Product Support Business Case Analysis [BCA]: Fast, Accurate, Proven Results Employing The Hypatia© Scenario-Based Product Support Life Cycle Financial Planning Software Tool

Oct 01
2012

Product Support Business Case Analysis for MRAP

A Product Support Business Case Analysis [BCA] study is employed by the Program Manager [PM] Office of a Program Executive Office [PEO] of a Life Cycle Management Command [LCMC] in their Milestone Weapon System Acquisition review. The Product Support BCA study applies a disciplined methodology for recommending the best solutions for efficiently and effectively managing the processes employed by a Product Support Enterprise [PSE] during the in-service life and End-Of-Life [EOL] of a weapon system. The Product Support BCA output is a major input to the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan [LCSP] that is delivered by the Product Support Manager/Integrated Logistics Support Manager of the Program Office. Giuntini & Company, Inc. [GCI] has successfully performed five Product Support BCAs for the CECOM LCMC and the TACOM LCMC.

As a result of the experience above, GCI has developed a listing below of the varied elements required as inputs to the BCA.

Item #

BCA elements

1

# of end-items to be fielded

2

# of end-users

3

Deployability status of end-users

4

Global location of end-users

5

Product Support processes employed during life cycle

6

Product Support process frequency

7

Product Support process duration

8

Business model of each Product Support solution delivered by the PSE

9

Volatility of product technology/DMSMS issues

10

Regulatory requirements

11

Aging of the fielded end-items

12

Life of the product in DoD inventory

13

Manufacturer’s warranty coverage

14

Item design source/IP ownership/TDP

15

Materiel Availability [Am] requirements of end-user

16

“Jointness” of solution with multiple end-users

17

Business model elements for each Product Support solution

18

BOM levels employed

19

BOM variations

20

BOM level capabilities

21

End-item on-site maintenance strategy

22

End-item off-site maintenance strategy

23

BOM item costs

24

LRU renewal cost

25

Current/constant $$

26

Continuous Process Improvement [CPI] initiatives

27

Level of BOM in which Government owns IP

28

Employment of PSM/PSI PSE construct

29

Employment of ARFORGEN reset/reconstitute Product Support process

30

Funding sources included in analysis

31

Reparable parts Beyond Economic Repair [BER]/washout rate

32

Others

Product Support Business Case Analysis using Hypatia Tool

With over 35 years of data collection and development, GCI has created a software tool that encompasses all the above elements to create the outputs of a BCA study; it is called “Hypatia: A Scenario-Based, Product Support Life Cycle Financial Planning Software Tool.” Hypatia has enabled GCI to reduce the time to complete a Product Support BCA by 30%, and in turn has been able to reduce the cost of the study by the same amount. Another benefit of Hypatia has been its ability to deliver target life cycle Product Support costs that have been considered reasonably accurate by the recipients of the study. Traditional Product Support cost estimating tools such as COMPASS  are often inadequate to be employed in a BCA.

If you are interested in discussing how our proven Hypatia tool can be employed in your Product Support BCA study initiative, both for new programs and legacy programs, call a Giuntini & Co. SME at 570-713-4795 or visit us at www.giuntinicompany.com.

Changes Are A Comin’ to DoD Contractor Product Support

Aug 10
2010

The U.S. Department of Defense is the biggest purchaser of Product Support expenditures in the world; it annually buys an estimated $50 billion dollars worth of such goods and services.

The last ten years has proven to be an especially favorable period for military contractors; overall DoD spending has increased from $300 billion per year to $700 billion, or 130%, and America now employs nearly half of all global military resources.  It is estimated that Contractor Product Support expenditures rose at a 150% to 200% rate during the ten year period.

As a result of the large build-up in DoD expenditures, the US currently generates 50% of the global military expenditures, but the US economy only generates 25% of the global economic output…this imbalance will most likely be realigned back to a historical ratio of 1:1 between the US economic output and defense spending.  

