 1

iii

I Accession For

./ i

ST IS hr Ail
DTIC TAB

Unannounced
Just Iflention_

□

By_

LiletrtbuTic*/

lability (odes

(Avail aud/or

"ist Spoolal

AM 1

el_L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . 1

A. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.1

B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS . 2

C. METHODOLOGY . 2

II. BACKGROUND ON MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT SYSTEM ... 4

A. BUDGET ENVIRONMENT PRIOR TO MRS . 4

B. MRS MECHANICS BREAKDOWN . 7

1. Phase One: Defining Requirements . 8

2. Phase Two: Projecting Requirements .... 12

3. Phase Three: Managing Risk: Sensitivity

Analysis.13

C. REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE: SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION

TO THE READER.16

1. Add Alts/Pkged Effects.17

2. Tailor Shipsheets . 18

3. Assess Funding Cuts.18

4. Tailored Shipsheet Report . 19

5. System Administration Menu.19

III. CURRENT ISSUES: CREDIBILITY . 32

A. MRS REPRESENTATIVE AVAILABILITIES AND THE

OPNAVNOTE 4700 NOTIONAL MAN-DAYS: CURRENT
DIFFERENCES.34

B. ADVANCE PLANNING AND FARM-IN/FARM-OUT BAM

FACTORS.38

1. MRS and BAM Factors: Current System ... 39

2. Problems With Calculating AP and FIFO From

Current Data.39

3. User Group Recommendations.41

C. IMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY IN MRS VERSION 2.0 . . 42

IV. FUTURE ISSUES: PROJECTING PERFORMANCE AND COMPLI¬
ANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW.45

A. ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM:

KEY ELEMENTS AND SIMILARITIES TO MRS.45

B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND

RESULTS ACT.50

C. MRS FUTURE ISSUES.53

V. CONCLUSIONS.57

A. HOW IS MRS USED IN THE NAVY? DOES MRS HAVE A

DIRECT IMPACT ON BUDGETING? . 57

B. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING

MRS?.58

C. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.59

APPENDIX A VALID DATA VALUES AND DATA DERIVATION

GUIDELINES.60

APPENDIX B MRS DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE.69

APPENDIX C MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM DATA DEVELOP¬
MENT SYSTEM (MODS) . 70

APPENDIX D GLOSSARY . 80

LIST OF REFERENCES.87

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST.89

X. INTRODUCTION

A. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

One of the primary concerns for the United StateB Navy is
obtaining the necessary funding for surface ship maintenance.
The Maintenance Requirement System is a recent development
that supports planning, programming, and budgeting of funds
for surface ship maintenance. The U.S. Navy's ability to
carry out its assigned missions can be viewed in part as a
function of material readiness. Acquiring and expending funds
on surface ship maintenance must therefore be effective and
efficient. The incremental form of budget preparation and
execution is rapidly becoming obsolete. Primacy of finding a
solution to the growing federal deficit will cause the defense
budget to be displaced, taking a "back seat" to domestic
program initiatives designed to rejuvenate the economy.
Executive agencies will be aggressively competing for scarce
resources. Within the Department of Defense, similar
competition between the Navy's primary warfare communities
(surface, aviation, and submarine) exists and has provided
impetus to improve budgeting for operational readiness.

Recent pieces of legislation passed by Congress attest to
the importance of this topic, specifically, The Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990. Although the primary purpose
of the legislation is the improvement of financial accounting

systems within the federal government, the Act includes the
beginnings of a greater focus on program results.
Additionally, The Government Performance and Results Act
(S.20) would initiate a new form of accountability within
government programs through the use of performance budgeting
techniques. Although The Government Performance and Results
Act is not the primary area of research, the Maintenance
Requirement System (MRS) has several key elements called for
in the legislation. These common elements will be addressed
later in the thesis.

B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This thesis documents the Maintenance Requirement System.
It begins with an examination of the budget environment that
existed when MRS was developed. Then it describes the
mechanics of MRS. Finally, it explores current and future
issues related to MRS. The thesis focuses on the following
questions.

1. How is the Maintenance Requirement System used presently
in the Navy?

2. Does MRS have a direct impact on budgeting?

3. What are the issues relating to the current and future
issues of the Maintenance Requirement System?

4. What areas are recommended for further research?

C. METHODOLOGY

Basic data for this thesis was obtained from existing Navy
instructions, notices and policy manuals on budgeting, MRS

User's Group training materials, field interviews, and the
general body of academic literature. Research was conducted
in four major steps:

1. Interviews with Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) (SEA-
915/935) , American Management Systems, Inc. (AMS)
executives, Commander Naval Surface Force Pacific (CNSP)
(N-4)

2. Examination of each phase involved in MRS mechanics by
perusal of official documents, supplemented by
interviews

3. Evaluation of the role of MRS in the budgeting process

4. Evaluation of the role of MRS as a performance budget in
light of current legislation.

The resulting research provides a comprehensive examina¬
tion of the Maintenance Requirement System and how it is
employed in the surface ship maintenance Program Objective
Memorandum (POM) development and budget process. 1 This
research also explores MRS's future application in performance
budgeting. Recommendations for potential areas of further
research may be found in the concluding chapter.

'POM is specific programming guidance derived from
Defense Guidance (DG) handed down from the Secretary of
Defense to each of the service secretaries.

XI. BACKGROUND ON MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT 8Y8TEM

Chapter II provides the background on MRS. Section A
discusses the budget environment. Section B describes the
three phases of MRS mechanics. Section C illustrates a system
demonstration through a representative example.

A. BUDGET ENVIRONMENT PRIOR TO MR8

In the past, surface ship maintenance managers used a
derived or notional man-day number multiplied by current man-
day cost to develop the POM. In turn, this figure represented
the funds necessary to support specific mission areas
delineated by the National Maritime Strategy. 2

This method of resource allocation was inherently flawed.
Funds requested are a function of total man-days and cost for
scheduled maintenance work. Therefore, POM numbers produced
are static predictions. As alternative funding recommenda¬
tions are generated as part of the iterative programming and
budgeting process, the specific impact of under-funding
surface ship maintenance could not be determined using the
traditional notional or "fixed" number approach. Since the
POM figures are static predictions and the impact of funding
cuts indeterminate, justification of funds requested in the

National Maritime strategy (NMS) is the Secretary of the
Navy's input to the Secretary of Defense's Defense Guidance.
The current NMS is titled "From The Sea."

POM has become difficult. This problem is compounded by the
need for financial restraint and cutback in The Navy and
Department of Defense. [Ref. 1]

The resulting problems meant that, in an increasingly
constrained fiscal environment, POM surface ship maintenance
representatives did not possess sufficient evidence to show
the impact of proposed program or budget increases or cuts.
When asked how a ten percent funding cut would affect
maintenance accomplishment, Surface Type Commanders, using the
traditional notional approach, responded with the only answer
available: We will accomplish ten percent less maintenance
[Ref. 2].

Due to the program and budget competition from both the
submarine and aviation communities in the Navy, and other
factors, a disproportionate share of future funding cuts may
be allocated to the surface community. This is especially the
case when the impact of resource cuts cannot be quantified in
specific terms.

For example, if a budget cut were to be administered to
the naval maintenance community, an explanation offered might
be that it is more important for a ballistic missile submarine
or an aircraft carrier to remain operational than a frigate or
destroyer. This may no longer be the case with the end of the
Cold War, but until now the Soviet Union has shown no
significant sign of reducing its military capability. The

Soviet threat was a critical variable in determining the
National Maritime Strategy, which in turn effects POM.

By using notional figures it would have been unreasonable
for the surface ship maintenance community not to expect
funding cuts, primarily due to the inability to justify
proposed POMs. If the surface ship community continued to be
assessed funding cuts on a yearly basis, a gradual slip in
maintenance dollars would result.

To prevent the likely results of dwindling maintenance

funds, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) 3 Code 915 was

directed by Admiral Reimann (then OP-03) 4 to:

Develop a process for surface ship maintenance budget
preparation and justification that will identify funding
required... and assess the impact of funding below the
requested level [Ref. 2].

Include adequate funding in budget request to meet system
readiness objectives and identify the readiness impact of
failing to provide the requested funding [Ref. 3].

These directives, coupled with lessons learned from past
POM and budget battles, challenged the current budget
environment, and the idea of the Maintenance Requirement
System (MRS) was created.

The early stages of MRS process development came from the
Availability Planning Improvement Process (APIP - a process

3 NAVSEA is part of the shore based infrastructure
responsible for executing the overhaul and maintenance
schedule, established by the CNO, at a naval shipyard or a
private shipyard under the jurisdiction of The Superintendent
of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP).

‘After the Department of the Navy reorganization this is
now N86.

used extensively in the submarine maintenance community).
This process assigned risk to the deferral of work within the
maintenance planning process. The original intent of APIP was
to help overhaul planners manage risk in regard to mission
readiness. This procedure was modified and expanded to
address the new directives. The concept of the Maintenance
Requirement System was initiated.

B. MRS MECHANICS BREAKDOWN

The Maintenance Requirement System (MRS) is a computer
software program designed to run on a personal computer. MRS
may be run in a stand-alone or network (multi-user) environ¬
ment. For the most efficient results, it is recommended that
MRS operate on the following hardware/software:

1. A 100% IBM-AT compatible microcomputer with the
following minimum configuration:

80386/33 MHZ (recommended)

640K RAM

Hard disk or file server with at least 20MB free
space.

2. Novell Netware Version 2.1 or higher (LAN environment
only)

3. HP LaserJet or Epson compatible printer. [Ref. 4]

MRS is principally made up of three processes. First,

regular maintenance actions need to be determined which must
be satisfactorily completed while a ship is in overhaul for
its safe and reliable operation during the following operating
cycle. A fundamental knowledge of this process is necessary

to understand the next two steps because this is the founda¬
tion upon which the Maintenance Requirement System is based.
Second, required maintenance actions need to be forecast
accurately over the POM years to ensure adequate funding is
programmed to execute requirements. Third, given that
insufficient resources will result in program and budget short
falls, the potential impact of these program short falls needs
to be identified and articulated with respect to the ability
of the surface Navy to carry out its assigned missions. [Ref.
2 ]

1. Phase One: Defining Requirements

The first step in MRS is to identify all of the
maintenance actions required by a given ship in order to
achieve operational goals. The total maintenance requirements
that are assembled and engineered by Planning & Engineering
For Repairs & Alterations (PERA Surface) 5 and presented to the
Type Commander (TYCOM) for authorization and assignment can be
loosely defined as fixed and variable inputs. [For an
expanded discussion of the planning process please see Ref. 5]

The fixed inputs are comprised of time directed
technical requirements (i.e., preventive maintenance actions
such as weight test or hull painting), standard shipyard
routines (i.e., docking / undocking, waste removal) and ship
alterations (SHIPALTS - jobs relating to safety or

Chartered to assist with overhaul and major availability
work package development for designated ship types.

environmental protection compliance or design improvements).
These inputs are less likely to change and therefore more
predictable for planning or programming purposes. [Ref. 2]
The variable inputs consist of maintenance actions
based upon the actual condition of the equipment found during
an extensive shipboard inspection program conducted during the
availability planning process. The scope or amount of work
identified through inspection is variable and therefore more
difficult to program for over the POM. [Ref. 2]

The fixed and variable inputs are compiled by PERA to
make up the Preliminary Ship Alterations and Repair Package
(SARP) 6 . PERA then adds the man-day estimates and their
respective rates to form the Proposed SARP. [Ref. 2]

Both fixed and variable maintenance actions in the
form of the Proposed SARP are presented at the Work Definition
Conference (WDC) 7 . During the WDC, the Type Commander screens
the entire work package to the appropriate activity level
based on capability and capacity: organization (0 - ship's
force), intermediate (I - ship intermediate maintenance
activity (SIMA) or depot (D - shipyard). The Type Commander
authorizes or defers specific maintenance actions based on
available funding. Upon completion of the WDC, the Proposed

displays the ship's total work package showing all work
that has been identified, screened to the various repair
activities and authorized for accomplishment or disapproved.

