PBL Implementation
Written by Alan Stockett
The U.S. Marine Corps is methodically implementing performance-based life cycle product support (PBL) strategies. The Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) has demonstrated capability maturity related to institutionalizing PBL processes: Especially noteworthy is its focus on process development, process implementation and process improvement.
Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) was my early exposure to performance-based support strategies. As the logistics manager for the Navy Standard Missile, I was asked to participate on a technical program assistance team, reviewing the Tomahawk cruise missile program and assisting the program office in determining the feasibility of adopting a TSPR strategy. The majority of the team members were from the Air Force missile program office using a TSPR support contract. They provided insights and lessons learned related to developing an environment of trust, detailed cost models and performance metrics required for a long-term relationship with the original equipment manufacturer. Their approach demonstrated increased materiel availability within government cost constraints.
The Quadrennial Defense Review of September 2001 stated that the Department of Defense would implement performance-based logistics to compress the supply chain and improve readiness for major weapons systems and commodities. Later, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics required military departments to submit plans by May 1, 2002, of their implementation schedule for applying PBL to all new weapons systems and all Acquisition Category I and II fielded systems.
BACKGROUND
During the late 1999 time frame, Brigadier General James Feigley was commander of Marine Corps Systems Command. He addressed the absence of and voiced the need for repeatable processes within the command. He established a command design team to conduct an environmental scan of the work force, other services, and industry to identify requirements for the command’s survival. The team comprised a dozen members. Their nine-month effort identified primary work processes and enabling work processes, and they recommended organizational structure changes.
Gordon Taylor was one of the members of the design team and recognized the necessity for establishing and communicating well-defined processes. He was selected as the assistant commander for acquisition logistics to head one of the new staff offices resulting from the command’s restructuring. He determined that, just as important for the command to have well-defined processes, the logistics community needed well-defined processes that supported the command. There were limited numbers of subject-matter experts within the command for only some of the functional areas of logistics. The expertise needed to be captured before it was lost, and it needed to be developed and captured where it did not exist yet within the command. He envisioned a tool where personnel could see the overarching equipping process and easily access supporting processes and resources to accomplish them.
The authors of CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement state that there are five maturity levels related to organizational processes. Each level is a layer in the foundation for ongoing process improvement:
At Maturity Level 1 [Initial], processes are usually ad hoc and chaotic ... Maturity Level 1 organizations are characterized by a tendency to overcommit, abandonment of processes in a time of crisis, and an inability to repeat their successes.
At Maturity Level 2 [Managed] ... processes are planned and executed in accordance with policy; the projects employ skilled people who have adequate resources to produce controlled outputs; involve relevant stakeholders; are monitored, controlled and reviewed; and are evaluated for adherence to their process descriptions ... [T]he status of the work products and the delivery of services are visible to management at defined points (e.g., at major milestones and at the completion of major tasks).
At Maturity Level 3 [Defined], processes are well characterized and understood, and are described in standards, procedures, tools and methods ... A defined process clearly states the purpose, inputs, entry criteria, activities, roles, measures, verification steps, outputs and exit criteria. At Maturity Level 3, processes are managed more proactively using an understanding of the interrelationships of the process activities and detailed measures of the process, its work products and its services.
At Maturity Level 4 [Quantitatively Managed], the organization and projects establish quantitative objectives for quality and process performance and use them as criteria in managing processes. Quantitative objectives are based on the needs of the customer, end users, organization and process implementers ... At Maturity Level 4, the performance of processes is controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques, and is quantitatively predictable.
At Maturity Level 5 [Optimizing], an organization continually improves its processes based on a quantitative understanding of the common causes of variation inherent in processes ... [T]he organization is concerned with addressing common causes of process variation and changing the process (to shift the mean of the process performance or reduce the inherent process variation experienced) to improve process performance and to achieve the established quantitative process improvement objectives.
Communicating well-defined logistics processes to the work force became an imperative. Building upon Randy Fowler’s statements that programs could not be held accountable without adequate funding and personnel to accomplish their missions, Taylor insisted that program management teams could not be held accountable without providing them with the understanding of required processes and related tools to accomplish their responsibilities. Specific subject matter experts were designated as process owners and given responsibility for training the command and reporting metrics about their respective processes. The fielding process was the first of six core processes and the manpower, personnel and training process was the first logistics functional element process to be developed and approved. With this proof of concept, each of the subject matter experts of the remaining logistics functional areas was directed to develop corresponding processes.