When many contractors have only one customer that matters financially, options are limited as to generating additional sources of revenues to compensate for lost Product Support revenues.

Even the biggest military contractors claim less than five percent of the Pentagon’s budget, so a contractor’s fortunes is influenced more by how defense dollars are spent than by the size of the budget. For example, contractor revenues can decrease, even when military spending remains high, if money migrates out of weapon system acquisition and into uniformed and civilian manpower.

Below are some of the primary trends driving down Contractor Product Support expenditures:

  1. Reduction in overall weapon system OPTEMPO due to the scaling back the size of the US military deployment in SW Asia. With an estimated 25% of all weapon systems in theatre and their OPTEMPO an estimated 100% higher than those systems not in theatre, it is estimated that overall Product Support expenditures will decrease by 15%-20%, with contractors experiencing an estimated 20%-30% drop in Product Support revenues
  2. The current fiscal challenges of the Federal Government to finance all their budgeted programs will most likely result in the military being a “victim” of fiscal austerity. It is quite feasible that 15-20% of DoD weapon system inventories will be stored long-term in order to reduce Product Support expenditures. Given the US Congress and the power of the depot-lobby, many of the systems stored will be those currently primarily supported by contractors
  3. The emphasis that Secretary Gates has put on “rebalancing” the defense strategy. Rebalancing means putting less emphasis on conventional, industrial-age warfare, and more emphasis on non-traditional skills like counter-insurgency warfare; this strategy will reduce complex weapon systems that require a complex Product Support Enterprise. There will be more an emphasis upon COTS items being integrated into a solution for the warfighter. COTS Product Support expenditures are often materially less than that of Developmental Items, thus resulting in overall lower Product Support expenditures
  4. The move to “in-source” Product Support management jobs previously contracted out to industry by the Program Offices and Life Cycle Management Commands. The Government is actively recruiting “seasoned” professional from contractors; either the professionals join the Government or they lose their job.

Each of the major weapon system contractors will be encountering different Product Support issues:

  • Northrop Grumman (NG) has decided to remain primarily focused upon new weapon system deliveries. It recently sold its services unit, TASC, due to conflicts between its OEM business and its Product Support business. This was a major policy change for NG
  • General Dynamics (GD) has generated material Product Support revenues from Interim Contractor Support (ICS) programs for the communication communities, especially for weapon systems in theatre; a GD Contractor Field Service Representative (CFSR) in theatre generates almost $500,000 per year of revenue. Supplemental funds have been an engine of growth for GD Product Support programs; this will be going away sooner, rather than later
  • Raytheon is less exposed than other primary OEMs due to the nature of their products being electronics; Product Support expenditures, at least at the organizational maintenance level, is much smaller than that of weapon systems that have more mechanical parts
  • Lockheed Martin (LM) will encounter many challenges in the Product Support area. The company needs to generate $130 million in new sales every day just to stay where it is, and that won’t be easy in a down market for Product Support.

There will be many challenges in the area of DoD Product Support over the next few years. Adding value to DoD, rather than filling positions to perform routine Product Support tasks, will differentiate winners from losers. And let us not forget that Outcome Based Product Support programs will be the rule rather than the exception for all future Product Support contractor offerings; that will be the only way that DoD will be able to manage Product Support processes more effectively for less costs.

For a more detailed discussion on the above topic, review the recent conference discussions at the Lexington Institute.

OEM PSE Profits -The Secret The Industry Doesn’t Know About

Jul 06
2010

Commercial OEMs create from 15% to 40% of their profits as a result of the revenues generated from each Product Support Enterprise (PSE) that employs their product. A PSE engages all the processes employed by a product end-user to: meet materiel availability levels, increase maintainability, assure capability, grow reliability, improve deployability and decrease costs. The remainder of an OEM’s profits is primarily derived from the sale of new-condition products, with the exception being those OEMs that have a financial arm.