7 Held approximately six months in advance of the
availability for the purpose of authorizing work to be
performed.

SARP becomes the Authorized SARP, which defines the scope of
work at the beginning of the availability. [Ref. 2]

The ship enters its availability and that work is then
executed. Growth and new work are experienced and captured in
the form of the Completion SARP at the end of the avail¬
ability. The Completion SARP, together with information about
the material performance of the equipment during the follow on
operating cycle, is analyzed by PERA and NAVSEA engineers.
The results of this analysis are fed back into the planning
process for similar ship classes through updates in the Class
Maintenance Plan(CMP)/Long Range Maintenance Schedule (LRMS-
i.e., variable input) and Time-Directed Requirements (i.e.,
fixed input). The Completion SARP combined with equipment
performance data make up the basic building blocks for input
into MRS. [Ref. 2]

The actual process doesn't appear to conform to the
intentions noted above regarding the use of the Completion
SARP. The reason is two fold. Number one, the first version
of MRS utilized the only available data in creating represen¬
tative availabilities: the three most recent Authorized
SARPs. Growth and new work were incorporated into the data
base using information collected from Emergent Restricted
Availabilities / Technical Availabilities (RATAs) 8 . Number

8 RA-is an availability assigned for the accomplishment of
specific items of work by an industrial activity with the ship
present. TA-is an availability for the accomplishment of
specific items of work by a repair activity, normally with the
ship not present, during which time the ship is fully capable

two, and more importantly, the TYCOM has to spend repair fund
dollars in order to "buy" a Completion SARP from PERA. When
the TYCOM has a compelling need to "turn wrenches" (fix broken
equipment), the disparity between the ideal process and
reality is understandable. [Ref. 6]

Utilizing this information as the primary input to the
MRS system (i.e., all required maintenance actions needed to
accomplish mission objectives) achieves the task of "clearly
defining the maintenance requirements for surface ships."
[Ref. 2]

The first data input into the MRS system comes from
the PERA VAX computer in developing a representative avail¬
ability. The information provided includes fixed and variable
SARP inputs. Ship Work List Item Number (SWLIN) 9 , SWLIN man-
day estimates. Equipment Identification Code (EIC) 10 , job
numbers, man-days, material, and frequency. These inputs
represent all required maintenance actions needed to
accomplish mission objectives. Additionally, follow on

of performing its assigned mission.

’Ship's Work Line Item Number, "SWLIN",is a term used to
refer to a specific unit of work defined in the SARP. The
SWILN is identified by the four digit SWAB Number, and a one
digit number that identifies the reporting level breakdown
within each SWAB.

**Note "SWAB" stands for Ships work Authorization Boundary.
This four digit number identifies specific systems to be
worked on in a depot level environment.

10 An alpha-numeric code used in the 3-M system to identify
system, sub-system, and equipment in which maintenance is
performed.

performance and cost data document the maintenance standards
and projected cost of maintenance standards required to
achieve mission objectives. [Ref. 2]

2. Phase Two: Projecting Requirements

The second step in the MRS process is to project
maintenance requirements over the POM years to ensure adequate
funding is programmed to meet those requirements. This is
accomplished by comparing the phase one inputs (maintenance
requirements and respective cost data) to scheduled
availabilities and estimated probabilities of failure. The
MRS system computes the probability for systems to fail over
time using quarterly maintenance (3M - Maintenance and
Material Management System) 11 and equipment casualty reports
(CASREP) 12 data that has been transferred to the MRS data
base by tape diskette. The MRS system designates the
probability of failure factor as "Pf." This represents the
numerical value of the "need for repair" per system and can be
used as an estimate of the probability of specific systems to
fail in the future. [See Appendix A, for a detailed
discussion on the derivation of this value] Estimated repair
costs are then multiplied by the probability of failure factor

’’System used throughout Navy for controlling repair,
preventative maintenance support which assures maximum equip¬
ment operational readiness 3M Corp.

12 An expeditious means of reporting a diminished combat
readiness posture. Advises the operational chain of command
of personnel, equipment, material condition which limit
operational readiness: also alerts logistical commands.

Pf. This then yields an estimate of how often repairs are
required and their respective cost. The MRS system then adds
ship availability and scheduling data from the Fleet
Modernization Program Management Information System
(FMPMIS) 13 via electronic interface or diskette. Once the
MRS system compiles the scheduling, repair probabilities, and
repair cost data, the system can

1. Estimate the cost of required maintenance

2. Project when maintenance must be accomplished

3. Display how the timing of expenditures on maintenance
coincide with POM.

This accomplishes the second phase of the MRS system:
forecasting and justifying the maintenance program and
requesting that adequate resources be programmed to execute
maintenance requirements. [Ref. 2]

3. Phase Three: Managing Risk: Sensitivity Analysis
The third step in the MRS system quantifies the risks
to ship operations associated with funding below the level
required to accomplish maintenance requirements identified in
phase one. The third phase uses information previously
compiled in phases one and two and incorporates new data to
achieve its goal. System importance, mission elements,
mission criticality and maintenance strategy designations are
entered into the MRS system. [Ref. 1] This compiled

13 FMPMIS-Used to schedule and control the installation of
alterations (e.g., ship alterations, machine alterations,
etc.)

information becomes the severity of failure factor (Sf). The
severity factor indicates the impact on mission readiness when
specific equipment is out of commission or degraded. [See
Appendix A, for a detailed discussion on the derivation of
this value] The severity factor and the probability factor
are used to compute the impact of reduced funding for surface
ship maintenance at the work item level (SWLIN). Specifi¬
cally, the relative risk (R) of reducing funds for surface
ship maintenance is annotated as:

significance of outcome (severity or Sf)
multiplied by

the likelihood of outcome (probability or Pf)

R ■ Sf x Pf.

Application of this computational method could be
critical given the present constrained funding environment.
Chief of Naval Operations staff (OPNAV), TYCOM's, and the
FLEET could be better off at managing and predicting the
result of reduced maintenance funds if they used the
information provided by the MRS system. The MRS system can
provide the following risk analysis information within a
"shipsheet" 14 for a specific availability:

1. Severity of failure if work not done

2. Probability of failure if work not done

U A shipsheet is a listing of representative jobs and
associated cost and risk data for a given availability.

3. Missions affected if system fails

4. Criticality of affect on mission.

The following information identifies the impact of
less than full funding by applying any combination of "cuts"
(user specified) to achieve decrement:

1. A * Availability-percentage of one availability

2. C = Class-percentage across an entire class

3. Us Uniform-percentage across all availabilities

4. Vs Vertical-defer availability to another fiscal

year.

To identify the impact on specific ship availabil¬
ities, the MRS computer ranks each representative job by order
of risk. Jobs that support high value, critical mission areas
are placed at the top of the list. The MRS system places a
dashed line, given a specific level of funding, at some point
on the list. Those jobs located below the line can not be
accomplished due to projected resource constraints. This
application of the MRS system shows the impact of funding
cuts.

Maintenance actions affected by reduced funding may be
examined using MRS. Changes in mission requirements may be
instituted as a function of scarce resources or changing
threat. This flexibility allows rapid sensitivity analysis to
streamline data input to the POM process in surface ship
maintenance. The management decision process should recognize
the impact of various options. The MRS system supports
programming and budgeting decisions for surface ship

maintenance so that they may be made with an understanding of
the risks involved in making decisions. The operational and
economic efficiency of the decisions within the surface ship
maintenance program may be increased as a result of the
information provided by the MRS system.

C. REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE: 8Y8TEK DEMONSTRATION TO THE

READER

Once the user has successfully initiated MRS, a logo
screen will appear. [Ref. 7]

lilt 1111

Version 1.0

designed and developed by
American Management Systems, Inc

REXT - <ENTER> PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE*

GLOSSARY - </1> QUIT - </10>

A window will then display prompting for the user's name
and password.

GLOSSARY - </1> QUIT - </10»

After logging-on, the screen will display the five primary
functions of the MRS system [Ref. 7]:

S MAIN MENU

1 - Add Alts/Pkged Effects

2 * Tailor Shipsheets

3 - Assess Funding Cuts

A - Tailored Shipsheet Report
5 - Systeai Actainistration Menu

02/28/92

NEXT - <ENTER>
GLOSSARY - </1>

PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

QUIT - </10»

1. Add Alts/Pkged Effects

Selecting this option from the main menu allows the
user to add modernization jobs and packaged effects to any

shipsheets. For example, if the user has a series of repairs
to accomplish on a number of ships of a particular class, this
feature allows the user to tailor all the shipsheets in one
step [Ref. 6]. Additionally, this function allows the user to
assign individual alterations and packaged effects to an
availability. These alterations and packaged effects are

defined and maintained in the working tables for each ship
class. [Ref. 4]

2. Tailor Shipsheet*

Choosing this option allows the user to tailor SWLINs
and associated risk factors within a specific availability.
This function provides a means to make adjustments to the cost
and risk factors associated with individual SWLINs for a given
availability. Beginning with the "Official" versions
generated during the calculate Shipsheet process, the user may
save multiple versions of an availability to facilitate
sensitivity analysis and risk assessment. [Ref. 4]

3. Assess Funding Cuts

This option allows the user to enter funding cuts
across fiscal years. Horizontal cuts may be applied as a
percentage uniformly, by ship class, or by shipsheet.
Vertical cuts may also be applied by moving an availability to
another fiscal year. Any combination of cuts may be entered;
however, the following rules of precedence will be applied:

Availability cut—> over class and uniform cuts

Class cut-> over uniform cuts

Vertical cut-> applied in combination with horizontal cuts

[Ref. 4]

4. Tailored shipshaet Report

This option allows the user to print the complete
tailored shipsheet in one of the following six sort options:

1. Risk (descending order)

2. SWLIN (ascending order)

3. Prob of fail (descending order)

4. Severity (descending order)

5. MCC (mission criticality code (descending order))

6. Cost (descending order). [Ref. 4]

5. System Administration Menu

This option allows the user to access options to
maintain the reference/working tables used to generate and
validate shipsheets. However, access is dependent on the
access level defined for each user. If the user does not have
access to a given function, the menu option will not display
on the screen. [Ref. 4]

In order to get started, the user selects option 2 on
the main menu. Tailor shipsheets. What the user will see on
the screen is a list of all the availabilities in the POM.
[Ref. 7]

MRS Availability Li»t 05/11/1992

Select the Availability
to Tailor

—Hu

-Description-

-Start Date-

SAMUEL GOMPERS, FY 1998, PMA - OFFICIAL

12/15/1997

PUGET SOUND, FY 1998, DPMA - OFFICIAL

10/20/1997

ACADIA, FY 1997, PMA - OFFICIAL

11/04/1996

CAPE COO, FY 1996, PMA - OFFICIAL

10/02/1995

SANTA BARBARA, FY 1997, DPMA - OFFICIAL

10/16/1996

MOUNT HOOD, FY 1994, PMA - OFFICIAL

10/04/1993

MOUNT HOOD, FY 1997, PMA - OFFICIAL

10/07/1996

AFDL 6

DYNAMIC, FY 1997, SCO - OFFICIAL

11/06/1996

178

NONONGAHELA, FY 1995, PMA - OFFICIAL

12/04/1994

179

MERRIMACK, FY 1997, PMA - OFFICIAL

11/25/1996

186

PLATTE, FY 1995, PMA - OFFICIAL

12/12/1994

SELECTION LIST

NEXT - <ENTER> PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

GLOSSARY - </1> QUIT - </10>

■ ■■ < Screen 1 of 2 >

From left to right the user will see
Hull Type (e.g., FFG 8)

Description (e.g., Mclnerney, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL)
Start Date (e.g., 10/17/96).

The user can choose to sort the jobs in the
availability in any one of the six methods mentioned below.

MRS Tailor Shipsheet 02/28/92

Select the Sort Order for the
Shipeheet Jobe

1 - RISK (descending order)

2 ■ SUL IN (ascending order)

3 - PROS OF FAIL (descending order)

4 - SEVERITY (descending order)

5 - MCC (descending order)

6 - COST (descending order)

NEXT - <ENTER> PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

GLOSSARY - </1> QUIT - </10>

— < Screen 2 of 2 ■ «■

The sort method of greatest interest is the risk
ordered method. [Ref. 7]

Once selected, the screen presents a header across the
top portion.

