At its core, CBM+ is maintenance performed based on evidence of need, integrating RCM analysis with those enabling processes, technologies, and capabilities that enhance the readiness and maintenance effectiveness of DoD systems and components.
CBM+ uses a systems engineering approach to collect data, enable analysis, and support the decision-making processes for system acquisition, modernization, sustainment, and operations.
CBM integrates all functional aspects of life cycle management processes for materiel requirements, such as systems engineering, development, acquisition, distribution, supply chain management, sustainment, and modernization.
Implement an optimum mix of maintenance technologies e.g., condition monitoring, diagnostics, and prognostics, best practices, RCM-based processes, and enablers (e.g., total asset visibility within the integrated total life cycle framework.
Minimize mean downtime by providing timely condition information, precise failure mode identification, and accurate technical data to expedite repair and support processes.
CBM+ is pursued through the examination, evaluation, and implementation of enabling technologies, tools, and process improvements Used as a principal consideration in the selection of maintenance concepts, technologies, and processes for all new weapon systems, equipment, and materiel programs based on readiness requirements, life cycle cost goals, and reliability centered maintenance (RCM)-based function.
DoD policy requires CBM+ be implemented for maintenance and logistics support of Service weapon systems where cost effective. The scope of CBM+ includes maintenance related processes, procedures, technological capabilities, information systems, and other logistics concepts that apply to both legacy systems and new acquisition programs.
Require Program Managers PM design, develop, demonstrate, deploy, and sustain equipment in accordance with CBM+ policy and guidance to achieve required materiel readiness at best value.
PM Architecture Framework is fundamental organization of a system or process embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution.
PM Architectural Framework defines a common approach for architecture description development, presentation, and integration for both DoD warfighting operations and for business operations and processes.
PM Framework is intended to ensure design descriptions and interfaces can be compared and related throughout the product or process life cycle across organizational and functional boundaries
CBM+ initiatives reflect universally popular objectives, but can lose support when faced with competing operational priorities. Continued research into emerging technologies and business practices provides programs with the latest information for selecting optimum maintenance solutions.
Sharing the information between programs and Services will stimulate forward progress in CBM+ development and implementation. Regular progress reviews will ensure that new personnel and programs will be included into the CBM+ environment so CBM+ strategic plans stay on track.
Here we provide an overall Condition-based Maintenance CBM Business Case Approach BCA process, common set of cost elements, measures of effectiveness, a notional BCA framework, and factors to consider when assessing and subsequently conducting a CBM BCA to shape an understanding of the areas that CBM capabilities might benefit a program/system, in order to support a go/no‐go decision and subsequent investment decisions with justifiable information.
CBM is the application and integration of appropriate processes, technologies, and knowledge-based capabilities to improve the reliability and maintenance effectiveness of DoD systems and components. At its core, CBM is maintenance performed based on evidence of need provided by Reliability Centered Maintenance RCM analysis and other enabling processes and technologies.
CBM uses a systems engineering approach to collect data, enable analysis, and support the decision‐making processes for system acquisition, operations, and sustainment. In evaluating potential CBM capabilities, whether they are technologies, maintenance processes, or information/data knowledge applications, a BCA needs to address these areas in a comprehensive and consistent manner, particularly when an incremental acquisition or fielding strategy is being considered.
Although the basic concept and purpose of BCAs are generally understood throughout DoD, many interpretations exist regarding assessment of CBM capabilities to ensure appropriate and accurate considerations are given to CBM capabilities, costs, and benefits.
So, what is a BCA? A BCA is a decision support approach that identifies alternatives and presents convincing business, economic, risk, and technical arguments for selection and implementation to achieve stated organizational objectives/imperatives.
A BCA does not replace the judgment of a decision maker, but rather provides an analytic and uniform foundation upon which sound investment decisions can be made. The subject of a BCA may include any significant investment decision that leadership is contemplating.
For example, a BCA may be used to substantiate the case to invest in a new weapons system, but not at the same level as a Capabilities Based Assessment; transform business operations; develop a web‐based training curriculum; or retire an asset.
In general, BCAs are designed to answer the following question: What are the likely operational/business consequences if we execute this investment decision or this action? The possibility exists that any projected savings or cost reductions identified in the BCA could be viewed as an asset available for reallocation in the budgeting process.
