Attachment_7_-_SUPPLY_EFFECTIVENESS.pdf

SUPPLY EFFECTIVENESS

Repair Parts Effectiveness

Effectiveness is a measure of the quality of the ship’s COSAL and the management of COSAL storeroom repair parts assets. It measures the number of repair part demands against allowances in ship’s storerooms and records data on all repair parts requirements processed through ShipCLIP.

COSALs

All MSC ships have a COSAL that identifies the last known or reported equipment installed on each ship.

The COSAL represents the logistics support baseline for all ship equipment that is maintenance or functionally (propulsion, auxiliary or mission) significant. The COSAL includes technical information and coding which is loaded into the MSC life cycle logistics database and input into a spares formula and used to calculate the ship storeroom repair parts allowances, most shorebased spares, special tools and equipage. MSC’s COSAL allowance model uses a formula which accounts for the population, planned maintenance, criticality and projected failure rates for all equipment. The allowance model attempts to provide planned maintenance materials covering ninety days endurance (180 days on selected ships) and covers all ship replaceable parts for a ten year period for critical equipment and a four year period for non-critical equipment. The COSAL is automated and provided in the ShipCLIP program, which includes all equipment, parts, supply management functionality, technical manual and drawing data along with an automated feedback tool.

Ship Equipment installed in systems/modified or replaced equipment.

Identify equipment system, function, location. Apply MSC Hierachichal Structure Code with equipment criticality info (MCC).

Identify pre existing APL , manufacturer and MSC MLAPL replacement data, apply technical coding (SM&R coding, part essentiality, population, replacement factors, minimum replacement units.)

Apply MSC SAMM and manufacturer planned maintenance requirements.

COSAL

Development/Update Process

Configuration identifies the equipment nameplate, characteristics, function, system, location, critcality, serial number.

Provisioning applies MSC maintenance philosophy to equipment. Equipment parts data, part criticality and other technical data loaded into an APL.

Calculate allowances using demand based allowance model to cover one failure in ten years for critical equipment , one failure in four years for non critical equipment or 90 days endurance when usage quantity is high.

COSAL Allowance Calculation

MSC calculates allowances using a proven demand based model (MOD FLSIP). Allowances are updated based upon operating experiences (CASREPs), ship and other activity feedback.

Load resulting allowances, technical data and configuration data into CLIP/CMLS to replicate to ShipCLIP for inventory management requirements.

Life Cycle Logistics Baseline COSAL includes the results -serves as baseline of documented equipments and logistics support for life c1ycle.

Used on ships as a logistics and technical reference.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness shows how often supply has repair parts required by technicians on the day they submit the order.

A high percentage means that technicians are able to schedule and perform maintenance without delay due to lack of material more often. Also equipment downtime is not increased as much due to a lack of parts. A high percentage reflects a more accurate equipment configuration with spares allowances that match required planned maintenance and predicted parts failures. A high percentage also reflects the ship storeroom and inventory management processes are in order. A low percentage means that repairs and planned maintenance cannot often be completed without waiting for parts. A low percentage can be an indicator of several problems which might impact the ship’s ability to operate independently and support itself. When a low percentage is experienced, these areas should be checked out to ensure that a serious support problem does not exist.

Gross Effectiveness - % of all repair parts orders issued (including not carried). Goal 65%

Net Effectiveness - % COSAL allowed

High Effectiveness- Parts onboard more often. Ship can more effectively schedule/complete PMs and low downtime due to lack

Repair parts orders submitted to supply due to planned or corrective maintenance items actually issued.

Net goal 85%.

Part required allowed and available at time of request

Part required allowed but not available

Part required not allowed of parts.

Low Effectiveness- Parts are often not available to perform PM/repairs. Maintenance more difficult to schedule. Equipment downtime increased due to lack of parts.

The following are effectiveness goals:

Net Effectiveness - Percentage of demands (1250’s) for allowed storeroom items which were satisfied from shipboard stock at time requested. Net Effectiveness is one indicator of timely stock replenishment and management of outstanding storeroom stock requisitions. Net repair parts effectiveness should be at least 85%.