MRS

Tailor Shipeheet

05/08/1992

Availability Title:

Repair Activity:

Ship Claes:
Availability Type:

Sched Begin Date:

Total Mondays : 32,582

NCIMERNEY, FT 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL
SUPSMIPS JAOCSONVILL Ship Mane: NCIMERNEY
FF6 7 Null IMfaer: FF6 8

DSRA Nan-Day Rate: 420.22

10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997
Total Coat: 19,405,617

Alt/

Job

Edit

Prob

(000)

rSWLIN-NCC-EAI—Mondays-Material-

—Typ—Note?-

—Sev—Fai l—Risk—

—Cost—|

83711

256

98821

1,157

83011

164

57011

109

8441X

85321

880

85311

266

85711

6,463
- EDIT

LIST -

NEXT - <ENTER>
GLOSSARY - </1>

Screen 2 of 2

PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

QUIT - </10>

The header contains:

Ship Name (e.g., Mclnerney)

Repair Activity (e.g., SUPSHIPS Jacksonville)

Availability Type (e.g., DSRA see Appendix A for valid
values)

Scheduled Start Date (e.g., 10/17/96)

Scheduled End Date (e.g., 01/17/97)

Total Mandays (e.g., 32,582)

Total Cost (e.g., 19,405,617). [Ref. 7]

•J •

The lower portion of the screen presents a list of
From left to right the user is given:

ALT/SWLIN (this is a numerical break down of all
maintenance tasks. A help key (F2) displays
the description for the user)

MCC (mission criticality code identifies the

relative importance of the system to the
ship's missions, see Appendix A for further
discussions)

EAI (identifies the importance of the maintenance

task: E = Essential, A = Advisable, I =

Insurance) (See Appendix A for further
discussion)

Mandays (number of mandays for this system
maintenance)

Material (material cost for the maintenance of this
item)

Typ (job type: D —> required overhead job, to

allow work package to be performed, risk is
not assigned. R —> repair jobs, risk
assigned. This field has been modified in
MRS Version 1.1. The new field is called job
category (See Appendix A for valid values)

Note? (edit? - can change to "Y" to attach a note

to this item. An asterisk indicates a note
exists)

Sev (Severity of failure)

Fail (Probability of failure)

Risk (Risk = Sf x Pf)

Cost (in thousands, the dollar cost of this item).

[Ref. 4]

Tailor Shipeheet

05/08/1992

Availability Titla:
Repair Activity:
Ship Claae:

Availability Type:

DSRA

Sched Begin Date:
Total Mondays:

Alt/

•u im -arr-FSi—■*—<

10/17/1996

32,582

83711

256

98821

1,157

83011

164

57011

109

8441X

85321

880

85311

266

85711

6,463
— EDIT

MCINERNEY, FY 1997. DSRA - OFFICIAL
SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Naa»: MCINERNEY
FFG 7 Hull Nk«bar: FFG 8

DSRA Nan-Day Rate: 420.22

10/17/1996 Sehed End Date: 01/17/1997
32,582 Total Coat: 19,405,617

Jab Edit Prab

rye-Material—Typ—Note?—Sev—Fai l—Riak-

NEXT - <ENTER>

PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

GLOSSARY - <f 1>

Screen 2 of 2

QUIT - </10>

The items at the top of the list are job type "D,"
depot routines, the "price of admission" [Ref. 6].

For example, scrolling down to SWLIN number 99711 the
user can see by selecting help (<F2>) that this SWLIN is for
docking and undocking the ship. [Refs. 6, 7]

Availability Title:
Repair Activity:
Ship Claaa:
Availability Type:
Sched Begin Date:
Total Nandaya:

Alt/

Tailor Shipeheet 05/11/1992

MCINERNEY, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL
SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Hmm: MCINERNEY
FFG 7 Hull Huiber: FFG 8

DSRA Man-Day Rate: 420.22

10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997
32,582 Total Coat: 19,405,617

Job Edit Prob (000)

r SWLIN—MCC-EAI—Mondays-Material—Typ—Note?—Sev—Fail—Risk-

99231

228

10,064

96011

256

3,843

AAAAA

132,783

96211

304

8,381

99311

328

10,068

OXXXX

456

7,501

96221

496

37,292

99711

295

133128

EDIT LIST

NEXT - <ENTER>

PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

GLOSSARY - *f 1>

QUIT - </10>

Note that there is not an assigned risk factor.

Scrolling down still further discloses the first
repair job, SWLIN number 63421 (flight/hanger deck nonskid).
This is the SWLIN with the most risk. [Refs. 6, 7]

Tailor Shipeheet

05/11/1992

Availability Title: MCINERNEY, FY 1997, OSSA - OFFICIAL

Rapair Activity: SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Naaw: MCINERNEY

Ship Claaa: FFC 7
Availability Type: DSRA
Sched Begin Dete: 10/17/1996
Total Mandaye: 32,562

Alt/

Hull NkHber: FFG 8
Man-Day Rate: 420.22
Sched End Date: 01/17/1997
Total Coat: 19,405,617
Job Edit Prob (000)

i-SWLIN-HCC-EAI—Monday*-Material-Typ—Note?—Sev—Fai l—Risk-Cost—,

99311

328

10,068

148

OXXXX

456

7,501

199

98221

496

37,292

246

99711

295

133,128

257

99221

604

50,150

304

99211

1,086

193,930

650

NMMMM

1,724

470,081

1,195

63421

2 E 69

5744

100

EDIT LIST

NEXT - <ENTER> PREVIOUS - BACKSPACE>

GLOSSARY • </1>

QUIT - </10>

Scrolling down the list will reveal that in general
the probabilities and severities are decreasing.

Some SWLINs however, such as laundry and dry cleaning
spaces, have a low severity and a very high probability.
[Refs. 6, 7]

Tailor Shipaheet

05/11/1992

Availability Title: MCINERNEY, FT 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL

Repair Activity: SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Naa*:

MCINERNEY

Ship Claaa: FFG 7

Hull Niaber:

FFG 8

Availability Type: DSRA

Nan-Day Rate:

420.22

Sched Begin Date: 10/17/1996

Sched End Date:

01/17/1997

Total Nandays: 32,582

Total Coat:

19,405,617

Alt/

Job Edit

Prob

(000)

r SUL IN-MCC-EAI—Mondays-

Material-

—T yp—Note?—Sev—F a i l —R i ak—

-Coat-,

31311

51711

11021

660

54211

51311

47511

I 103

20,328

R N

1 1 26

12011

A 161

2,572

R N

655XX

A 175

27826

R N

40 65 26

101

kAUNMY/MV CLEAN SPACES- BUT LIST

NEXT - <ENTER> PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

GLOSSARY - </1>

Crraan 7 ft# ?

QUIT - </10>

Others have high severity and low probability of
requiring depot repairs if the work is deferred, such as main
lube oil piping. [Refs. 6, 7]

Tailor Shipaheet

05/11/1992

Availability Title:
Repair Activity:
Ship Claaa:
Availability Type:
Sched Begin Oate:
Total Mandays:

MCINERNEY, FY 1997, DSRA - OFFICIAL
SUPSHIPS JACKSONVUL Ship Naa*: MCINERNEY
FFG 7 Hull NUMber: FFG 8

DSRA Man-Day Rate: 420.22

10/17/1996 Sched End Date: 01/17/1997
32,582 Total Coat: 19,405,617

Alt/ Job Edit Prob (000)

rSWL IN MCC-EAI —Mondays-Mater i a l T yp—Note?—Sev—F a i l —R i tk Cost—i

6311X

569

6,139

245

6311X

539

59,625

286

643XX

308

157,361

287

76311

385

100

52211

5,521

100

58321

21,544

100

32111

1,798

2621X

9187

l«AIN LUBE OIL PIPING- BUT LIST

PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

firrsan 7 r\4 7

QUIT - </10>

The bottom of the list are items with the lowest risk
assigned, for example stowage lockers. [Refs. 6, 7]

Tailor Shipeheet

05/11/1992

Availability Titla:
Repair Activity:
Ship Claas:
Availability T?pe:
Schad tagin Data:
Total Nandays:

NCINERNEY, FY 1997, DSRA • OFFICIAL
SUPSHIPS JACKSONVILL Ship Naaa: NCIMERMEY
FFG 7 Hull Niafcer: FFG 8

DSRA Nan-Day Rata: 420.22

10/17/1996 Schad End Data: 01/17/1997
32,582 Total Coat: 19,405,617

Alt/

Job

Edit

Prob

(000)

-Note?

665XX

i i

201

26,091

* yy~

111

2513X

2 I

166

15,971

52911

1 A

2642X

1 I

325

52611

1 I

1,503

52811

1 1

128

16,996

1232X

1 1

236

5,759

105

671XX

1 I

3180

koacnts i special

STOUAGE—

- BIT

LIST -

Cr-—— 5 nf 5

- <8ACKSPACE>

QUIT - </10>

This would be one of the first jobs deferred in the
event of a budget reduction.

At this point, the user has completed reviewing and
updating various SWLINs. If the user were informed of a
pending budget drill, he would return to the main menu and
select option 3: Assessing funding cuts.

The user identifies the title of the set of cuts to be
evaluated (e.g., TEST) and then enters one of four scope
choices:

Aeeeea Budget Cute

05/11/1992

Enter Budget Cute Title

Cute Title:

TEST

Identify the title of
the aet of cute to be
evaluated

NEXT - <ENTER»

PREVIOUS - <8ACKSPACE>

GLOSSARY

- </1>

QUIT - </10>

C Across a class
A A specific availability
U Uniformly across all availabilities
V Move availability to next fiscal year.

For purposes of illustration, he selects "U". Next
the user specifies the years affected (e.g., 94-99) and the
percent to be cut (e.g., 10).

The dollars (in thousands) affected and cut are shown
in the "Pre-cut" and "cut" columns. The total effect on each
fiscal year is shown (in millions of dollars) in the "Pre-cut"
and "Post-cut" totals across the top of the screen. [Ref. 7]

Six reports show the effect of the cut:
Consolidated results (by: availability type)
Consolidated results (by: program element)
Consolidated results (by: pre/post cuts)
Mission effects

Shipsheet results (with cut line)

Cut list/results. [Ref. 7]

The user selects to consolidate results by program
element. Furthermore, he selects all fiscal years to be
included in the shipsheet consolidation. [Refs. 6, 7]

The screen will then display one page for each budget
line within the program element. [Ref. 7]

POM DISPLAY

Program Element:

Hull Avail

24221 Atlantic Fleet ROH

Start End Mandaya

FY 1994

FY 1995

CG AS

ROH

09/26/94-05/26/95

41,188

24,328,491

CG 51

ROM

05/02/95-01/12/96

41,188

24,672,687

CG 55

ROH

10/14/97-06/12/98

41,188

CG 56

ROH

01/20/98-09/18/96

41,188

CG 5S

ROH

10/19/98-06/18/99

41,188

CG 60

ROH

08/13/97-04/17/98

41,188

CG 61

ROH

06/21/99-02/21/00

41,188

CG 64

ROH

10/26/98-06/26/99

41,188

CG 66

ROH

09/20/99-05/20/00

41,188

The total cost is listed by fiscal year. Scrolling

down to Mclnerney and moving right ( <-> >), the user finds

the dollars for the FY97 DSRA. Scrolling to the bottom he can
review (in thousands of dollars) the total budget requirement
for each year in the POM. [Ref. 7]

FT 199*

FT 1995

FT 1996

GRAND TOTAL

OVERHAUL LART

127,730

69,255

367,082

(000) MC

89,334

37,010

135,946

363

Total

217,072

106.266

503,029

435

SCHEDULED RATA LANT

531,639

479,663

624,067

632

(000) MC

517,274

746,726

630,196

664

Total

1.048,913

1,226,389

1.254.264

1,297

Now the user wants to assess the funding cut by
examining Mclnerney's shipsheet with the cut line. By backing
out to the "Assessing funding cuts" menu and selecting
"shipsheet results (with cut line)," he can examine the impact
of this 10 percent cut on the USS Mclnerney's 1997 DSRA. The
screen will display the shipsheet in descending order of risk.
[Refs. 6, 7]

:::_” _i

MRS

MCINERNEY, FT 1997, DSRA -

Availability Title: MCINERNEY

, FT 1997, DSRA • OFFICIAL

Repair Activity: SUPSHIPS

JACKS0NVILL Ship Naaie:

Ship Class: FFG 7

Hull Nuaber:

Availability Type: DSRA

Man-Day Rate:

Sched Begin Date: 10/17/96

Sched End Date:

SULIN SWUM Description

Mission MCC EAI NDays N

04211 Program Management

456

j 10011 Taaporary Hull Access This is the shipsheet in 128

| 19211 Compartment Testing descending order of risk. 77

40711 EMI Survey

44621 TEMPEST Inspection

Scrolling down the user will eventually come to the
cut line. The items above the cut line represent the types of
jobs for which there would be adequate funding if this 10
percent cut were made. The items below the cut line show

those types of jobs which could not be funded. In addition to
the shipsheet data, this screen also shows mission elements
affected (see Appendix A for valid values). Items below the
cut line will likely have some impact on the mission if they
are not accomplished. The degree of impact is illustrated by
a mission criticality code (MCC). This represents the most
severe CASREP that failure of this equipment would produce.
[Refs. 6, 7]

62111 Non-Structural Bulkhead

NCO

62212 Floor Plates

62311 Ladders, othe We have scrolled down to

62312 Ladders, othe the 10X cut*tine.

62411 Non-Strue Clo

62412 Non-Struc Closures (Non

NCO

63111 Bilge Painting

NOB

539

63112 Interior Painting, Mach

NOB

569

63113 Interior Painting, Non-

NOB

345

64311 Living Spaces

HOB,NCO

308

52211 Sea Water Sprinkling Sy

SAFETY,AAU,ASW,ASU

58321 Lifesaving (not boats)

FSO,NOB,NCO

76311 Saall Anas t Pyrotechni

SAFETY,FSO,NCO

241IX Prop. Reduction Gear

AAW,ASW,ASU,FSO,NOB

134

2441X Prop. Shaft Baarings

AAW,ASW,ASU,FSO,HOB

414

2621X Main Lube 0il Piping

NOB

3241X Switchgear l Panels

(ALL)

508

MRS will then provide an impact statement that is
specific to the shipsheet being examined. For example,
a 10 percent reduction in funding severely impacts maintenance
requirements to mobility, quality of life, and environmental
protection. [Refs. 6, 7]

MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM

02/28/92

IMPACT STATEMENT
(Exaaple)

o A 10X reduction in funding severely impacts
Maintenance requirements related to Mobility,
quality of life, and environaental protection.