In evaluating the potential application of a CBM capability, it is important to understand the desired end state from a CBM metrics perspective and key assumptions that may impact the system or CBM capability.
Must define the need for a BCA, understand and define the problem, and define the desired end state. This approach focuses on As‐Is system trends, evaluating Measures of Effectiveness MOE and their cost drivers, key CBM metrics, determining if CBM is a viable solution and if so, what CBM capabilities are applicable, and then defining feasible solutions.
CBM Guidebook outlines measureable objectives for maintenance in a CBM+ environment and five relevant CBM+ operating metrics: material availability, material reliability, ownership costs, and mean down time; and logistics footprint.
When defining metrics for your BCA, select a set of metrics, considering Systems Operational Effectiveness (SOEs) metrics, that fairly represent the potential costs and MOEs that you expect to be able to capture, or is available.
Other metrics may also be appropriate when considering predictive capabilities such as advanced diagnostics or prognostics that enable accurate and timely prediction of Remaining Useful Life (RUL).
Potential MOEs for Prognostics Health Management (PHM) systems could include advanced warning of failures; increased availability through an extension of maintenance cycles and/or timely repair actions; lower life‐cycle costs of equipment from reductions in inspection costs, downtime, inventory, and no‐fault founds; or improved system qualification, design, and logistical support of fielded and future systems
Key assumptions constitute a critical element of the boundaries of the CBM+ BCA. Not everything included in the analysis is known. CBM+ BCAs, like any forecasting analysis, address future periods and conditions and as much as we utilize data to predict future conditions, any future datum or condition is subject to change from forces that could not be predicted when the analysis was conducted.
Assumptions allow us to logically portray reasonable expectations of future circumstances. Tailoring the BCA to fit your case will require adjusting functional areas, weighting factors interfacing systems, sustainment/incremental capability improvements and service life considerations.
Areas to consider in defining assumptions should include: areas of integration with other systems; operating tempo; projected useful service life/remaining useful life; expected funding levels; basis for cost estimates; MOEs and related metrics (throughout the life cycle); technology forecast; CBM+ related logistics processes; and areas not addressed in the BCA.
Considering these areas will help to ensure the CBM+ BCA is well scoped and defined. It is also important to understand how incremental CBM+ capability improvements may impact ROI and ensure adequate assumptions are defined regarding the impact of incremental improvements on ROI. These incremental improvements, as well as improvements to other systems, e.g., Global Combat Support System (GCSS), and maintenance processes, will make contributions to the CBM+ ROI as they come online.
Assumptions regarding timing and capability impact on the overall CBM+ ROI should be clearly stated. The ROI contribution of other systems may be significantly greater than one depending on application, access, and use of CBM+ data.
Define the As‐Is CBM+ configuration in terms of the existing CBM+ capability itself, the platform/weapons system it supports or is integrated into, and the current system’s CBM+ performance measures/metrics.
To the maximum extent possible, describe the As‐Is configuration in terms of the CBM+ functionality (fault detection, isolation, prediction, reporting, assessment, analysis, decision‐support execution and recovery, both on and off‐board); CBM+ business needs; and operating metrics. Where incremental improvements have been
implemented, provide any prior BCA, Economic Analysis (EA), or analytical data related to CBM+ functionality, CBM+ business needs, and metrics.
Measures of Effectiveness. MOEs should clearly answer the question, “What does this investment provide the customer/ organization?” It is important to understand how benefits will be measured to ensure that appropriate data and information is collected and folded into reasonable measures that support CBM+ metrics and can be tied to time‐phased changes in the system being evaluated.
MOEs can be defined as an advantage, profit, or gain attained. They are commonly thought of as an investment return and should describe what the investment enables an agency to accomplish and how the mission is enhanced. Focusing on improved business outcomes rather than the technology is one of the best ways to ensure the expenditure of any resource furthers the agency’s mission.