Gross Effectiveness - Percentage of total repair parts demands (1250’s) which were satisfied from shipboard stock at the time requested. Not carried repair parts may reflect a deficiency on the Allowance Parts List for the end item. If a repair part required for planned or corrective maintenance is not listed on the APL, a feedback report should be submitted to add it. Gross repair parts effectiveness should not be lower than 65%.

Not Carried Rate - Percentage of total demands for repair parts that are not carried. This caption is a measurement on the effectiveness and validity of the COSAL to support installed equipment. A high not carried rate may indicate a mismatch between actual corrective maintenance requirements and the MSC Lead Allowance Parts Lists (MLAPLs) which are encoded to reflect the MSC maintenance philosophy for all equipments. Also, high not carried rates may be an indication of configuration errors or omissions. Planned Maintenance (PM) material requirements may not be properly identified and included as ship’s storeroom repair parts allowances. Not carried repair parts rate should not exceed 30%.

As a measure of the ship’s logistics readiness, COSAL effectiveness must be monitored to identify and update documented ship equipment configuration records, adjust for unexpected replacement and failure rates, correct areas that were not properly coded or identify and correct data errors. Effectiveness can be reviewed by using the SEAS reports produced by shoreside logtistics team members.

The monthly Effectiveness Report shows effectiveness rates for the last month and a summary of the not carried demands for the last month. Ships must review the effectiveness report monthly and compare repair parts effectiveness rates against the goals. Recommend ships also run an effectiveness report for inclusive dates covering the last six months in conjunction with the quarterly SIM review. A six month period will provide you with a good baseline of your effectiveness. The report will also list all Not Carried and Not in Stock repair parts requirements. This list provides valuable data which can be used to improve effectiveness for your ship and any ship with similar installed equipments. Repeat Not Carried and Not in Stock requirements need special attention to ensure that the parts required are reviewed and appropriate inventory or logistics management action is taken. Take the following action to review repeat (number of demands >1) requirements for not carried repair parts on the six month effectiveness report:

• Identify the requiring department and APL by reviewing the Requisition file or OPTAR log.

• Using available information, confirm that there is an equipment record in ShipCLIP for the end item.

If an APL is loaded in the Requisition file or OPTAR log, enter the APL in ShipCLIP.

• Confirm the applicable end item with the requiring department, and if required obtain nameplate/characteristics data, location and system information.

• Enter the stock number or part number in ShipCLIP. Use this information to confirm that the APL in ShipCLIP is the same as the end item identified by the requiring department.

• If the APL is not found, use the stock number or part number in Haystack to identify any APL that applies.

• If an APL is identified in Haystack, enter the APL in ShipCLIP. Compare the APL information with that provided by the requiring department.

• When the APL is not found or not in ShipCLIP enter the information into a feedback report to add the APL.

• When the APL is found but the part is not listed on it, enter the information into a feedback report to add the part to the APL.

• When the APL is found and the part is listed, discuss the parts requirements with the technician and if required, generate a feedback report to load an allowance to support planned maintenance parts or high failure parts. If the equipment appears to fail too often, identify this information clearly on the feedback report.

Effectiveness can be improved by properly managing the repair parts storerooms, especially through timely replenishment of stock issued. Continuous thorough technical review of all repair parts requirements will also improve effectiveness. Recommend all ships perform the following technical review and research for repair parts requirements:

• Request ordering departments include the APL on all 1250’s for repair parts. Provide ShipCLIP training to departmental technicians who cannot identify the APL.

• When requirements do not provide an APL, contact the requiring department and confirm the applicable end item, and obtain APL, nameplate/characteristics data, location and system information.

• Using available information, confirm that there is an installed equipment record in ShipCLIP for the end item. If an APL is provided on the 1250 enter the APL in ShipCLIP.

• Enter the stock number or part number in ShipCLIP. Confirm that the APL to part relationship in ShipCLIP is the same as the end item identified by the requiring department.

• If the end item is not found, use the stock number or part number on the 1250 in Haystack to identify any APL that applies.