NEXT - <ENTER>

PREVIOUS - <BACKSPACE>

GLOSSARY - </1>

QUIT - </10>

III. CURRENT I88UE8t CREDIBILITY

Chapter III investigates the current issues relating to
MRS. Section A looks at differences between MRS man-days and
OPNAVNOTE 4700 notional man-days. Section B examines
irregularities in man-day costing used by MRS and the BAM.
Section C discusses the latest MRS software enhancements.

At the present time, MRS meets the goals and objectives as
they are delineated in DoD Directive 5000.2 by projecting ship
maintenance requirements and articulating the impact of less
than full funding for them. MRS projects requirements listed
in line items P2F1 and P2F2 under the activity group General
Purpose Forces: Ship Maintenance in the OM&N appropriation.
[Refs. 7, 8] Putting this into perspective, Ship Maintenance
is the largest activity group under General Purpose Forces.
An average of 34.8% or 1.3 billion dollars of surface ship
maintenance are examined by MRS for the POM and the budget on
the basis of mission priorities and system performance. 15
[Refs. 7, 8] Specifically, the probability of failure and the
severity of failure define the risk associated with not
performing depot level maintenance and the subsequent impact
on mission performance (i.e., a performance budgeting system).
Performance budgeting, in the form of MRS, represents 6% of

1s Based on FY 1994 and 1995 figures.

the OM&N appropriation and 1% of the entire Navy budget for
fiscal years 1994 and 1995. [Refs. 7, 8]

With any budget tool, credibility is of paramount
importance. If credibility is called into question the tool
may no longer be helpful. The credibility of a performance
budgeting system is based upon the integrity and honesty of
the underlying mechanics/methods [Ref. 9]. To facilitate
system development and address problems associated with the
mechanics of MRS, a MRS Users Group was organized by the
director of surface ship maintenance at NAVSEA (Code 915) and
the membership made up of PERA (SURFACE) ,both Atlantic and
Pacific fleet, and surface type commander material officers.
Other members include representatives from the Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV): Director Surface Warfare
Division (Platform Maintenance Branch N-865X) and Director
Support Maintenance and Modernization Divisions (N-43). The
Users group identify, research, and contribute to the system
development process. These strategy sessions solve problems
and enhance acceptance by ensuring MRS integrity and
credibility.

The first MRS Users Group meeting was held in February
1991. There have been eight meetings since then, with the
latest on 3 March 1993 [Ref. 10]. [See Appendix B for overall
system development time line] The following sections of this
chapter detail current issues and proposed solutions relating
to the utility and credibility of MRS.

A. MRS REPRESENTATIVE AVAILABILITIES AND THE OPNAVNOTE 4700

NOTIONAL MAN-DAYS: CURRENT DIFFERENCES

The December 1992 OPNAVNOTE 4700 contains the man-days
used for programmed availabilities (the notional man-days
contained in the 4700 NOTE are derived from MRS for surface
ship availabilities and Class Estimating Standards (CES) 16
for submarine availabilities. These notional man-days are
used: in the Baseline Assessment Memorandum (BAM) costing
methodology, in FLEET POM submits, and by FLEETS and TYCOMs to
set funding caps on availabilities). One hundred nine surface
ship availability types are delineated in the OPNAVNOTE 4700
(e.g., Docking Phased Maintenance Availability-DPMA, Docking
Selected Restricted Availability-DSRA,etc.) and their
respective notional man-days. Only 14 MRS representative
availability man-days from the 9 October 1992 data-the most
current-are reflected in the OPNAVNOTE 4700: another 58 have
man-days from February 1992 MRS data and 27 have pre-MRS man-
days. Furthermore, MRS treats AD14/37 and 41 ship classes
separately: OPNAVNOTE 4700 treats them as one. Also, MRS

calculated LCC 19 availabilities based on the past and future
CNO schedule (two availabilities per fiscal year). However,
the OPNAVNOTE 4700 contains a footnote which says to consider
every two LCC 19 availabilities as one. [Ref. 9] (In this

16 Created for submarine maintenance planning (both the 687
and 688 class), the Class Estimating Standards (CES) were
designed to 1) help naval shipyards control cost 2)
standardize the estimating base and 3) aid in budget develop¬
ment. CES does not perform a risk assessment nor does it show
the impact of under funding the work package. [Ref. 10]

case the MRS man-days should be doubled in the OPNAVNOTE
4700).

These differences give rise to three distinct problems.
First,once the budget analyst compares the MRS and OPNAVNOTE
4700 man-days, loss of credibility could lead to the loss of
both current and programmed funding. Second, MRS impact
assessments may be less useful due to the fact that MRS is
starting from different totals than the Baseline Assessment
Memorandum (BAM - provides for the costing of the ship depot
maintenance program for the six year period covered in the
future years defense plan (FYDP). Additionally, the BAM
identifies prior year expenditure requirement for availabil¬
ities that start one or two years beyond the FYDP). Thirdly,
from a long-term perspective, budgets for individual
availabilities will be built without the best (substitute
credible) data. [Ref. 9]

The Users Group discussed and analyzed matters relating to
this situation and their implication to the POM and budget.
Consensus of the Users Group was achieved on the following
points:

1. Publish the next OPNAVNOTE 4700 in September 1993. In
support of this:

Prepare the next MRS data by 1 July 1993

- The Users Group will review the results of the data
development to ensure that the process is producing
reasonable and converging man-day estimates (i.e., that
the difference between the average Representative
Availability man-days of the MRS data sets is declining
from year to year)

The MRS man-days will be submitted to OPNAV on 1 August
1993 for inclusion of all MRS man-day estimates in the
OPNAVNOTE 4700 update

OPNAV will coordinate change promulgation with the
FLEETS and TYCOMs. [Refs. 9, 10]

2. The updated OPNAVNOTE 4700 and all subsequent updates
to the notice would include the caveat "... for use in FY96
and latter years [Refs. 9, 10] The intention of this
is to avoid a disruptive budget impact in the current and next
years.

3. In the future, new MRS man-days should be distributed
only during POM development years. If POM development is
required in an unpredictable manner, new MRS Representative
Availability data will be generated annually by 1 July and
forwarded to OPNAV for POM development. This action attempts
to ensure that validated program changes coincide with the
budget [Refs. 9, 10]. Additionally, all of the latest (most
recent) MRS man-day estimates will be incorporated into the
OPNAVNOTE 4700.

To facilitate the acceptance of a periodic update to
the OPNAVNOTE 4700, the User G..oup consensus is that key
personnel in both the POM and Budget process require an
understanding of two fundamental, albeit conflicting,
development issues:

The MRS process is the best way to achieve an honest,
credible and defensible POM (i.e., a through
understanding of what and how MRS works:including a
demonstration of the capabilities of MRS)

Since the MRS process hinges upon the feedback of actual
condition-based maintenance data, man-days will vary.

With regard to the best way to achieve an honest and
defensible POM, MRS provides a solid, technically engineered,
method to measure the relative risk of not fully funding
surface ship maintenance, and portrays the impact on mission
performance. However, a "catch-22" is present in the need to
provide a smooth projection of requirements to budget analysts
in the comptroller's office (i.e., in the Navy -NAVCOMPT- and
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Initial Representa¬
tive Availabilities will have larger standard deviations
associated with their data sets, a normal occurrence with any
developmental performance budgeting system such as MRS. As
more availabilities (i.e.. Completion SARPs) are included into
the data base used to generate a Representative Availability,
the standard deviation should be dampened. Therefore,
variances in man-days (from Representative Availability to
Representative Availability) will decrease. Thereby, more
accurate reflections of the cost (represented in this
hypothesis in man-days) of the condition-based maintenance
philosophy will be produced.

The spikes and valleys in program requirements
generated by a developmental performance budgeting system
evoke skepticism in resource sponsors and budget analyst.
Budget analysts are motivated to protect resources for
programs that obligate resources in a timely fashion and
execute budget authority on a steady basis. Performance
budget systems that do not immediately (within a short period

of time, 12 to 36 months) produce stable projections are
subject to failure. Temporary fixes (such as partial updates,
splitting the difference in man-day differences, or assigning
arbitrary percentage factors) to avoid spikes or valleys only
accentuate the inconsistencies between the actual budget and
a plan based upon feedback of actual expenditures. This may
be viewed as a critical issue related to the success of MRS.

The Users Group has reached consensus to resolve other

inconsistencies noted as follows:

PERA (SURFACE) and Logistics (CNO N43) will jointly
determine whether the differences between AD 37 and AD
41 ship classes warrant a separate representative
availability

Additionally, they will ensure that the historical basis
for special availability strategies (e.g., LCC 19) are
clearly articulated and consistent in both MRS and
OPNAVNOTE 4700. [Refs. 9, 10]

The definitive actions/procedures will be discussed at
the next Users Group meeting in July 1993.

B. ADVANCE PLANNING AND FARM-IN/FARM-OUT BAM FACTORS

In October 1992, the Users Group reached a consensus that
the MRS data development (MDDS) 17 process should develop not
only the OPNAVNOTE 4700 notional man-days, but also develop
recommendations for the Advance Planning (AP) and Farm-
in/Farm-out (FIFO) factors in the BAM. This would provide an
independent feedback into the generation of these factors.
[Ref. 10]

17 For an in depth discussion of the MRS data development
process see Appendix C. [Ref. 12]

1. MRS and BAM Factors: currant System

The BAM defines Advance planning (AP) as N ... the
historical percentages of the availability costs associated
with work package development ...." [Ref. 11] The BAM
further defines Farm-in/Farm-out (FIFO) as M ... the
historical percentages of the availability costs contracted
outside the shipyard for ship systems repair. FIFO costs are
in addition to the yard costs and are considered elective by
the TYCOM. As a result, FIFO factors are capped at 4%. If a
TYCOM chooses to Farm-out greater than 4% of an availability's
work package, it should reduce the man-days accordingly ...."
[Ref. 11]

MRS and BAM factors currently use the following

formulas to price out an availability:

Labor Cost - HD x HD Rate

Haterial Cost - HD x Haterial Rate

AP Cost - AP x Labor Cost

FIFO Cost * FIFO x Labor Cost

Total Cost - Labor Cost + Haterial Cost + AP Cost + FIFO

Cost

where: HD - (Han-days from OPNAVNOTE 4700)HD Rate » (Han-

day rate from N80)

Haterial Rate - ($84.00: from N80, same for CV$,SUBs,& SURF)

[Ref. 11]

2. Problems With Calculating AP and FIFO From Current

Data

The MRS data scatter using current MRS data resulted
in the following:

AP ( 0 - 36%) an average of 10%

FIFO (0 - 13%) an average of 4%

The average AP factor (i.e., 10%) is more than three
times the factor used by carrier and submarine maintenance
planners (i.e., 3%). While 10% may be close to the real
average for Advance Planning costs, the BAM definition of AP
is narrower (i.e., work package development costs). [Ref. 9]
For example, Advance Planning Tasks for the Phased Maintenance
Program (PMP) include 63 distinct activities conducted by six
independent organizations [Ref. 13].

The problem lies in the disparity between the
definition of AP (cost associated with work package develop¬
ment vs. all advance planning tasks) and the derivation of the
FIFO factor (specifically the FIFO factor is based upon costs
associated with where work was performed vice the actual
maintenance requirement) (Ref. 10].