PROCESS DEFINITION
A PBL working-level integrated process team (WIPT) was convened in May 2004. Team membership included eight core members and 16 ad hoc members, representing various program and staff organizations within the command and key organizations and agencies outside the command. Members represented the deputy commandant for installations and logistics (DC I&L), deputy commandant for combat development and integration (DC CD&I), MCSC, Marine Corps Logistics Command (MCLC), Tobyhanna Army Depot and Defense Logistics Agency. During an 18-month time frame the team developed flowcharts and narratives and identified tools, resources and policy changes required to implement PBL within the Marine Corps.
Originally the WIPT was conceived as an internal MCSC effort, but it became clear before convening that membership needed to be expanded to include outside commands and agencies. Furthermore, it needed Headquarters Marine Corps buy-in to be successful. Fortunately, key leadership was provided in Doug Smith from DC I&L and Randy Shockey from MCSC who co-chaired the WIPT.
The flowchart was developed following the same template used by other logistics functional area processes to ensure consistency in appearance and functionality. The Acquisition Logistics Roadmap had originally six phases: requirements analysis, support planning, design for principal end item supportability, design and develop support subsystem, acquire support subsystem, and field support subsystem. The roadmap has been augmented to include operations and support and disposal phases. Each phase is reflected in a different color to keep schedule sequencing of various processes consistent. The chart is divided into “swim lanes” to represent visually the task responsibilities allocated to different individuals and organizations.
The chart uses standard flowchart conventions reflecting tasks, decision points and documents. Task colors correspond with responsibility swim lane colors to help overcome difficulties of viewing a large, detailed chart with a desktop monitor. Interfaces with other processes are highlighted in red. Resources and tools, such as forms, references, databases, applications, models or templates, are reflected as mechanisms in each applicable phase.
A detailed narrative was developed for each task, listing task ownership, actions, timing, rationale and mechanisms. The narratives provide the detail required to go beyond communicating what needs to be done to include how it needs to be done. Documenting the narratives required a great deal of the team’s effort and truly fleshed out the process for the command to use.
While the flowchart and narratives were developed, the team identified specific issues that needed to be resolved to ensure successful implementation of performance-based principles. Individual team members took specific steps to resolve identified issues. Some issues were identified as action items that would be completed by a subset of the WIPT known as the core working group, which would continue to resolve action items even after the WIPT had provided its required deliverables.
For example, financial strategies related to funding PBL needed to be defined and accepted by Headquarters Marine Corps representatives. The core working group, after the WIPT wrapped up in November 2005, met with the MCSC deputy commander for financial management and representatives of the deputy commandant for programs and resources in January 2006 to agree upon these funding methods. The long-term and sustainment nature of PBL would require operations and maintenance, Marine Corps (O&MMC) funds; however, the bulk of these funds were received by operational forces and the MCLC. Operational forces’ O&MMC was considered discretionary funds, allowing commanders to spend them to best meet operational priorities. The MCSC needed to ensure the availability of funding streams to meet anti-deficiency requirements related to funding contracts. The agreement included in some instances that O&MMC funds could be reprogrammed to MCSC lines of accounting to fund PBL contracts when system— both technical and support—performance benefits were deemed sufficient and documented in a user performance-based agreement (PBA).
The USMC PBL Guidebook was developed in conjunction with the process development to provide a comprehensive “how to” reference to logisticians and other program management team members. All follow-on action items have been resolved by the core working group, and details discovered during resolution have been documented in the guidebook.
The Marine Corps Order (MCO) 4081.2 for Marine Corps performance-based logistics was promulgated January 5, 2007. It implements DoD directives and policies and reflects the WIPT’s recommendations. An updated draft of the MCO has been revised recently to require the DC CD&I, as the warfighter’s representative, to retain PBA signature authority throughout the total life of systems. The updated draft would also provide the USMC PBL Guidebook as an attachment.
A key component for success in implementing a command process is communicating the process to the work force. Training is the active component that pushes the information to the command. The WIPT identified learning objectives and the outline that would be used as the training package. The Core Working Group fleshed out details included in the training package and its associated exam.
PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION
The MCSC institutionalized a command certification process that was specific to functional disciplines (i.e., program management, financial management, contracts, engineering and logistics) aligned to respective competency domains. Within the command, logisticians have a professional development handbook that stipulates certification requirements and procedures.
It describes what certification levels are required by various billet types and management levels. These certifications are in addition to those required by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act. PBL and the other logistics functional area specific process training courses are mandatory. Command certification for logisticians requires completion of mandatory training. I conduct formal PBL training sessions on a monthly basis.
The PBL process—including flowcharts and narratives—is available to the work force online at MCSC Websites. The same tool used to access the MCSC equipping process roadmap, a.k.a. The Six Core Processes, is used to access the MCSC life cycle logistics roadmap. Additional references, training materials and examples are available to the work force at the command’s knowledge center.
