A design of experiments approach to readiness risk analysis

ABSTRACT

We develop a simulation model to aid in identifying and evaluating promising alternatives to achieve improvements in weapon system-level availability when services for system components are outsourced. Two outcomes are valued: improvements in average operational availability for the weapon system, and reductions in the probability that operational availability of the weapon system falls below a given planning threshold (readiness risk). In practice, these outcomes must be obtained through performance-based agreements with logistics providers. The size of the state space, and the non-linear and stochastic nature of the outcomes, precludes the use of optimization approaches. Instead, we use designed experiments to evaluate simulation scenarios in an intelligent way. This is an efficient approach that enables us to assess average readiness and readiness risk outcomes of the alternatives, as well as to identify the components and logistics factors with the greatest impact on operational availability.

REFERENCES

• 1: Apgar IV, M. and J. M. Keane. 2004. New business with the new military. Harvard Business Review 82 (9): 45--56.
• 2: ASN-RDA {Assistant Secretary of the Navy - Research, Development and Acquisition}. 2003. Performance Based Logistics Guidance Document. Unpublished manuscript.
• 3: Berkowitz, D., J. N. D. Gupta, J. T. Simpson, J. McWilliams, L. Delayne, B. Brown, D. Cameron, and T. Sparks. 2003. Performance Based Logistics. Center for the Management of Science and Technology, Huntsville, AL.
• 4: Blanchard, B. S., D. Verma, and E. L. Peterson. 1995. Maintainability: A Key to Effective Serviceability and Maintenance Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
• 5: Cassady, C. R., E. A. Pohl, and S. Jin. 2004. Managing availability improvement efforts with importance measures and optimization. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 15 (2): 161--174.
• 6: Cioppa, T. M. and T. W. Lucas. 2006. Efficient nearly orthogonal and space-filling Latin hypercubes. Technometrics, forthcoming.
• 7: Thomas M. Cioppa , Thomas W. Lucas , Susan M. Sanchez, Military applications of agent-based simulations, Proceedings of the 36th conference on Winter simulation, December 05-08, 2004, Washington, D.C.
• 8: Doerr, K. H., I. A. Lewis, and D. R. Eaton. 2005. Measurement issues in performance based logistics. Journal of Public Procurement 5 (2): 164--186.
• 9: Eaton, D. R., K. H. Doerr, and I. A. Lewis (in press). Performance based logistics: A warfighting focus, U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings.
• 10: Ebeling, C. E. 1996. Reliability and maintainability model (RAM). Report NASA-CR-203254, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center.
• 11: GAO {Government Accountability Office}. 2004. Opportunities to enhance the implementation of performance based logistics. Report of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate. August 2004.
• 12: Kang, K., K. H. Doerr, M. Boudreau, and U. Apte. 2005. A decision support model for valuing proposed improvements in component reliability. Sponsored report NPS-LM 05--008, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
• 13: Kececioglu, D. 1991. Reliability Engineering Handbook, V. 2. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
• 14: Kim, S. H., M. A. Cohen, and S. Netessine. 2006. Performance contracting in after-sales service supply chains. Working Paper, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania.
• 15: Kleijnen, J. P. C., S. M. Sanchez, T. W. Lucas, and T. M. Cioppa. 2005. A user's guide to the brave new world of designing simulation experiments. INFORMS Journal on Computing 17 (3): 263--289 (with online companion).
• 16: Prueitt, G. C. and C. S. Park. 1997. Phased capacity expansion - using continuous distributions to model prior belief. The Engineering Economist 42 (2): 91--110.
• 17: Susan M. Sanchez, Work smarter, not harder: guidelines for designing simulation experiments, Proceedings of the 37th conference on Winter simulation, December 03-06, 2006, Monterey, California
• 18: Susan M. Sanchez , Thomas W. Lucas, Exploring the world of agent-based simulations: simple models, complex analyses: exploring the world of agent-based simulations: simple models, complex analyses, Proceedings of the 34th conference on Winter simulation: exploring new frontiers, December 08-11, 2002, San Diego, California
• 19: SAS. 2002. JMP User's Guide, Version 5: SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC.
• 20: Slay, F. M., T. C. Bachman, R. C. Kline, T. J. O'Malley, F. L. Eichorn, and R. M. King. 1996. Optimizing spares support: The aircraft sustainability model. Report AF501MRI, LMI Corporation, McClean, VA.
• 21: Jan A. Van Mieghem, Commissioned Paper: Capacity Management, Investment, and Hedging: Review and Recent Developments, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, v.5 n.4, p.269-302, October 2003 [doi>10.1287/msom.5.4.269.24882]