If AP and FIFO costs are not accounted for in excess
of the current factors, MRS man-days combined with the BAM
costing methodology will result in a shortfall. 18 The
process of creating man-days for a Representative Availability
from historical SARPs will drive the MRS man-days lower in
each iteration of representative availability data develop¬
ment. In other words, work that is contracted out (farmed
out) in excess of the 4% cap will lower the man-days for that
availability. Additionally, the 10% average AP factor

18 If AP Cost include production work items then MD is lost
and if FIFO Cost is capped at 4% then MD is decreased,
therefore: Total MD for third availability < second avail¬
ability < first availability.

includes labor and material costs that should be represented
in the man-days for the availability (e.g., long lead time
material (LLTM), Prefabrication, Gas freeing, just to name a
few). [Ref. 13]

3. User Group Recommendations

The potential benefits from reconciling AP and FIFO
accounting include:

For the TYCOM:

- Eliminate the downward spiral in Representative man-days
Eliminate the potential FIFO penalty

Full cost will be reflected in the completion SARP.

For OPNAV:

- FLEET POM/BUDGET submissions more defensible
More consistency in MRS year to year

- POM correct amount for surface ship maintenance

Consistency of POM/BUDGET justification among, FLEET,
TYCOM, & SPONSOR.

For PERA:

Retain flexibility of TYCOM payments to/via PERA for
tasks other than SARP preparation

Easier to complete MRS data development process. Fewer
factors to screen for lost man-days, simpler reconcilia¬
tion process.

For NAVSEA:

Simpler maintenance data development system (MDDS)/MRS
process

Ease of defense of and consistency with the BAM

Accurate POM should increase probability of correct
funding for proper repairs. [Ref. 9]

The User Group has decided on four actions in response
to AP and FIFO anomalies.

1. Instead of the current Advance Planning data in MRS,
PERA should identify actual work package preparation
costs to validate the AP factor. This will more
accurately reflect the historical man-days reflected in
work package development mentioned in the BAM.

2. Furthermore, PERA should capture and identify all avail¬

ability costs, including advance planning and farm-
in/farm-out in the completion SARP. Advance planning
costs in the SARP should be identified as one of two
categories: work package preparation or other. This

attempts to ensure a more accurate reflection of an
availability's total maintenance requirement costs.
Additionally, this should avoid the possibility of
losing track of those costs and inadvertently creating
the downward man-day projection during the iterative
process of generating a Representative Availability.

3. Farm-in/farm-out cost should be included in man-days and
material costs in separate work items of the MRS
Representative Availability and not accounted for
separately as a factor. This should provide a method of
attaching costs directly to the cost driver, giving
additional granularity to the total maintenance
requirements.

4. Advance Planning costs (except for work package prepara¬
tion) should be included in MRS Representative Man-days.
This too, should help to ensure that actual maintenance
requirements are accounted for in an availability and
reflected in the man-day projections. [Refs. 9, 10)

C. IMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY IN MRS VERSION 2.0

The MRS project manager from American Management Systems,
Inc. has briefed The Users Group on the enhancements currently
in the MRS Version 2.0 software ready for the next release.
The Users Group concurred with the requirements for the
following:

1. Flexible POM year selection (in version 1.1 the user
only has access to the current POM year, with flexible
POM year selection the user can tailor shipsheets using

the most recent POM data for any year covered in the
Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP). The user will be able
to look at the impact of Program changes on the current
and budget years in addition to the years covered by the
POM) .

2. Shipsheets for all future availabilities in FMPMIS (this
modification will allow the user to review any avail¬
ability that is in the FMPMIS data base in a shipsheet
format. The user will be able to conduct budget/program
sensitivity analysis on any shipsheet.

3. Use of BAM factors for:

Advance funding (funds required for prior year
expenditures relating to ship overhaul), Advance
Planning (work package development costs), Farm-
in/Farm-out (this will be zeroed), and Material
(only for availabilities with out a MRS Representa¬
tive Availability, i.e., newly constructed ships
placed into a maintenance cycle, for example, MCM 1
AVENGER class and MHC 51 OSPREY class mine warfare
ships). This enhancement will establish more
consistency between MRS and the BAM.

4. Display SWLIN line item information as an option in
Tailor Shipsheets. This option will allow the user to
review and modify all the various line items under a
given SWLIN, providing additional granularity.

5. Alteration handling:

K Alteration (K-ALT) schedules will be loaded from
Fleet Modernization Program Management Information
System vice manually tagged to each availability.
These can be used to call the user's attention to
the effect of K-ALTs on other work in a specific
availability and help tailor the effect of the K-
ALT. For example a K-ALT may require the replace¬
ment of an entire system (e.g., the forward 5 inch
MK 45 gun mount on a SPRUANCE DD 963 class) with a
new system (vertical launch system (VLS). The user
can eliminate maintenance requirements associated
with the old system, thereby precluding double
counting.

Actual D fit F alteration estimates can be loaded
from FMPMIS and used instead of the MMMMM SWLIN
averages. This option will provide a more accurate
estimate based on actual D & F alteration
experience (learning curves) vice an average of all
D & F alterations. [Refs. 9, 10]

It appears that the ties between MRS and performance
budgeting have been accepted in the development of the POM by
the TYCOMs, FLEETS, Resource sponsor, and Program manager for
surface ship maintenance. MRS has been recognized and brought
forth to justify the 1994 fiscal year budget by the Office of
the Comptroller of the Navy (NAVCOMPT) as a definitive way to
"... [define] Baseline Assessment Memorandum (BAM) require¬
ments for maintenance [which] has allowed the surface Navy to
specify maintenance requirements by ship class across the FYDP
(future years defense plan) [Ref. 14]. However, after
reviewing the current issues and stage of development, (i.e.,
differences in: MRS and the OPNAVNOTE 4700 man-days, the BAM's
(i.e., AP and FIFO) ability to capture the correct costs),
NAVCOMPT may resort to the steady, incremental approach of
budgeting based upon their reluctance to support variances
that come out of MRS. How can this be defended before
NAVCOMPT? The answer appears to be to educate them about MRS
and performance budgeting.

The fourth chapter outlines the future challenges MRS
faces and action by Congress through "The Government
Performance and Results Act" (S.20) that would attempt to
initiate a new form of accountability within government
programs through the use of performance budgeting techniques.

IV. FUTURE I88UE8: PROJECTING PERFORMANCE AND
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW

The purpose of Chapter IV is to explore three future
issues facing MRS. Section A examines how MRS compares with
proposed federal regulations dealing with performance
measurement and budgeting called for under the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1992. Section B lays out the
time line for major milestones called for under the Government
Performance and Results Act. Section C examines the last
issue: the proposed expansion of the MRS projection and

justification technique to include other surface maintenance
resources.

A. ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM: KEY ELEMENTS
AND SIMILARITIES TO MRS

According to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
as prescribed in the Government Performance and Results Act of
1992, the building blocks of an effective performance
measurement system are:

Strategic plans.

Annual performance plans,

Annual performance reports. [Ref. 15]

1. Strategic plans are required to provide the starting
point and desired end point or destination in the future in
terms of program goals. A strategic plan is necessary to
implement the overall organization's mission. [Ref. 15]

MRS is based upon the following strategic goal:

... Include adequate funding in budget requests to meet
system readiness objectives and identify the readiness
impact of failing to provide the requested funding ....
[Ref. 3]

It is important that strategic goals be clearly
understood and defined. This is especially true in
organizations with a high turn-over rate in managerial
positions. [Ref. 15] For example, only three out of ten
members of the MRS User's Group have been involved with MRS
since its development.

2. Annual performance plans should link daily operations
to the strategic goals [Ref. 15]. MRS projects maintenance
costs of scheduled depot level maintenance for overhauls
(i.e., ROH, COH, etc.) and scheduled RATA based upon extensive
inspections and the collection of historical maintenance data
conducted during maintenance planning. By using the processes
described in chapter II (i.e., defining requirements,
projecting requirements to support budgeting, and managing
risk in a constrained funding environment), MRS supports the
achievement of the strategic goal of maximum surface ship
readiness. MRS also shows the impact on readiness defined by
the mission criticality code (MCC) as a result of a reduction
to the surface ship maintenance program on any given ship down
to the system level of detail.

3. Annual program performance reports provide feedback to
managers, policy makers, and potentially even to Congress and
the public as to what was actually accomplished for the

resources expended-i.e., to what extent and how well the

original goals were met. [Ref. 15]

MRS takes into account program performance reports in

the form of feedback from the following sources:

3M Maintenance and Material Management

System quarterly reports

CASREP Equipment Casualty Reports

MRMS Maintenance Resource Management System

INSURV Board of Inspection and Survey

PEB Propulsion Examining Board

CSA Combat System Assessment

Emergent RATA Unscheduled restricted availability/

technical availability

AEC Assessment of Equipment Condition

Program.

These various inspections, assessments, and reports
reflect how well a ship is prepared to meet its operational
commitments. However, it must be noted that MRS is used to
project funding for future maintenance requirements and the
impact of less than full funding. MRS does not reflect the
performance of repair work at a ship yard (public or private) .
MRS does not take into account the level of training,
experience, or expertise of equipment operators in preventive
maintenance. To improve management and budget decision making
the annual performance reports (i.e., outcomes) for ship yard
workers and ship's force could be handled in a different
manner such as, utilizing the work centers preventive
maintenance accomplishment rate (an indicator of how well the

crew takes care of a piece of equipment) and the mean time
between failures after re-work by the yard. All program
performance reports (i.e., for the ship yard, ship, and
support organization) could be reviewed in an integrated
manner to determine the Navy's overall mission readiness
(i.e., effectiveness) . The Government Performance and Results
Act asks that annual performance reports include an explana¬
tion when goals are not achieved [Ref. 15]. This element of
the annual performance report is not specifically addressed by
MRS. However, the reports shown above do provide narrative
descriptions when passing grades are not obtained (e.g.,
Combat System Assessment) or where systems fail to function at
desired specification levels (e.g. Propulsion Examining
Board). MRS uses these reports as feedback to determine the
probability of failure Pf and the severity of failure Sf; this
quasi-automatic mechanism provides a self correction to MRS
projections.

The Government Performance and Results Act offers the
possibility of waivers for increased managerial accountability
and flexibility, and it suggest the need for development of
program performance budgets. The Committee on Governmental
Affairs recognized the limitations placed on federal managers
in shifting resources within their programs. Instead of being
accountable for results, managers are accountable for adhering
to specific procedures mandated for the program. In other

words, managers are evaluated on following procedures, not on
program performance. [Ref. 15]

An example of this problem is where the assigned type
desk officer for a given ship undergoing an availability is
not allowed to move I level funds (e.g., funds used by SIMA or
CIS) into a depot level account to accomplish non-skid re¬
surfacing on a flight deck. In budgeting this might incur a
violation of Title 31 of United States Code (USC) section 1517
of The Anti-deficiency Act and/or a violation of appropriation
law, i.e., the use of appropriated funds for other than their
intended purpose [Ref. 16]. If the constraint implied above
were to be relaxed somewhat, better program and cost decisions
could be made at the appropriate level, in this case the type
desk officer level. The type desk officer would also be held
accountable for the performance outcome for that repair item,
as well as would those who did the repair.

Presently, the decision to move resources from one
account to another within a budget activity such as. General
Purpose Forces: Ship Maintenance, resides at the Type
Commander staff level and, consequently, requires the Type
Commander to be briefed. Typically, the process begins with
providing all the reasons why the work can not be funded
through the normal account followed by all the reasons why the
work is required. The process can take from two or three days
(e.g., on a TYCOM interest item) to two or three weeks to
reach a decision. Time is a most valuable resource when a

ship is in an availability. Even if the funds can be acquired
to accomplish the work, the window of opportunity to
accomplish the repair may be narrow or shut. Furthermore, the
federal budget and resource allocation system promotes the
"use it" or "lose it" approach to program execution. This
approach does not address the priority of program demands for
resources. MRS ranks repair work by the risk and associated
cost of not funding an item. Specifically, MRS shows the most
important work needed to be accomplished at the top of the
priority listing followed by repair work with lower associated
risk. When a reduction in funding is imposed, MRS draws a
line on the list showing what jobs will not be accomplished at
the proposed funding level. Additionally, MRS shows the
impact on mission readiness in the form of a statement
detailing the mission areas degraded by the cut.

The preceding analysis indicates that MRS fulfills
some of the intent of the Government Performance and Results
Act with respect to many of the key elements that the Act
deems necessary for implementation of a performance
measurement system.

B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS

ACT

The Government Performance and Results Act is far reaching
and will require federal agencies to conduct a top to bottom
review of program goal-setting, performance measurement and
reporting. The scope of the task requires careful planning

and thoughtful execution. The ultimate objective is to alter
agency and managerial behavior, but not to create another
burdensome bureaucratic information system. [Ref. 15]

The Act calls for the following time line for implemen¬
tation:

October 1, 1993 10 pilot projects in annual perfor¬

mance plans and reports (FY 1994,
1995, 1996). This will give the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
the opportunity to study the examples
and develop guidance for full scale
implementation.

October 1, 1994 5 pilot projects in managerial flexi¬
bility waivers (FY 1995, 1996).

