| Summary: | EMBA Project Report === EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Commander, Submarine Forces (COMSUBFOR) has been directed by the
Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) to develop a financial model that relates
force readiness to budget authority given in the Navy’s Ship’s Operations
Account (O&MN 1B1B). In order to develop this model, COMSUBFOR must
identify the significant cost drivers with regard to submarine operations and the
activities that influence them.
Peninsula Graduate Consultants (PGC) has completed an analysis of a
total of 33 submarine years of Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) activities
and the associated repair part (1B1B-SR) spending on a daily basis. We applied
our analysis to the SSN-688/688i submarines of Submarine Squadrons Two
(CSS-2) and Six (CSS-6) during calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007. All
financial data was computed in terms of calendar year 2007 dollars. Furthermore,
we retroactively applied the current Submarine Force business rules that define
in what phase a ship is operating within the FRTP structure and the criteria for a
ship to transition between phases. The repair part data was obtained from the
Naval Sea Systems Command Logistics Center Open Architecture Retrieval
System (NSLC OARS). Each requisition with its corresponding issue quantity,
date of requisition, and net cost (accounting for issue quantity and net effect of
DLR turn-in credit) was compared to each ship, by date, activity, and FRTP
phase.
The following are the conclusions of Peninsula Graduate Consultants.
COMSUBFOR units are not providing NSLC with accurate data. Corrective and
preventive maintenance requisitions are being submitted in a manner such that
we were unable to isolate corrective versus preventive maintenance in OARS.
The relationship between FRTP events (activities and phases) and spending is
limited. Other OPTAR spending is not maintained in a format that can be
correlated to date, activities, and phases. Evaluating spending by each item’s
defined Mission Criticality Code (MCC) provides a focus area if maintenance
must be deferred due to fiscal constraints.
The following are the recommendations of Peninsula Graduate
Consultants. First, adapt a method of data entry in OARS so preventive and
corrective maintenance items are isolable. Commander, Naval Surface Forces
Atlantic (COMNAVSURFLANT) procedures accomplish this and can be
referenced for ease of implementation. Second, conduct an analysis of spending
versus startups and shutdowns. This will help to determine if cycling equipment
is a significant driver of maintenance spending. Third, focus on spending versus
MCC when faced with funding reductions. Some items of lesser essentiality in
terms of the ship’s missions and mobility may be deferrable; however,
consideration must be given for the risk of a “snowball effect” resulting from
numerous small items being deferred simultaneously. Finally, evaluate spending
versus FRTP phase as variable on a daily basis rather than a monthly basis,
which is the current method. The Force should add a tracking mechanism
(“concurrent event bar” in WEBSKED) which the Operations Department will
maintain to keep an accurate history of each ship’s progression through the
FRTP.
|
|---|