Independent logistics assessments (ILAs) are conducted for acquisition programs prior to milestone decisions. Checklists used during these assessments include PBL requirements. As the PBL process lead, I consult with program management teams before and after ILAs to assure implementation of PBL principles and ILA specific recommendations.
PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
The PBL Core Working Group continues to meet at least once a year to evaluate the adequacy of policies and their implementation. Its members were instrumental in staffing the updated draft MCO to Marine Corps commands and adjudicating their comments. The Core Working Group members are recognized as resident subject matter experts within their organizations and help to spread the word on training opportunities and to resolve issues as they arise.
Beyond the PBL Process Overview, we have identified the need for additional, detailed training. When I meet with product groups or program management teams, I like to use an executive introduction that takes about 30 to 60 minutes to discuss performance- based principles related to acquisition and sustainment, and it addresses some of the misconceptions of PBL, minimum policy requirements and lessons learned. Additional training that has been identified is the PBA and Metrics module and Business Case Analysis (BCA) module. The PBA and Metrics training module was approved on April 7, 2009. It is a four-hour class that we offer every other month. Its training exercises provide students an opportunity to develop a well-defined performance metric that could be included in a PBA and an opportunity to critique a sample user PBA. We are developing a BCA training module. I envision that it will also be a fourhour class that would be taught at the same frequency as the PBA and Metrics training module. It will focus on using warfighter inputs to establish and weight evaluation criteria for the BCA, properly scoping the effort, understanding methods, and incorporating results to achieve “best value” support strategies.
LESSONS LEARNED
When I consult with program management teams about implementing PBL principles, I like to impress upon them lessons learned in three areas: teaming, PBA and BCA.
A successful performance-based life cycle support strategy is only possible if the entire program management team is involved and committed. Program managers, financial managers, contract officers, engineers and logisticians need to all work together toward the common goal. This is only possible if they perceive the playing field, rules and objectives in the same way; a baseline of understanding gives them unity of purpose.
The team is not complete without the buy-in of external stakeholders. I witnessed one team successfully convene such a team in pursuit of a PBL strategy for a legacy system. The program manager chartered a PBL integrated product team that included all the functional disciplines of the program management team and also included Marines currently using the equipment, the requirements officer, supply chain representative and original equipment manufacturer representatives. They kicked off with a three-day meeting facilitated by Defense Acquisition University professors. Team members were trained in PBL principles; group discussions resolved questions and misunderstandings so the entire team had the same baseline of understanding. The training coached the team through developing performance metrics, PBAs and contract incentives. It was very powerful to see a team tuned in and focused on the same objective.
The team needs to be established early so it can work the critical path of identifying performance metrics and documenting them in the PBA clearly. Many misunderstandings of PBL within the Marine Corps relate to thinking the user PBA is only required if a PBL strategy is chosen. I emphasize that the user PBA helps a program understand and decide what the best value support strategy will be. It is more than the document; it is the discussion that takes place as the program management team sits with the users and requirements officers, negotiating the constraints within the supportability trade space and truly understanding the user’s priorities. Some think mistakenly that the initial capabilities document, capabilities development document, and capabilities production document constitute user agreements stipulated in DoD acquisition policy, but these contain unconstrained requirements. A user PBA refines threshold requirements and identifies the supportability trade space within these boundaries. It identifies supportability priorities and defines performance metrics and how they will be measured. It documents the level of support performance and the corresponding investment that both the program office and the user community— the Marines—commit to providing.
Marine Corps policy states that the user PBA and BCA must be finalized prior to production and deployment decisions. The discussions and negotiations required to flesh out the PBA help to identify customer priorities and the relative importance of these priorities, which in turn indicate possible evaluation criteria and criteria weighting to be used to guide and conduct the BCA. Although this is only possible if the PBA efforts begin before the detailed BCA, follow- on PBA efforts can parallel BCA efforts. This parallel effort allows BCA findings to refine the user PBA to communicate clearly the best value support strategy. In this construct the user PBA and BCA could be finalized at the same time. I emphasize that here is a critical path in that the PBA and BCA need to be finalized early enough to incorporate the results in requests for proposal related to system production to ensure that the support mode of fielded systems receives the consideration in and benefit from the original competition.
CONCLUSION
The Marine Corps benefits from the team efforts of multiple supporting commands. Their efforts are enhanced greatly by common understanding and close coordination afforded by well-defined processes. ✯ Alan Stockett is the performance-based logistics process lead, assistant commander for life cycle logistics, Marine Corps Systems Command. ♦