These five pilots will be among the
10 mentioned above. This will see if
incentives will increase the success
of implementing better accountability
systems.

May 1, 1997 OMB will issue reports to Congress on

pilot project test findings.

June l, 1997 GAO will issue reports to Congress on

pilot project test findings.

Joint resolutions introduced in both
house of Congress, requiring phase-in
government wide of the Act's perfor¬
mance goal-setting, measurement and
reporting requirement (note: both

houses would have to approve the
resolution for the statutory mandate
to be implemented).

Resolution reported : voted on.

All agencies submit 5-year strategic
plans (and every 3 years there
after), and annual performance plans
(and each year there after). submit
at least 5 pilot projects in
performance budgeting (FY 1998 and
1999).

July 1, 1997
(approx)

August 1, 1997
(approx)

September 30, 1997

January 1998
(approx)

March 31, 2000

March 31, 2001

OMB submits Federal Government
performance plan with FY 1999 budget
(and each year there after). The FY
1999 budget will also show pilot
projects in performance budgeting in
a performance budget format.

All agencies submit annual
performance reports for FY 1999 (and
each March 31 there after).

OMB report on performance budgeting
pilot projects. [Ref. 15]

Senator William V. Roth, Jr. (R-De) the sponsor of the
Government Performance and Results Act stated on October 2,
1992:

... This bill is aimed squarely at the issue of government
performance... the source of much of the public's frustra¬
tion towards Washington.... For the first time, agencies
would have to develop specific goals for program perfor¬
mance, relating to efficiency, effectiveness, responsive¬
ness, quality, and customer satisfaction.... Agencies
would then have to measure and report the results annually
to Congress and the taxpayers.... Any goals not met would
have to be explained.... This type of reform, a
systematic focus on measuring and reporting program
results, is spreading throughout State and local
governments here, and at the national level in several
major foreign countries.... Now it looks like it might
reach our own federal government, and not a moment to soon
.... The public is angry about how government performs,
and demands a real change in the way Washington does
business.... This reform is just such a major change....
[Ref. 17]

Roth's legislation implements several of the key ideas
advocated in the book "Reinventing Government," and has been
strongly endorsed by David Osborne, the book's co-author
(along with Ted Gaebler) [Ref. 17]. The Act also was an
important topic of discussion during the Committee on

Governmental Affairs confirmation hearings for OMB Director
designate Leon Panetta in January of 1993 [Ref. 18].

C. MRS FUTURE ISSUES

As explained in the beginning of Chapter III, MRS
projected maintenance requirements on average for fiscal years
1994 and 1995 for approximately 35% or 1.3 billion dollars of
the total activity group for general purpose forces: ship
maintenance. Specifically, MRS projects the maintenance
requirements for surface ship maintenance (i.e., overhauls
(ROH, COH) and scheduled restricted availabilities/technical
availabilities (RATA) [Ref. 10]. The remaining 65% or 2.5
billion dollars of general purpose forces: ship maintenance
not covered by MRS represents the maintenance requirements of
aircraft carriers and fast attack submarines [Ref.10].
Representatives of both the aviation and submarine maintenance
communities are presently reviewing the applicability of MRS
to their respective programs [Refs. 9, 10].

Although MRS projects requirements for regular overhauls
(ROH) and scheduled restricted availabilities/technical
availabilities (RATA), MRS does not project maintenance
requirements for intermediate maintenance activity (SIMA)
repair work (i.e., intermediate (I) level scope jobs,
including Contractor Industrial Support (CIS)), emergent RATA
or voyage repairs. This is particularly significant in view
of the changing nature of ship maintenance philosophies (i.e.,
the move from time-directed repair to conditioned-based

maintenance and, moving further down the spectrum of
maintenance philosophy, to continuous maintenance) . [Refs. 9,
10 ]

A new policy proposal is to perform maintenance just
before an equipment casualty occurs, thereby ensuring 100%
readiness 100% of the time. In practice this would require
flexibility in repair planning and execution best suited by
SIMA, CIS, or Emergent RATA capabilities. As resources are
shifted from regular overhauls, phased maintenance, and
scheduled RATA as a result of reduced funding for shore based
support infrastructure, the importance of projecting
maintenance requirements at all levels of accomplishment
(i.e., depot, intermediate, and organizational) becomes
increasingly apparent in the form of operational readiness.
In other words, as infrastructure is "right sized" in an
effort to cut defense spending, SIMA, CIS, and Emergent RATA
(maintenance resources not currently using a performance
budgeting format like MRS) will determine surface ship
readiness in the Navy.

The MRS Users Group recognizes the potential impact of
moving away from depot level maintenance toward the shorter,
more flexible method of repair offered by SIMA, CIS, and
Emergent RATA called for under the continuous maintenance
philosophy. The Users Group also recognizes the potential
effect on overall readiness. In an attempt to get a handle on
the problem, the Users Group asked that NAVSEA Code 915 try to

find a way to use MRS and the MRS Data Development System
(MDDS) to project and defend Emergent RATA costs over the POM.
The results of the research into the Emergent RATA question
will be discussed at subsequent Users group meetings. The
Users Group also must decide how to treat jobs initially
screened to the depot but later re-screened to the SIMA due to
insufficient depot maintenance funds. The Users Group has not
agreed whether these costs should be projected as depot
maintenance requirements with MRS or whether these costs are
truly SIMA maintenance requirements. PERA (SURFACE) agreed to
study the magnitude of SIMA work and report the results at the
next User Group meeting in July 1993. However, in the mean
time, MRS will not project these jobs as depot maintenance
requirements to ensure that MRS credibility is not violated.
[Refs. 9, 10]

It must be remembered that the purpose of MRS is to
project depot (D) level repair requirements. Repair work that
can be accomplished by a SIMA is, by definition, an
intermediate (I) level job. The reality is that there are
many system installations (e.g., MK 45 chain gun or Joint
Operability Tactical System (JOTS) that would, under normal
circumstances, be completed at the depot level. But, because
of operations} commitments, the work must be scheduled during
a shorter availability and completed by SIMA, CIS, or ship's
force in conjunction with the manufacturer's representative.
If a system for gathering and projecting these requirements is

not developed the end result will lead to the under funding of
these alternative maintenance capabilities and the subsequent
backlog of maintenance repair work, i.e., the primary problem
that led to the development of MRS.

V. CONCLUSIONS

This chapter provides answers to the research questions
presented in Chapter I. Section A addresses how MRS is used
and whether it has had a direct impact on budgeting in the
Navy. Section B examines the current and future issues that
face MRS in implementation. Section C points out areas for
further research.

A. HOW IS MRS USED IN THE NAVY? DOES MRS HAVE A DIRECT

IMPACT ON BUDGETING?

MRS systematically reports surface ship maintenance
priorities for programming and provides resource justification
in three distinct phases: defining requirements, projecting
requirements and managing risk. MRS also evaluates the impact
of funding below the requested level in terms of mission
readiness, thereby allowing resource managers an opportunity
to weigh the risk and potential outcome associated with
resource allocation decisions.

First, MRS is used by N86 in the POM development process
for surface ship maintenance cost estimation. Second, MRS is
used in the budget development process at the FLEET and TYCOM
to set funding caps on the cost of ship maintenance (i.e.,
availabilities), both in budget preparation and execution.
Finally, MRS has also been used in the budget reclama process

in 1992 for surface ship maintenance dollars at the NAVCOMPT
level.

B. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING MR8?

A current issue that the architects of MRS are working on
is to establish overall system credibility and integrity.
Inconsistencies need to be resolved between:

MRS man-days and OPNAVNOTE 4700 man-days

- MRS and BAM man-day formulation.

This issue has been addressed and the following corrective
actions initiated:

Revised OPNAVNOTE 4700 update procedures:

Current MRS man-days will be incorporated in the
OPNAVNOTE 4700 and distributed only during POM
development years.

Release of MRS version 2.0 enhancements:

Eliminates discrepancies in costing factors (i.e.
advance planning and farm-in/farm-out)

- Increases user flexibility for sensitivity analysis.
There are two primary future issues that MRS must address.

First involves expanding MRS capability to include intermed¬
iate level maintenance, emergent RATA, and voyage repairs.
The second is compliance with proposed legislation that
attempts to initiate a new form of accountability within the
Federal government through the use of performance budgeting
techniques.

C. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

First, in view of strategic planning in the public sector,
how is maintenance being integrated across warfare community
lines? Second, What is being done or can be done to improve
the feedback for MRS? How integrated should the availability
planning process and MRS be? Third, is MRS really projecting
the actual impact on mission readiness? Past data on MRS
availabilities and resultant CASREPs during the operating
cycle could be analyzed and compared. Fourth, is MRS cost
effective? Do all the savings in the form of resources saved
from budget marks exceed the life cycle cost of MRS or the
development cost of MRS? Fifth, can the MRS approach be
applied to other areas (i.e., training, base support, etc.) in
the Navy?

APPENDIX A

VALID DATA VALDES AND DATA DERIVATION GUIDELINES

Availability Type

Description

COH

Complex Overhaul

CONV

Conversion

DPMA

Docking Phased Maintenance
Availability

DSRA

Docking Selected Restricted
Availability

ESRA

Extended DSRA

PMA

Phased Maintenance Availability

RCOH

Refueling Overhaul

ROH

Regular Overhaul

SCO

Service Craft Overhaul

SRA

Selected Restricted Availability

Job category

valid .Values

Description

Depot Routine

Modernization Job (valid in Tailored
Shipsheet only)

Mandatory Override - allows user to
prioritize a particular SWLIN apart
from its risk values, causing the job
to move to the top of the list (valid
in Tailored Shipsheet only)

Repair Job

Mission

(NOTE: No mission capability identi¬
fier is required for non-shipwork
SWLINs such as shipyard routines or
advanced planning work.

Valid Values
AAW
ASW
AMW
ASU
ELW
CCC
MIW
LOG
INT
FSO
MOB
NCO
SAF
ALL

Description
Anti-Air Warfare
Anti-Submarine Warfare
Amphibious Warfare
Anti-Surface Warfare
Electronic Warfare

Command, Control, and Communications

Mine Warfare

Logistics

Intelligence

Fleet Support Operations
Mobility

Non-Combatant Operations
Safety

Affects All Missions

wiff aiQB Criti cality(MSCl
Va lid v a lue s peggpiption

1 Failure of equipment would result in

C-l CASREP

2 Failure of equipment would result in

C-2 CASREP

3 Failure of equipment would result in

C-3 CASREP

4 Failure of equipment would result in

C-4 CASREP

SAX

One of three letter designators is assigned to each SWLIN that
categorizes the proposed work as essential (E), advisable (A)
or insurance (I). The criteria for each category are shown
below.

Valid Values
E

Description
Essential Work

"legislated” work from NAVSEA
Technical Manual (NSTM) or other
technical authority

Class Maintenance Plan (CMP) work
requirements for MCC-3 & 4 systems or
equipments

work that can be done only in the
depot

mandatory shipyard routine items

mandatory advance planning work items
for the availability

Advisable Work

all other MCC-3 & 4 work

MCC-1 & 2 work with high probability
of failure

other justifiable work (e.g. f
habitability requirements)

Insurance Work

MCC-1 & 2 work with a low probability
of failure

work accomplished early because its
engineered periodicity does not match
availability scheduling (accomplish
early rather than late)

complete rework (including change
out) authorized in lieu of selective
repair because depot capability to
deal with growth in scope is limited
(where this can be determined on a
ship class basis)

work accomplished early because pre¬
availability condition inspection
combined with material condition
trend indicates failure will occur
before next scheduled availability

SEVERITY

Table A-l was used for determining values for severity of
failure S(f). This table stratifies consequences of failure
into four levels and assigns descending values for severity of
failure accordingly:

1. Safety 3. Repair Economics

2. Mission Capability 4. Other

The table follows reliability-centered maintenance
decision (RCM) logic which recognizes the difference in
importance of the four different types of failure
consequences.

The table is used by first determining whether the failure
poses a direct and adverse threat to personnel safety, the
same entry point used in the RCM decision logic. If "Yes,”
failure severity is 100. If "No," the consequence of failure
on mission capability is considered next. In this step,
further consideration is given to whether a primary or
secondary mission area is involved, whether the effect is

complete loss or degradation of the mission area, and whether
other systems are or are not affected by the failure
(independent or associated failure).

If the failure does not affect personnel safety or ship
mission area, it may still be the type of failure that must be
corrected by the depot or is most economically repaired within
the confines of the depot where necessary facilities are close
at hand, or where depot capabilities may be brought to the
ship. This is category 3 of the table.

There are other remaining failures which do not affect
safety or mission capability and for which there is no
compelling reason for depot repair. This is category 4 of the
Table.

