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 9
2
Workshop Session 1:
Past, Present, and Future of Specifications anti Standards
The first session was clesigned to create a foundation of understancling among
workshop attendees regarding the history and focus of evolving government actions to
use commercial standards in defense procurement. The four session presentations,
followed by the speakers' panel discussion, provided an overview perspective on a
number of topics:
Historical involvement of DoD and NMAB in specifications and standards
focused on materials and processes,
Original intent of laws passer! regarding the ongoing Defense Standardization
Program (DSP),
The military aviation sector's real-worId reaction to acquisition reform,
Recent specifications and standards symposium sponsored by NDL\'s
Technical Information Division, and
Current perception of the status and adequacy of ongoing initiatives and
processes.
PAST DOD AND NMAB INVOLVEMENT WITH
MATERIALS AND PROCESS SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS
;.
Jerome Persh, consultant to Zimmerman Associates, Inc., and the Institute for
Defense Analyses, is a former staff specialist for materials and structures at the Office of
Defense Directorate of Research and Engineering for Advanced Technology. He
provided a historical overview of the involvement of DoD and NMAB in specifications
and standards focused on materials and processes, tracing some 50 years of related
NMAB activities. Emphasis was placed on the value of the continued leadership and
guidance role that should be played by the NMAB in this subject area and the continuer!
relevance of the conclusions contained in the 1977 NRC/NMAB report Materials and
Process Specifications and Standards, NMAB-330, on similar workshop themes.
Mr. Persh began with a chronology of NMAB-relatec! activities over the last 50
years and emphasized that the NMAB's role is still an important one. A review of the
1975 NMAB study lecI by Nathan PromiseT (NMAB-330, mentioner! above) showed that
while it is the only existing stucly on the subject, it is still very relevant. The lessons to be
learned remain the same, indicating that very little has changed since its publication. The
main points of NMAB-330 were as follows:
· Costs need to be reduced. One shouicl design to unit production cost rather than
exclusively to performance.
9
OCR for page 10
10 Impact of Acquisition Reform on DoD Materials and Processes Specifications and Standards
· More effective use of standards, inclucling commercial standards, is necessary.
Industry standards should be used but converted carefully.
Specifications and standards for materials and processing are a complex arena.
· Contractors should be more responsible for field maintainability and reliability.
However, in today's changing environment, a new paradigm may be needed.
Globalization and international impact today are reasons to refocus. The message of
NMAB-330, the need to "work toward a unified system of specifications and standards,"
is still valid today. The current workshop is an important start, but it might be advisable
to revisit or even update the 1975 stiffly. The workshop may be a good prelude to a full
National Academy of Sciences study, since the issues are currently not well focused.
Mr. Persh closed by suggesting that, following this workshop' the DoD should
sponsor a comprehensive NMAB study, including a full update of NMAB-330. There
remains a need to provide national visibility and to focus on the use of specifications and
standards.
DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PRO GEM,
MILSPEC REFOR1\1, AND NONGOVERNMENT STANDARDS
Stephen Lowell, of the DSP Office, presented an overview of the original intent of
laws passed regarding the ongoing DSP; the status of DSP objectives; the adequacy of
communications and understanding throughout DoD and between DoD and industry; and
the adequacy of DoD support for and interaction with commercial standards development
organizations (SDOs). The SDOs cited or discussed at the workshop were the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
and the Performance Review Institute.
The use of nongovernment standards (NGSs) dates back to 1952 DoD policy, and
the DSP is required by law. Mr. Lowell pointer! out that the objective is an integrated,
single, DoD-wide program with the highest practical standardization; however, the
message of the Perry memorandum was misinterpreter! as intending to get rid of all
MilSpecs.
The key MiTSpec reform policies are to give preference to performance
specifications over detail specifications and to require waivers to cite detailed military
specifications and standards. A DoD-wide program should be centrally managed but
decentrally executed. One solution is through centralized, online data, but the heart of
the process is consensus. He stressed that the law had been misunderstood; the intent was
always to use NGSs where practical.
Mr. Lowell also pointed out the following:
The DSP stated that government participation in NGSs was needled; however,
no funds were provided.
· MilSpec reform policy was a real change. Now the use of MiTSpecs must be
justified.
· Currently, waivers are needled to require cletailec! military specifications and
standards as a solicitation requirement.
OCR for page 11
Workshop Session 1. Past, Present, and Future of Specifications and Standards
MiTSpec reform actions are 98 percent complete; NGS actions are 70 percent
complete.
More opportunities exist to reduce acquisition costs, but time and funds are not
available.
11
The DSP policies and laws are being successfully implemented but often are not
well communicated or well understood. Government participation in NGSBs and
involvement in NGS processes is constrained by time and funding. The adequacy of
government support is suspect. However, in the context of current to near-term activities,
some accomplishments of note have occurred:
MiTSpec reform as originally defined is nearing completion.
The first ever U.S. national standards strategy was approved in September
2000.
The DoD 5000 Series on acquisition policies is being extensively revised.
ISSUES AFFECTING THE DOD
Gary Adams, of the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, provided an overview of the military (fixed-wing) aviation sector's rear-world
reaction to acquisition reform, emphasizing that the sector's first responsibility is to meet
safety and mission requirements and to adequately serve its ultimate consumers: the
pilots and operators.
Mr. Adams began with a top-down aviation sector view of how the real world uses
specifications and standards. He stressed that the aviation sector must take a
responsibility focus by certifying that aircraft are safe to fly and mission capable. The
aviation sector has "enough control to meet responsibilities," and all other issues are
secondary. However, it is also necessary to know that lower-level processes are suitable
and to understand the basis for certification.
