Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 27
6
Workshop Session 5:
Implementation Issues Original Equipment
Manufacturers' Perspectives
Session 5 focused on the issues affecting the implementation of commercial
standards in defense procurement from the perspective of OEMs.
ADOPTING COMMERCIAL MATERIALS AND PROCESSING
STANDARDS IN DEFENSE PROCUREMENT
AT GE AIRCRAFT ENGINES
Robert Schafrik, of General Electric (GE) Aircraft Engines, spoke of the benefits of
and barriers and challenges to implementing commercial specifications for DoD
applications. He pointed out that since commercial technology is often available
immediately, its use could significantly shorten overall system development time and
thus give the military an advantage by allowing a needed system to be fielded quickly.
The DoD emphasis on using commercial specifications requires a commercial minc3-set
in which DoD relies to a greater extent on the commercial marketplace and their
contractors' engineering capabilities. A direct implication is that only available
technology can be specified, so performance may have to be traded off somewhat to
realize cost and schedule targets. Commercial specifications are derived from
experience, so their use allows DoD to leverage a wide application and experience base,
further reducing its technology risk.
A constraint to DoD use of commercial specifications is that DoD systems
typically have an operational lifetime greater than 25 years, while commercial
specifications typically are updated periodically, such as every 5 years. However, DoD
cannot afford to employ niche materials and processes since the narrow application base
will gentler this strategy increasingly costly. In those instances in which use of niche
materials is essential to DoD, there may be a role for the Title III program to broaden the
application base to the commercial uses.
Many OEMs operate in the global marketplace, where the industry standard may be
an international standarcl. There is a need for easier, quicker acceptance of international
standards in DoD applications.
In the past, DoD prepared and controlled military specifications. But the situation
has now changed, since commercial stanciarcts are prepared and controlled by commercial
entities. It is imperative that DoD, in the course of adopting commercial standards, not
insist on complex modification to the commercial specification to address a special DoD
requirement.
Standard development organizations (SDOs) must support industries' need to
reduce product development times. For example, the engine development cycle for GE
27
OCR for page 28
28 Impact of Acquisition Reform or DoD Materials and Processes Specifications and Standards
Aircraft Engines is currently 24 months, with a goal of 18 months. This rapid product
development cycle is in contrast to the lengthy, multiyear times typically required to
develop consensus N(]LSS. or. Schafrik issued the following challenge: Establish a goal
to reduce NGS development time to 6 months (1 year maximum).
He pointed out that an area of concern expressed by several engineers who had
briefed the NRC/NMAB Committee on Aging of U. S . Air Force Aircraft (Aging of U. S.
Air Force Aircraft. Final Report, NMAB-488-2, published by the National Academy
Press in 1997) was that many acquisition programs, in the rush to comply with the intent
of acquisition reform guidelines, did not include the needled MiTSpecs in their
procurement packages, and no commercial specifications existed to take their place. For
example, corrosion control plans were not required. The consequence was that
maintenance personnel across the Services were handed a difficult, expensive task when
the equipment was fielded; this result clearly was not the intent of acquisition reform. A
better approach to institutionalizing commercial specifications within DoD is clearly
necessary.
Word-for-word conversion of military documents was a reasonable approach given
the circumstances and timeline imposed on the DoD organizations by acquisition reform.
But obviously, trading a rigid MiTSpec for a rigid! commercial specification falls short of
achieving the potential advantages of commercial specifications. These converted
documents are now coming due for revision during the normal SDO review cycle. The
revisions wit1 probably generate a substantial workload for such organizations. Dr.
Schafrik said he was concerned that they will be hard pressed to deal with this workload
without improving productivity (e.g., increased use of e-maiTs and meetings conducted
via the Internet) and striving to reduce the time for the revision process.
GE Aircraft Engines has made good use of the single process initiative (SPI) block
chances to simnlifv contract requirements and implement commercial technolo~v.
However, review and approval of block changes is often lengthy, sometimes stretching
beyond 1 year. Speeding up the approval (or disapproval) process couicl facilitate the
introduction of commercial technology for DoD applications.
Preparing and adopting commercial specifications truly represents a partnership
between industry and the DoD; "we all sink or swim together." Contractors must
understand and manage the contract cletaiTs to remove unnecessary requirements and
support commercialization opportunities.
Dr. Schafrik pointed out that, in the past, the DoD's Manufacturing Technology
(ManTech) program within the three Services was a leader in developing commercial
specifications for new materials and processes. He also said that a current Air Force
ManTech program, the Engine Supplier Base Initiative Casting Sector, was an excellent
example of what could be achieved with industry working together uncler government
oversight to clevelop specifications common for the entire industry sector. For instance,
each OEM had developed nondestructive testing (NI)T) specifications basest on corporate
best practices, requiring the investment casting suppliers to support a number of different
NDT procedures, all aimed at achieving the same goal. As a result of the Engine
Supplier Base Initiative, common NDT specifications were agreed to by the OEMs,
reducing the cost and cycle time for NDT operations within the supply chain. Without
the ManTech program, this change probably would not have happened since the impact
to anv one program is not significant enough for the change to have been made.
OCR for page 29
Workshop Session 5. Implementation Issues Original Equipment Manufacturers ~ Perspectives 29
As did other speakers, Dr. Schafrik noted that the attrition of experienced engineers
owing to retirement, among other things, is a serious concern for which a preventative
strategy is needecI. He thought that one benefit of companies sending people to SDO
meetings was that less-experienced engineers could gain knowledge and perspective by
participating with others who are active and experienced in the same technology area.