• If an APL is identified in Haystack, enter the APL in ShipCLIP. Compare the APL information with that provided by the requiring department.

• When the APL is not found or not in ShipCLIP enter the information into a feedback report to add the APL.

• When the APL is found but the part is not listed on it enter the information into a feedback report to add the part to the APL.

• Identify the total installed quantity per equipment for all items ordered. If part quantities ordered exceed installed quantities, discuss the need for excessive parts with the requiring technician.

• When a large number of not carried requirements are consistently submitted, meet with the requiring technician to identify the equipments being repaired or maintained. Generate feedback reports to add planned maintenance materials to allowances which are not reflected on APLs.

Follow inventory management and requirements review procedures in P-485 paragraphs 6207, 6211,6230.

Additional instructions and details can be found in:

COSAL Use and Maintenance Manual SPCCINST 4441.17A Chapter 4 and 5.

NAVSUP P-485 Chapter 6 ShipCLIP User’s Manual

Logic Diagram For Processing Issue Requests

Request for repair part

Part requests should include information about request and the end item, such as APL.

Carried Not Carried Detailed technical Issue available material

Total quantity not available

Determine if i d item is carried research to identify stock number and alternate part numbers

Requisition NIS quantity

Multiple NIS hits should be brought under SIM/create feedback to increase allow

Alternate stock number or part number identified

Not Carried i d

Validate nameplate No data using equipment and TM

Determine if item is supported in the

In COSAL

Determine if item is supported in the

Is part listed on the

APL?

Yes

Is part required for planned maintenance

Yes

Check SAMM and TM identify all other PM items

No

Is part required for corrective maintenance

Generate COSAL Feedback Report to add item, correct configuration data, technical coding and/or drive an allowance

Generate COSAL Feedback Report to add items to APL and drive PMS material as on board spares

Effectiveness Troubleshooting Guide for Not Carried Repair Parts

Cause Procedure Action

Inaccurate ships configuration data. Compare actual nameplate data on equipment with nameplate data in the component characteristics of the APL in ShipCLIP.

When actual nameplate differs review ShipCLIP and Haystack to obtain another APL which more closely matches the characteristics discovered. Generate feedback report to document situation. Ensure you provide as much detail as possible including nameplate and characteristics.

Incomplete APL in ShipCLIP, maintenance significant parts or PM requirements not listed.

Compare APL parts data with the technical manual parts list to determine this and other holes in the APL. Discuss issue with the technician.

Generate feedback report to identify missing parts. Request allowances for planned maintenance and corrective maintenance parts.

Failure to stock items that qualify for local stock based upon demand.

Review historical demand on stock record card. If part has two hits in a year and funds are available take item up in local stock.

Generate feedback report to document high demand item and provide ship technicians recommendation for sparing.

Inadequate stock number or alternate part number research.

Take data on the 1250 and cross it ShipCLIP, and Haystack. Using any alternates go back into ShipCLIP to look for allowance.

No action if alternate identified in ShipCLIP. For new data found in Haystack but not in ShipCLIP verify fit form and function with technician, generate feedback to update part and NSN cross reference

Effectiveness Troubleshooting Guide for Not In Stock Repair Parts

Cause Procedure Action

Untimely reorder. Review stock history and reorder hold files. Reorder material that experiences multiple hits.

Comply with timely reorder procedures.

Long logistics delay on replenishments.

Review outstanding stock requisitions.

Followup on dues with no or poor status.

Comply with requisition dues file review procedures.

Failure to post issues.

Review requirements files and office issue records to determine if issue are processed without being posted.

Comply with proper issue processing procedures.

Poor stock record validity.

Perform spot inventory and full bin check for all NIS situations.

Comply with inventory management procedures, perform periodic spot inventories. Inventory remaining stock on all issues from storeroom.

Incorrect high and low limits for SIM items.

Review stock record history, FAD, deployment status and requisition lead times for item. Adjust HL/LL as necessary.

Perform quarterly SIM review.

Generate feedback to identify items with continuous long lead times.