PRIORITY CATEGORY OF FAILURE EFFECT SEVERITY FACTOR

1 Personnel Safety 100

2 Ship Mission Capability

Effect On

Effect

Mission Areas

Mission Effect

Other

Systems

Primary/Secondary

Loss/Degradation

Yes/No

Failure Requires

Repair Economics

Depot Facilities For Correction

Failure Does Not Require Being Physically Located

In a Depot But Requires Depot Personnel or Facilities
for Correction

Failure Does Not Require Depot Facilities of 40
Personnel for Correction But Work Can Be Done Most
Economically During Assigned Availability in Depot

4 Other Remaining Failures 30

** To use this table, identify the effect of failure and
locate the failure severity value that corresponds to
that effect.

Table A-l

PROBABILITY

The probability of failure P(f) for each SWLIN represents the
likelihood systems or equipments covered by those SWLINs will
fail during the period between the budgeted availability and
the next scheduled availability when the work could be
accomplished as a result of work being deferred. If the work

can only be done In dry dock, the probability of failure would
cover the period between dockings. If the work can only be
done during regular overhaul, the period covered would be
overhaul to overhaul. If the work could be done during an
SRA, however, the probability of failure would cover the
period between the SRA being budgeted and the next scheduled
depot availability whether it be an SRA, DSRA or ROH.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING 8<fl AND Ptfl

1. Redundant Systems: In order to take the most conserva¬
tive approach, treat severity and probability separately for
redundant systems. For severity, assume that all redundant
eguipments in a system fail simultaneously. For probability,
use the probability of the most significant individual
equipment failure.

2. Distributed Systems: Distributed systems fall into four
basic categories: hull and structures, electrical distribu¬
tion, damage control systems, and equipment cooling systems.
Each of these categories affects mission areas in significant
but not easily identifiable ways. While this presents
problems in determining the severity of failure, the process
for determining the probability of failure is similar to the
process for discrete systems. The following is additional

guidance for determining severity of failure in distributed
systems:

a. Hull and Structures : Those repairs which are required
to ensure watertight integrity are treated as effects on
a primary mission of the ship. All other hull and
structural repairs are treated as effects on a secondary
mission.

b. Electrical Distribution : Electrical distribution is

treated as a primary mission of the ship.

c. Damage Control : Damage control is treated as a primary
mission of the ship.

d. Equipment Cooling Systems : In general, the loss of

equipment cooling is considered a degradation of primary
mission. However, with some equipments on some ships,
loss of equipment cooling can cause a loss of a primary
mission.

3. Support and Piping Systems: In general, support and

piping systems are assigned a severity commensurate with the
degree of degradation that a failure would cause to their
parent systems.

4. Personnel Safety: The severity factor of 100 is assigned
only when personnel safety is involved. A "personnel safety"
failure is one which harms people directly at the time of the
failure - and as a result of the failure: for example, by

spraying shrapnel or noxious fumes. If the failure would only
harm people if some unrelated problem takes place at the same
time, it does not deserve this weighting factor. For example,
a combat system failure that permits enemy missiles to hit the
ship is not considered an "unsafe" failure for the purposes of
depot repair risk assessment, because no repair job can
prevent someone from shooting at the ship. A combat system
ailure that injures a watch stander as a result of the
failure mode - is considered an "unsafe" failure, because a
repair job can prevent the failure from injuring the crew.

5. Level of Repairs Failures which do not require depot
level repairs are not given severity codes greater than 50.

APPENDIX B

MRS DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

TYCOM

RETT

BUDCET

PREPARATION

PROGRAM

OeflCTTVES

MEMORANDUM

•ASEUNE

assessment

MRS

SOFTWARE

MRS USER
GROUP

DATA

DEVELOPMENT

SOFTWARE

MRS

DATA

DEVELOPMENT

AVAJLAMUTY

SCHEDULE

MANDAY

RATES

Wm 1

APPENDIX C

MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM DATA
DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM (MDD8) 19

The Maintenance Requirements System Data Development
System (MDDS) is an automated tool which produces Representa¬
tive Availabilities for the Maintenance Requirements System
(MRS). To accomplish this, MDDS takes historical information
from SARPs, departure reports, and total costs. The SARP data
is correlated to a Standard Line Item Structure (SLIS). The
departure reports and total cost information are used to
determine the Final man-days and costs of the availability.
These man-days and costs are distributed over the SARP into a
SUMMARY file. The SUMMARY File is used to create an average
for each ship class/ availability type combination. MDDS then
allows engineering review to ensure that the historical
information is accurate and consistent. When this review is
complete, MDDS creates a Representative Availability for each
availability type for each ship class. This information is
passed to MRS for use in Projecting future maintenance
requirements.

’’information contained in this appendix comes from the
MDDS Version 1.0 User's Manual. [Ref. 12]

Figure 1 Data Structure

MDDS Data resides at six levels as shown in Figure 1:

1) SADB and Other Customer: Original SARP line items.

2) Departure Report: SWLIN level departure reports from the

PERA Corporate History Database.

3) Total Cost: Total Availability Return Cost Data and TYCOM

Ledger data.

4) Line Item SUMMARY File: Prorated MRS line items

Correlated SARP line items are rolled up and prorated
with the best return cost data

5) DDT Line Item AVERAGE File: Averaged MRS line items

Summary file is averaged by Ship Class and
Availability type.

6) MRS Representative Availability: SWLIN level

Sum of Man-days/Material times Frequency of Repair for
each SWLIN in the DDT Line Item Average File.

Function*

Import

The MDDS import function takes historical SARPs and
Departure reports from the PERA (SURFACE) SARP system and
corporate history database and converts them into a relational
database format.

Prior to running import, the SARP files must be downloaded
to the PC and named with the class type, an underscore, and
the four digit reference number, a dot, and the data type.
For example, AD_0001.SA stands for the authorized SARP for
destroyer tender reference 0001. The SARP Information menu
button in the import function will decode this and display the
information to the screen.

As the SARP is being imported, the line items are divided
into two databases. The SADB (SARP Analysis Database)
contains all of the TYCOM funded repairs which were accom¬
plished by the Shipyard or Government Activity. The OTHER
CUSTOMER Database contains all other jobs (e.g., NAVSEA
funded, not accomplished, alterations, IMA screened etc.)

After a SARP is imported, the description of the problem and
recommended repair (Block 35) is compared to a standard set of
line items (SLIS) through the Auto-correlate process. The
SLIS line items have been defined with keyword sets which
uniquely identify the work. Synonyms are entered for those
keywords which appear in different forms or as abbreviations.
The auto-correlate process checks the Block 35 description for

each keyword (or its synonym) in each SLIS line item key set
until a match is found for all keywords in a key set. If no
match is found, the SARP line item is left for manual
correlation.

Correlate

The correlate function allows the user to review each SARP
line item and review or select the proper SLIS Line Item it
correlates to. There are two main functions within correlate:
Manual Correlate and View Auto-Correlation.

Manual Correlate allows the user to deal with SARP Line
Items which were rejected by the automatic correlation
process, or uncorrelated manually. Within the Manual
Correlate function, the user can change the SLIS or its
keywords and synonyms and then try the auto-correlation again.
Alternatively, the user can manually choose which SLIS line
item to which the SARP line item should correlate.

View Auto-Correlation allows the user to review the
correlation within an availability, uncorrelate those items
with are improperly correlated, and jump directly to Manual
Correlate to fix the correlation. The View Other Availabil¬
ities allows the user to review all the line items for one
SWLIN across availabilities. This enables the user to check
the consistency of the correlation process.

Prorate and Average

The prorate and average functions operate back-to-back.
First, the prorate function takes the correlated SARP data and

distributes the total man-days and material dollars from the
chosen source to create the SUMMARY (or Item History)
database.

After the SUMMARY database is created, the user is
prompted for an anomaly threshold. Anomalies are line items
from the SUMMARY database which differ from the AVERAGE line
item by more than the threshold amount. Thresholds can be
defined as a man-day difference, or as a percent (which also
considers material cost).

After the user chooses an anomaly threshold, the selected
availabilities are averaged together to form the line item
AVERAGE database. A note then is added to each existing
AVERAGE line item detailing the changes made.

After the initial prorate and average operation, any
change to the SADB or Total Costs which affect that
availability type, will trigger a pending proration flag. To
clear a pending proration flag, the system administrator must
re-prorate that ship class/availability type. Unless the
change is minor, or does not affect the average, the system
administrator should also re-average the ship class/
availability type.

Caution: A re-average will recalculate all the values in
the average database for that ship class/
availability type. All previous values will be
captured in the note. However, to avoid
significant rework, perform all functions

affecting the proration before performing
Tailor Line Items.

The prorate and average function allows the system
administrator to select the availabilities which will be
averaged, and the source of proration data to use. However,
the system will default to those availabilities which meet the
criteria specified by the MRS User Group. The system
administrator should be prepared to defend any deviations from
these criteria. The criteria are:

All availabilities for the past three years
If data is available on less than five availabilities of
a given type, continue back until five availabilities
are found

Do not use any availabilities more than ten years old.

The TYCOM ledger normally will provide the best, most
complete source of proration data. If the TYCOM ledger is
unavailable, or if a better and more complete source of data
is available (such as a SWLIN level departure report), then
the system administrator should choose the return cost or
departure report options. If no return cost data is
available, the SARP can be processed without proration. Avoid
processing the SARP without proration, since the SARP
estimates historically have underestimated the actual cost of
reps.

Analysis

The Tailor Line Items function allows the user to review
the averages for each 5115 line item for a ship class/
availability type. The intent of this review is to ensure
consistency and accuracy of the data. Specifically, the
planners and engineers should check to see if the line item
reflects work which could reasonably be expected to occur in
the future, and that the SARP man-days and material costs
contain no gross errors. The Tailor Line item function has
several features which allow the user to review historical
data. The Item History function allows the user to review the
line item in SUMMARY database for each availability of that
type, or for all availabilities in the database. From the
Item History function, the user can choose to exclude abnormal
jobs from the average or include a broader range of jobs in
the average. The View Correlation option jumps to the View
Auto Correlation function and allows reviewing the actual SARP
work statements and the correlation. If the correlation is
wrong, it can be changed directly from this function, without
affecting the proration.

Create/Tailor Representative Availabilities and Add P(f)

Create Representative Availabilities and Add Probability
of Failure (P(f) functions take the results of the Tailor Line
Item function and roll them up into an MRS Representative
Availability. The Tailor Representative Availability Function

allows reviewing and editing the Representative
Availabilities.

A Representative Availability lists the average man-days
and material cost for each Ship Work List Item Number (SWLIN),
a system-level breakdown of the work accomplished on a ship.
Additionally each SWLIN is annotated with the missions
affected if that system were lost, the criticality of that
mission, the relative severity if the system were lost, and
the probability that the system would need depot-level repair
prior to the next scheduled depot availability if the
maintenance on that system was not accomplished. This
information is passed to MRS for use in projecting future
maintenance requirements,
vtilitieg

The utilities include reviewing and editing all databases,
producing reports, duplicating availabilities to allow
averaging similar availability types together when actual data
is unavailable, erasing SARPs, recorrelating all or part of a
SARP, and various other system administration functions.

One of the most critical parts of the MDDS program is the
Maintain SARP/Departure Report and Total Cost function. From
this function, mistakes in the SARP or departure report can be
corrected. Additionally, the values entered in Total Cost
function dictate the ultimate number of man-days in the MRS
Representative Availability, and therefore determine the
•eount of ship maintenance funding in the future. The

following calculations are used to determine the man-days and
material dollars for proration.

TYCOM ledger:

Man-davs= (Industrials +FIFOS ^-Government WorkS)x (1-Mat'l Fraction)

Industrial Activity Man-day Rate

Material ~(Industrials + FIFOS + Government WorkS)x(Mat'1 Fraction)
Where:

Industrials = the total amount paid by the TYCOM to the
primary industrial repair activity.

Industrial Activity Man-day Rate * The primary industrial

repair activity labor,
overhead, and profit
(LOP) man-day rate or the
average LOP rate for the
SUPSHIP.

FIFOS ■ the total amount paid by the TYCOM directly to other
repair activities.

Government WorkS * the total amount paid by the TYCOM to

Government Activities for anything except
work package preparation.

Material Fraction - the portion of the shipyard costs spent on

material (different for every SUPSHIP and
Naval Shipyard)

Return Costs information:

Man-days *

Return Man-days + (Subcontracts*FIFOS* GLAMS) x (1- Mat'l IrACkloiLl

Industrial Activity Man-day Rate

Material ■ Return Mat'l ♦ (Subcontracts ♦ FIFOS
GLAMS)x(Mat'1 Fraction)

Where:

Return Man-days ■ the total amount of labor man-days performed

by the primary industrial repair activity

Return Material - the total amount of material ost» 1 n< urred

by the primary industrial repair activity

Subcontractor = the total amount of subcontractor costs

incurred by the primary industrial repair
activity.