BOEING IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMERCIAL SPECIFICATIONS
Keith Porter, of the Boeing Company, spoke of five areas that are barriers to the
implementation of commercial standards by industry. He stressed the need to reduce
confusion associated with transition to commercial standards, and the need to maintain
configuration control and technical integrity of products.
First, notices canceling government specifications and standards are misinterpreted
by industry as a technical supersession by NGSs. The DoD has stated that the actual
intent of cancellation notices is to direct DoD (not industry personnel to the new
standard for future contracts. Boeing has reacted with a policy (directed internally as
well as externally to suppliers, customers, and subcontractors) that calls for using
cancelled government specifications until Boeing Engineering has identified a suitable
replacement.
Replacement standards referenced by the cancellation notices may not be
technically equivalent. Configuration management must be maintained. Boeing's
./ 1 0 0 _
selection of materials and processing specifications will, in all cases, be based on
technical suitability and the business case. Existing contracts may require use of
canceled government standards. These call-outs remain binding until contract
modification is approved. There is a need to develop design allowables for commercial
materials not currently used by the aerospace industry.
Second, there are problems with conversion to NGSs. Industry has not been
adequately informer! of the DoD's conversion plans. The Aerospace Industries
Association EWPG has helped, but there are still awareness problems. A new feature in
DoD's Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information System database is
expected to help raise awareness sometime next year. Industry has SDO preferences
bases! on subject matter. Not all SDOs are equal; some have more focus on users, some
on manufacturers. Companies c30 not have the resources to support all SDOs.
Non-word-for-word conversions are expensive and do not add value. Companies
do not have the resources to review changes to all converted government standards at
once. Thus, the burden of document maintenance is shifted to inclustry. Companies need
to increase their support of SDOs. In adclition, some converted MiTSpecs have been
inactivated, not canceled. The result is confusion and a proliferation of specifications
(contrary to standardization).
Third, the industry's transition to NGSs must be controlled and methoclical.
Product design integrity must be maintained. Drawings and supersession lists must be
updated. SPIs must be requested and approved. Decisions must be made about
reprocurements.
Fourth, a means of dealing with qualification and qualifier! products lists (QPLs)
must be established. Many MilSpecs with QPLs are being converted to NGSs. The
current situation is often very confusing. Mr. Porter showed an example of a MiTSpec
OCR for page 30
30 Impact of Acquisition Reform on DoD Materials and Processes Specifications ant! Standards
with a QPL that has been converted to an NGS. Over the course of about 3 years, many
irregularities developed, including multiple QPLs for the same standard, multiple
versions of the standard, and missing or conflicting pointers between documents.
There is an urgent need for a qualification system adequate to support these
converted standards. Mr. Porter stated that Boeing is looking toward industry-managed
qualification to fill this void.
Fifth, the use of NGSs increases cost to specification users. Military specifications
are free. Users must purchase copies of NGSs. Large companies, such as Boeing, can
mitigate these costs through negotiations with SDOs. There is a greater impact on small
businesses and individuals.
COMMERCIAL SPECIFICATIONS AT LOC~EED MARTIN:
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND A PROPOSED PLAN
FOR NATIONAL STANDARDS
Cecil Schneider, of Lockheec! Martin Aeronautics Company, focused on standards
for composite materials fabrication. He spoke on the application of commercial
specifications and a proposed plan for development of national standards for composites.
The value of investing in standardization was emphasized.
Lockheed Martin is almost completely using company specifications for composite
materials (or tri-company specifications on the F-22 program). For test methods,
commercial standards are used, and for design data, MIL-HDBK-17 is user! where data
exist.
A major problem with NGSs is timeliness. Industry does not have 4 or 5 years to
build a consensus NGS set of materials specifications when developing a new product.
Therefore, companies will continue to use company specifications. Lack of a suitable,
approver! commercial specification when a program is initiated will always result in the
use of company specifications.
A plan was worked on in the early 1 990s for standardization of composite materials
by an ad hoc committee and developed into the Aeronautics Materials and Manufacturing
Technology Standarclization Plan. However, the plan has not been implemented owing to
the lack of funding.
Design allowables are required to conduct detailed (resign. One common
specification for design allowable data is needed. The clevelopment of design aliowables
data is time consuming and expensive and depends on multiple data sources such as
material specification, process specification, test method, design and quality criteria, and
analysis methods. Mr. Schneider presented an example of design-allowable data for the
same material, which had been developed by four different programs and documented in
over 25 specifications. Most of the data were not comparable. This is an extremely
expensive and duplicative process compared with starting with a single common
specification.
Lack of standardization impedes the use of advanced materials on aircraft and other
new applications. While commercial-grade materials demand has increased, no
reinvestment capital is being generated. An integrated effort is neecled to focus both
industry and government support and funding. Material specifications, test methods,
OCR for page 31
PREPUBLICATION VERSION
SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
used to detect behavior indicative of impending criminal or terrorist activities, although this raises
concerns about profiling.
31
On the negative side, such analysis also enables invasions of personal privacy. The extent to
which this occurs would depend heavily on the circumstances under which an individual can be
compelled to present an ID, what information is retained, and which activities are tracked within the
system (a topic explored above). Indeed, detecting a problem might only be possible in some
instances through broad analysis. This would necessitate examining the behavior of many people
who do not pose a risk—most human behavior involves law-abiding citizens pursuing
Constitutionally protected activities in order to identify the few who do.24
24 For a discussion of some of the effects and implications of ubiquitous surveillance cameras, see the
October 7, 2001, article by Jeffrey Rosen, "A Watchful State," New York Times Magazine.
OCR for page 32
Representative terms from entire chapter:
acquisition reform
