| | | ILS's Bad Name
 |
|
ILS, as a discipline, has a poor reputation amongst the engineering fraternity. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it can be a career-limiting move to simply admit to being an engineering logistician. Some programme managers see ILS and its associated analytical effort as an unwanted programme overhead that brings little benefit to the programme. Indeed, given the choice, many programme managers would dispense with ILS altogether. Consequently, one needs to examine and comment on the perceptions associated with ILS's bad name. |
|
Jones (4) is clear that ILS should be developed against the background of an overall programme strategy. The origin of the programme ILS strategy should be twofold - the Customer and the Supplier. Following the purist approach, the Customer should develop the ILS Plan during the Concept and Assessment Phases of the project. The Customer's ILS Plan should be submitted as part of the Invitation to Tender (ITT) documentation to the potential Suppliers. The Supplier should respond with an Integrated Support Plan (ISP), which addresses all parts of the ILS Plan, as part of the Tender submission to be negotiated prior to Contract Award. |
|
In reality, the MOD ILS Manager breaks out a 'boilerplate' ILS Plan, makes little, if any, project specific adjustment to it and submits it with the ITT. In response, the potential Supplier reads the boilerplate ILS Plan and then provides a boilerplate ISP with supporting boilerplate ILS Element Plans, which it is hoped will satisfy the MOD ILS Manager. At the Tender Assessment, the Supplier has satisfied the 'exam question' so gets full marks for his submission. |
|
The result of this lack of a strategic view of the ILS programme is one that evolves as the programme progresses rather than the ILS effort properly feeding the design and trade-off processes. It is due to this unstructured approach to ILS that it becomes the expensive 'add on' that programme managers dislike so much. |
|
A justified criticism that is levelled at ILS is that the process is too slow. In reality, it is the ILS practitioners that are too slow. ILS is a data-hungry process and many practitioners will not make the necessary decisions until all of the data is available and can be thoroughly analysed. Against a background of tight programme timescales, it should come as no surprise to the ILS engineer that the designer would not be permitted by the programme manager to wait for the ILS input before progressing the design. Consequently, if the ILS engineer wishes to influence the design to make the equipment more supportable, he must respond quickly - better a less than perfect input than no input to the design. |
|
One of the major criticisms of the ILS process is that it is too expensive. Indeed, it is not unusual for ILS to cost between 15 and 20% of the acquisition cost. However, it is in the area of cost that the ILS engineer can show his true worth. For instance, an extensive component level FMECA would be a very costly and time-consuming undertaking. Whilst the results would feed the safety programme, R&M programme and the LSA process the level of detail may not be appropriate to the stage of the programme. By tailoring the FMECA to provide functional level information, the safety and R&M programmes can still be initiated (at the functional level) but, more importantly, the LSA process will begin to reveal issues and feed the design at an earlier stage. Should it be beneficial to the programme the FMECA can be carried out at increasingly detailed levels to fit the available budget or timescale. |
|
On both sides of the Atlantic the application of ILS has been perceived by Industry as being too prescriptive and this has led to increasing pressure from Industry to address the problem. Jones [4] allows for tailoring of the ILS process to suit the programme and, indeed, actively encourages it. Consequently, there must be a reason why ILS is applied in too prescriptive a manner. |
|
Speaking from personal experience as a former MOD Military ILS Manager (MILSM) the tenure of a MILSM is approximately three years. Prior to taking up the appointment operational commitments prevented pre-employment training so it was not until four months into the appointment that I underwent the necessary training. Having been on the receiving end of some poor ILS programmes, I was determined to ensure a sound deliverable; however, because I had not set up the programme, I inherited the programme decisions and had to make the best of them. Clearly, from my inexperienced position, I felt at a disadvantage when speaking to my Industry colleagues - I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that they knew a lot more than I did about ILS. Not being very experienced in the ILS arena, I fell back into the comfort zone of Def Stan 00-60 and followed through with a prescriptive programme - something my predecessor had also set up through his lack of knowledge and experience. |
|
Industry, especially in the US, has a culture of giving the Customer what he asks for - almost without questioning the requirement. Consequently, when presented with the Customer's ILS Plan the Contractor responded with a compliant ISP. No attempt was made by the MOD, through lack of knowledge, or by the Contractor, through wishing to please the Customer, to tailor effectively the ILS programme. Consequently, another prescriptive, excessive and expensive ILS programme was born. |
|
| [4] | Jones JV, (1987) Integrated Logistics Support Handbook, McGraw-Hill. Back to Text |
|
last update: December 27, 2004 |
|
|
| | |