CBM+ BCA risk analysis should include any areas or processes that may significantly affect your program and provide an assessment of their likelihood and potential impact. For each alternative, identify risks that could adversely affect it, and assess the possibility that the initiative can be successful; specify a risk‐reduction strategy for each risk; and identify key parameters and conditions that impact the investment decision. Present potential contingent actions that could mitigate the uncertainty. Identify how such uncertainties impact the analysis and investment decision.
Prepare Sensitivity analysis by Comparing alternatives and rank according to net present value, risk, ROI, or primary measures/factors such as risks and areas of uncertainty, technical maturity, level of integration risk, and funding.
A sensitivity analysis can answer “What if the assumptions change?” It involves evaluating the variability of an alternative’s cost, benefit, and risk with respect to a change in specific factors. The objective is to determine which factors have the greatest impact (positive or negative) on the evaluation of the alternative.
Here we present some general questions and guidance that may relate to your CBM+ initiative. Answers to these questions are provided as information and an approach to support CBM implementation. As you plan your CBM BCA, the questions may assist in framing your general approach and strategy and ensure your CBM+ BCA is adequately defined and scoped to address key CBM business areas.
1. CBM+ implementation enhance maintenance efficiency and effectiveness
2. Establish integrated, predictive maintenance approaches
3. Minimize unscheduled repairs
4. Eliminate unnecessary maintenance
5. Employ the most cost-effective system condition management processes.
6. Implement data collection and analysis requirements
7. Measure equipment sustainment performance characteristics
8. Collect measures of effectiveness throughout life cycle sustainment.
9. Enhance materiel availability and life cycle system readiness
10. Reduce equipment failures during mission periods
11. Identify best time to perform required maintenance, to increase operational assets.
12. Leverage open architectures and open standards to facilitate the broad application of CBM+ enablers
13. Improve materiel reliability through the disciplined analysis of failure data
14. Create capacity to modify designs and operating practices
15. Ensure equipment meets target performance standards within operational context.
16. Optimize life cycle logistics processes
17. Reduce operation and support costs by eliminating unnecessary maintenance activities
18. Accurately position resources for an effective logistics footprint in support of warfighting requirements.
19. Incorporate CBM+ based on Failure modes, effects and other R&M analysis.
20. Create capacity for RCM analysis in accordance with established standards
21. Continuous administrative process improvement initiatives
22. Serialized item management applications
23. Predictive reliability engineering methods
24. Technology assessments and business case analyses
25. Analysis formulated in a comprehensive reliability and maintainability (R&M) engineering program
26. Document in the program Systems Engineering Plan and Life Cycle Sustainment Plan
27. Assess standards during acquisition process reviews and evaluations
28. Include in the development of mandatory sustainment key performance parameter (KPP) and supporting key system attributes (KSAs)
29. Develop sustainment KPP or sponsor defined sustainment metrics
30. Adequately resource for implementation, to include product development, procurement, and sustainment.
31. Integrate in current weapon systems, equipment, and materiel sustainment programs where it is technically feasible
32. Incorporate as part of maintenance plans and into contracts for systems and programs
33. Review performance-based life cycle product support sustainment arrangements
34. Assess availability metrics of the sustainment KPP: materiel availability and operational availability
35. Consider KSA reliability, operation and support cost
36. Monitor and review the implementation of policies to ensure CBM+
37. Demonstrate effectiveness across maintenance, acquisition, engineering, logistics, and industry groups
38. Ensure CBM+ technologies, processes, and enablers are integrated with program acquisition and technical planning.
39. Consider CBM+ during program support reviews and other oversight reviews.
40..Support identified critical technologies through studies and analyses
41. Review plans and projects to eliminate unpromising or duplicative programs.
42. Guide science and technology programs, advanced component development, and prototypes programs to achieve CBM+ capabilities
43. Incorporate the requirement for CBM+ in appropriate policy and guidance.
44. Develop and establish enterprise level requirements for implementing CBM+
45. Provide resources for CBM+ requirements developed at enterprise and weapon systems levels.
46. Review and monitor programs for CBM+ implementation and outcomes.
47. Use CBM+ solutions to maintain the readiness of new and fielded equipment
48. Integrate common CBM+ technologies, processes, and procedures for similar platforms and components.
49. Require implementation of RCM and other appropriate reliability and maintainability analyses.
50. Ensure logistics information systems support CBM+ objectives.