Industrial Activity Man-day Rate = The primary industrial

repair activity labor,
overhead, and profit
(LOP) man-day rate or the
average LOP rate for the
SUPSHIP.

FIFOS = the total amount paid by the TYCOM directly to other
repair activities.

GL4M$ - the total amount of Government Labor and Material
spent for anything except work package preparation.

Material Fraction = the portion of the shipyard costs spent on

material (different for every SUPSHIP and
Naval Shipyard)

The MRS data development will be completed annually by 1
July in order to provide the most current input to MRS and the
US Navy's Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System.

APPENDIX D

Activity

level

APIP

Appropriation

Authorisation

Availability

GLOSSARY

Describes an organization. For example, a
ship, a squadron, a naval station. An
individual unit or command designated by a
five or six figure numeric unit identifica¬
tion code (UIC).

Describes the degree of maintenance capacity
and capability. There are three levels from
least to most in terms of capacity and cap¬
ability they are:

0 Organization-a ship or squadron
I Intermediate-SIMA, or tender
D Depot-Shipyard

Availability Planning Improvement Process
(APIP- a process used extensively in the
submarine maintenance community). This
process assigned risk to the deferral of work
within the maintenance planning process. The
original intent of APIP was to help overhaul
planners manage risk in regard to mission
readiness.

A product of the appropriations bill worked
by the appropriations Sub-Committees through
the Full Committee. A legally available
authority to obligate the Treasury to make an
eventua1 expenditure.

A product of the Authorization Bill worked
through the Armed Services Committees.
Provides no funding. Most obviously,
provides for the authorization to procure
weapons systems if funded and to pay
entitlements which normally must be funded.

A period of time set aside to perform
preventative and/or corrective maintenance.

CASREP

Class

Estimating

Standards

COES)

Class

Maintenance
Plan (CKP)

Dspot

EIC

Fiscal year

FLEET

FMFMIf

Describes a naval message for an expeditious
means of reporting a diminished combat readi¬
ness posture. Advises the operational chain
of command of personnel, equipment, material
condition which limit operational readiness:
also alerts logistical commands.

Describes a ship type. For example, DD-963
SPRUANCE class destroyer, AE-21 SURIBACHI
class ammunition ship.

Created for submarine maintenance planning
(both the 687 and 688 class), the Class
Estimating Standards (CES) were designed to 1)
help naval shipyards control cost 2)
standardize the estimating base and 3) aid in
budget development. CES does not perform a
risk assessment nor does it show the impact
of under funding the work package.

Describes standard maintenance requirements
for a class of ship. The class maintenance
plan can be broken down into two parts 1) the
Long Range Maintenance Schedule (LRMS-i.e.,
variable input) and 2) Time-Directed Require¬
ments (i.e., fixed input).

Describes a Public or Private shipyard.

An alpha-numeric code used in the 3-M system
to identify system, sub-system, and equipment
in which maintenance is performed.

Begins 1 October and ends 30 September. For
example 15 September 1992 is in fiscal year
92, 5 October 1992 is in fiscal year 93.

Atlantic or Pacific fleet commander-in-chief.
Describes (a budget submission activity) a
unified command.

Describes the Fleet Modernization Program
Management Information System--Used to
schedule and control the installation of
alterations (e.g., ship alterations, machine
alterations, etc.).

Funding

Method of applying dollars to some activity.

FYDP

Future Year Defense Program. The FYDP is a
publication of the decisions that have been
approved for DOD's program by the Secretary
of Defense. The FYDP displays the manpower
(military & civilian) and dollars involved in
the approved programs for eight years. Force
levels (such as aircraft inventories) are
displayed for these eight years plus three
additional years. FYDP is organized by major
program and appropriation. It is updated
five times during the biennial budget cycle.
The FYDP for the 92-93 budget covers the
following years:

1990 21 12 21 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000

PY CY BY BY+1 +4 YEARS +3 YEARS

(FORCES ONLY)

Hewlett Packard.

XBM-AT A micro-computer or personal computer (PC)

manufactured by International Business
Machines, Inc.

LAM Local area network.

Maintenance Describes a preventative or corrective

Action repair job.

Maintenance Describes required preventative and corrective

Acquirements repair jobs that should be accomplished for

the ship to perform all primary and secondary
mission tasks.

Maintenance A decision information tool that defines

Acquirements maintenance requirements, proiects those
Systems (MAS) requirements over the POM, and indicates

impact of less than full funding on mission
capabi1ity.

Man-day (MB)

Describes input measure to direct labor. For
example a job may require 300 man-days which
is an estimate of the required direct labor
to accomplish the job. Same as 2400 direct
labor hours (DLH) (300 MD times 8 DLH per MD
* 2400 DLH).

MB Megabyte or 1 million bytes.

MBs Megahertz or 1 million cycles per second.

Mission Describes an organization's function or job.

There are primary and secondary missions for
various weapon platforms (i.e., a ship or
plane - see appendix A for more information).

National NMS is the Secretary of the Navy's input to
Maritime the Secretary of Defense's Defense Guidance.
Strategy The current NMS is titled "From The Sea."

(MMS)

Naval Sea NAVSEA is part of the shore based infra

SystSM structure responsible for executing the

Command overhaul and maintenance schedule, estab¬

lished by the CNO, at a naval shipyard or a
private shipyard under the jurisdiction of
The Superintendent of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP).

OPMAV Chief of Naval Operations staff, office codes

are similar to Joint Chief staff (JCS) Nl.
N2, etc. vice OP 01 , OP 02 , etc.

Planning i Chartered to assist with overhaul and ■« )oi

Bagiaeeriag availability work package deveiopnent for

For Sepalrs des ignat ed ship t ypes (i.e PFRA Surface

» Alterations PEAA CV , PFRA Submarine!

(FNMA)

POM Program Objectives Memorandum-the Department

of the Navy's (DON) POM is the Secretary of
the Navy's (SECNAV) annual recommendation to
the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) for the
detailed application of DON resources.
Covers the objectives, planned activities and
cost of each program. Contains information
on the Navy programs planned for a six year
period, prior 6 current year data, and
documents changes to the Future Years Defense
Plan (FYDP) proposed by TON. The first two
years of the POM will later be changed into
the budget that is submitted to the Congress.
The POM highlights the first two years of the
six years of new data it contains. For
example, the information in POM 92-93
(sometimes referred to as POM 92) will be
used as the basis for the 92-93 budget. Also
shown in POM 92-93 are the prior and current
budget years (90 and 91) and the next four
years (94,95,96, and 97). POM 92-93 covers
the following years:

2fi 2 1 2 1 22 94 95 96 21

PY CY BY BY+1 NEXT 4 YEARS

Program

iMiAgetieg

Eleven programs currently identify broad
areas of both mission and support

1- Strategic Forces

2- General Purpose Forces

3- Intel1igence and Communications

4- Airlift/Sealift

5- Guard/Reserve Forces

6- Research and Development

7 - Central Supply fc Maintenance

8- Training,Medical and Other General

Personnel Activities

9- Adainistrative and Associated Activities

10- Support of Other Nations

11- Special Operations Forces

Concerned with the output of programs. sets
forth what accomplishments can be expected
from the resources made available.

Pregram

■lemeats

(P>)

A subdivision of a program. Identifies
mission who performs mission Is a basic
building block of the Future Years (defense
Plan (FYDP)

RAN

Random access memory.

RA/TA

8 ARP

Scope

Shipaheet

SWAB

SVLIM

TYCOM

Restricted Availability-is an availability
assigned for the accomplishment of specific
items of work by an industrial activity with
the ship present. Technical Availability-is
an availability for the accomplishment of
specific items of work by a repair activity,
normally with the ship not present, during
which time the ship is fully capable of
performing its assigned mission.

Ship Alterations and Repair Package.
Displays the ship's total work package
showing all work that has been identified,
screened to the various repair activities and
authorized for accomplishment or disapproved.

Describes the amount or size of a job.

A listing of representative jobs and
associated cost and risk data for a given
availability.

Stands for Ships work Authorization Boundary.
This four digit number identifies specific
systems to be worked on in a depot level
environment.

Ship's Work Line Item Number, "SWLIN," is a
term used to refer to a specific unit of work
defined in the SARP. The SWILN is identified
by the four digit SWAB Number, and a one
digit number that identifies the reporting
level breakdown within each SWAB.

Type Commander, for example SURFLANT fc
SURFPAC are the surface type commanders for
the Atlantic and Pacific fleets respectively.
Type commanders exist for the Aviation and
Submarine communities as we 1 1 (i.e., AIRLANT,
SUBPAC, etc.).

WDC Work Definition Conference. Held approxi¬

mately six months in advance of the avail¬
ability for the purpose of authorizing work
to be performed.

3-M Maintenance and Material Management System.

System used throughout Navy for controlling
repair, preventative maintenance support
which assures maximum equipment operational
readiness 3M Corp.

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Perkins, John L., Surface Ship Overhaul Decision

Analysis . Masters Thesis, pp. 4, 34-46, Naval

Postgraduate School, Monterey, December 1992.

2. Williams, Robert Luke, "Maintenance Requirements System
Brief," paper presented at the MRS User's Group, 1st,
Washington, D.C., 15 May 1991.

3. Department of Defense Directive 5000.39 (replaced by DoDD
5000.2 dated 23 February 1991: part A, section 7: "Me-
grated Logistic Support."

4. American Management Systems (AMS) Incorporated, Mainten¬
ance. Requirements Systems User's.Guide Version 1.1 . pp.

3-1, 5-2, 5-9, 5-18, 5-24, 5-25, July 1992.

5. Dewitt, Amy, Surface Ship Maintenance Planning Process .
Masters Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
December, 1991.

6. Video tele-conference between Kenneth H. Jacobs, (915),
(NAVSEA), Robert Luke Williams, (913), (NAVSEA) and
CINCPACFLT 13 September 1991.

7. American Management Systems, Maintenance Requirements
System (MRS) Version 1.1 keystroke demonstration disk, 1
October 1992.

8. Department of the Navy, Office of the Comptroller of the
Navy, fi scal 1994/1995 Biennial Budget and Revised Fiscal
1992- Bud get Plan# p. 29, 1 October 1992.

9. Seventh MRS User's Group Meeting . MRS briefing document
presented at the MRS User's Group Meeting, 7th, Norfolk,
Virginia, 3 March 1993.

10. Interview with Grant Soderstrom, MRS project manager,
American Management Systems, Inc., and the author, 3
March 1993.

11. Chief of Naval Operations UNCLASSIFIED Letter Ser.
N433F/2U599537, Subject: Ship Depot Maintenance Baseline
Assessment Memorandum (BAM), 21 October 1992.

12. American Management Systems, Inc., Maintenance Data
Development System (MDDS) User's Manual Version 1.0 . pp.
2-2 to 2-8, 7 May 1993.

13. Naval Sea Systems Command, Phased Maintenance Program
Advance Planning Project Report . NAVSEA Code 9316, pp. 2-
13, 2-17, & 4-1, 25 November 1987.

14. Department of the Navy, Program Budget Decision (PBD)
Reclama, PBD No. 008, PBD subject: Ship Maintenance,
Issue Title: Restricted/Technical Availabilities (RATA) ,
22 November 1992.

15. Roth, William V. Jr., The Government Performance and
Results Act (S. 20) , Report No. 102-429, Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs, pp. 14-19, 29 September 1992.

16. Interview between Professor Lawrence Jones, Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, and the
author, 31 April 1993.

17. Roth, Bill Senator (R-De): press release, 2 October

1992.

18. Telephone conversation between John Mercer, minority
counsel on the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
and the author, 25 April 1993.

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LI8T

1. Defense Technical Information Center 2

Cameron Station

Alexandria, Virginia 22304-6145

3. Professor L. R. Jones (Code AS/Jn) 2

Naval Postgraduate School

Monterey California 93943-5000

4. Professor Jerry L. McCaffery (Code AS/Mm) 1

Naval Postgraduate School

Monterey California 93943-5000

5. Mr.Kenneth Jacobs 1

Surface Ship Maintenance Office (913/915)

Naval Sea Systems Command
Headquarters

Washington D.C. 20362-5101

6. Lieutenant Commander Michael A. Palmer 2

Commanding Officer

Naval Reserve Center
1300 Teege Ave.

Harlingen, Texas 78550-5363

2. Library, Code 52

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 93943

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "DTIC ADA268939: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Maintenance Requirement System"

See other formats