Download

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.5 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback174 pages $24.00 $19.20 20% Web Discount

Even before the new Army vision took shape and the Army began its transformation efforts, the fast-paced, nonlinear operational concepts now associated with the Objective Force were emerging. Early on, it was recognized that dramatically better capabilities for keeping equipment operational-including large improvements in reliability, maintainability, fleet life cycle management, and logistics performance-would be needed to take full advantage of these concepts. And the aggressive deployment and footprint goals of the Army transformation increase the importance of making such advances. Growing recognition of the sustainability shortfalls of current equipment has combined with the new force concepts to prompt reviews of sustainability efforts in the acquisition process. In response, recent studies and workshops have developed recommendations for improving the ability of the acquisition process to produce more sustainable systems. In addition, the studies have raised questions about whether new equipment sustainment metrics are needed to define program requirements and have generated debate about whether sustainment requirements should be key performance parameters (KPPs) in acquisition. RAND Arroyo Center has been conducting research to identify how the Army should define equipment sustainment requirements for new systems. Such requirements should improve the Army's recognition of how various equipment sustainment characteristics affect outcomes, and this will help in the process of making tradeoffs among performance goals. This includes evaluating which requirements should be KPPs, and developing methods to support the successful application of the recommended equipment sustainment metrics.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Defining Equipment Sustainment Requirements to Support the U.S. Army's Transformation

  • Chapter Two

    The Costs of Poor Sustainability

  • Chapter Three

    How Should Equipment Sustainment Requirements Be Defined and Measured

  • Chapter Four

    Linking Design Objectives to Overall Goals

  • Chapter Five

    A Few Thoughts about KPPs

  • Chapter Six

    Applying These Concepts to FCS Concept Development

  • Chapter Seven

    Conclusion

  • Appendix A

    Estimating Pulse A

  • Appendix B

    MOS to Category Mappings

  • Appendix C

    Estimated Annual Cost of Maintenance

  • Appendix D

    Objective Tables of Organization and Equipment

  • Appendix E

    List of Operational Requirements Documents Reviewed

  • Appendix F

    Equipment Sustainment Requirements and Metrics Guide

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army and was conducted within RAND's Arroyo Center, the Army's federally funded research and development center.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation monograph report series. The monograph/report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003. RAND monograph/reports presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. They included executive summaries, technical documentation, and synthesis pieces.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.