The Air Force Research Laboratory is an essential partner and the keeper of MIL
handbooks. It is also a primary source of expertise necessary for pursuing the corporate
. .
mlsslon.
Since the primary objective is to assess and manage risk, the strategy should have
_ , _
three priorities, according to Mr. Adams: Jomt service specll~catlon guides,
interoperability, and affordability. The focus should be on the products that are
purchased: for example, "buy equipment not titanium." The Army, Navy, and Air Force
are working together in the aviation sector.
The use of NGSs is the "best choice within existing constraints," he said. This
requires an unbiased process, where the ultimate consumer is of primary concern, not the
buyers or sellers. Mr. Adams recommended that the aviation sector adopt bodies of
standards rather than individual standards, but noted that there must be confidence in the
process used to develop the standards. The downside is that the DoD and military
services are not funding government participation in NGSBs; the discretionary budget is
zero.
In summary, Mr. Adams believed the aviation sector is doing its job. Its focus is
on its responsibilities to the pilots and operators. Emphasis is on alignment with
OCR for page 12
12 Impact of Acquisition Reform on DoD Materials and Processes Specifications and Standards
standards bodies, not standards. If stanclards are adequate for industry, then one must
assume they are adequate for the government. Resources are not aligned with the stated
policy to support NGS organizations; the DoD needs to align resources with stated policy
or vice versa. A performance specification for NGSBs may need to be written.
OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS
SYMPOSIUM SPONSORED BY THE NDIA'S TECHNICAL
INFORMATION DIVISION
Timothy Guilliams, of the Boeing Company, provided an overview of the recent
Specifications and Stanciarcis Symposium sponsored by the National Defense Inclustrial
Association's (NDIA) Technical Information Division. This symposium, held in
Baltimore, Maryland, on August 16-17, 2000, sponsored a variety of panel discussions
relevant to the NMAB workshop:
· MiTSpec reform, status and lessons learned
Future directions for specifications and standards in the DoD.
The impact of MiTSpec reform on industry, and
DoD qualification program assessments.
The symposium overview reinforced many themes of the present workshop and is
directly relevant to the workshop. The full proceedings of the symposium are available
from the NOIA and on its Web site at .
PANEL DISCUSSION
:.
The four speakers assembled for a question-and-answer session with the audience
at the end of the session's formal presentations. The following provides a general
overview of the more topical questions along with a general description of speaker and
auclience responses to the questions. This part of the report should be consiclered
qualitative and subjective in that many opinions, comments, and perceptions have been,
by necessity, folded into it. The major issues covered during the Session 1 panel
discussion follow.
Discussion question 1. It seems from the presentations that for the most part
everything is going well. Is this is an accurate perception? Where are the "horror
stories"? In practice, companies will probably use the "easiest nongovernment stanclards
specification" available, so errors may occur (e.g., bolt integrity may suffer). Do we have
a problem? What is really happening?
Integrated responses of pane! and audience. Discipline may erode as a result of
the initial use of NGSs. It was observed that MilSpec use has historically resulted in a
disciplined, uniform process. If the use of MilSpecs is skipped over to save costs, the
process may become dependent on the knowledge, expertise, and integrity of indiviclual
users, which increases program risk and variability. Further, historically, there has been a
natural tension between program managers (responsible for cost and schedule) and the
OCR for page 13
Workshop Session 1. Past, Present, and Future of Specifications and Standards
engineering communities (responsible for "doing the job righted. Eliminating MilSpec
leverage might disadvantage the engineering community vis-a-vis the program office, so
that reliability and integrity could suffer. It was stated that the Air Force, to offset any
loss of discipline, instituted two new policies intended to focus on operational safety and
airworthiness criteria. The intent is to assure that technical discipline is present in the
process and to allow engineers to prove that the technical responsibilities are being met.
A related issue was raised the need to create a culture of trust in the process between
industry and government and program office and engineers. For the most part, the Army,
Navy, and Air Force (i.e., the aviation sector) were said to be succeeding in this; there
were no comments on other sectors.
Discussion question 2. What are the key challenges that must be met to move the
process forward?
Integrated responses of Panel and audience. Resources ant! nercention are the kev
13
_ ~ 1 1 1-
challenges. The messages sent by policy makers are different from the messages
receiver! at the working and implementation levels. We need to find the right number of
specifications to maintain quality and will need to maintain some MilSpecs, which in
some cases are the de facto industry standards. Government organizations lack budgets
that would allow them to adequately participate in nongovernment SDOs. Government
support was always intended and is needec! to ensure that requirements are consistently
met and prioritized. Further, there exists an underlying concern that the NGS system may
not be working as well as we perceive, which is compounded by the fact that current
government budgets are ad hoc and inadequate for support. We may be building the
commercial standardization system on a seriously flawed existing system. The problem
is complex and not solely due to funding issues. We may neec! new, fresh ideas and a
new paradigm. The NMAB could serve as a catalyst for planning and focusing issues
and policy-making discussions.
funding?
Integrated responses of pane! and audience. The consensus is that we are getting
the job done at the product level, but a growing concern centers on our understanding of
the Tower-level processes and process assurances. For instance, are the material
qualifications and design allowables still adequate? Additionally, significant cost
reductions may still be possible at the lower levels. Unfortunately, neither adequacy
studies nor pursuit of cost reductions are possible within the government-supportecl
funding that currently exists. Historically, customers were able to supply funcling for the
Tower-level processes due to MiTSpec-related activities. Today, while it is recognized
that standardization is a valuable corporate mission, funding sources are at the program
level. No central pool exists, there is no sharing, and funding is not easily obtained.
Discussion question 3. Are we really getting the job done, and how do we get
OCR for page 14
Representative terms from entire chapter:
mitspec reform