When I have had nothing to do at 0400 on a Sunday morning, I have used that time “wisely” to dig into the Quarterly (10Q) or Annual (10K) Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) financial reports of capital goods OEMs in order to better understand the financial impact of PSEs upon their balance sheet….but I have been highly “disappointed” when virtually no information could be found to satisfy this longing of mine! I have reviewed close to 200 OEMs and I have developed a list below of only 13 OEMs who are willing to acknowledge, in even a minor detail, the existence of investments employed in PSEs.

When an OEM truly believes that being proactively engaged in PSEs is material to their financial health they often segment their balance sheet investments employed for PSEs. Note that for some OEMs, creating opaqueness in being engaged with PSEs is by design; they often do not want to indicate to their competitors that their business model is more like the razor-and-razorblade then one that focuses on the sale of the razor…but that is another story.

# OEM or Key Supplier Sector Financial Statement Description
1 AGCO Farm Balance Sheet: Current Assets Repair and Replacement Parts
2 NCR Office Balance Sheet: Current Assets Service Parts
3 Pitney Bowes Office Balance Sheet: Current Assets Supplies and Service Parts
4 Cognex Mfg. Automation Balance sheet: Long-term Assets Service Inventory
5 Ciena Data/Voice/Network Balance sheet: Long-term Assets Maintenance Spares Inventories
6 Diebold Specialty Balance Sheet: Current Assets Service Parts
Balance sheet: Long-term Assets Rotable Parts
7 KLA-Telcor Mfg. Semiconductor Balance Sheet: Current Assets Customer Service Parts
8 Rofin-Sinar Technologies Mfg. Automation Balance Sheet: Current Assets Service Parts
9 Faro Technologies Mfg. Automation Balance sheet: Long-term Assets Service Inventory
10 PAR Technologies Transactions Balance Sheet: Current Assets Service Parts
11 Terex Construction Balance Sheet: Current Assets Replacement Parts
12 Applied Materials Mfg. Semiconductor Balance Sheet: Current Assets Customer Service Spares
13 Wabash National Transportation: Trucks/Engines Balance Sheet: Current Assets Aftermarket Parts

The COTS Wagon Keeps On Rolling…But Is Anyone Watching?

Jul 02
2010

It is inevitable that the Services Acquisition Commands continue to focus on employing COTS products in the design of their new weapons systems and key infrastructure; this is aligned with the focus of Secretary Gates and Undersecretary Carter to reduce costs, but retain the military’s effectiveness.

Below are two recent acquisition initiatives at employing COTS products. I know of no DoD study that annually measuring the COTS content of new weapon systems…if there is none, one should be started.

1. The U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) is placing orders under the Common Afloat Local Area Network Infrastructure (CALI). Under the CALI contracts, contractors will provide ships and submarines with Common Computing Environment (CCE) Components, Integrated Logistics Support (ILS), Configuration Management (CM), Test and Evaluation (T&E), Quality Assurance (QA), and Installation Support. Each contractor will deliver a secure, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware, software and networking equipment. Each CALI contract has a total potential value of $502 million if all options are exercised. 

2. The Air Force is working on the Common Large Area Display Set (CLADS) acquisition program to replace aging CRTs in the Airborne Warning   And Control System (AWACS) aircraft with one of three flat-screen technologies: active matrix LCD (AMLCD), gas plasma, or a digital micro-mirror device. “The heart and soul of this is COTS, with some heavy ruggedization to operate under depressurization. The prices we`re seeing coming in the door are a third of what the old technology stuff now costs,” Bill Sirmon, a civilian contract negotiator at the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, Ga. Aboard the AWACS now are CRTs that operate for about 300 hours between failures; the new products are planned to increase that operating time to 3,000 to 5,000 hours between failures.

US Second-To-None For Product Support Prowess

Jun 14
2010

Americans have been bombarded by the Main Stream Media (MSM) touting the demise of US manufacturing base, and in turn the demise of the demand for the resources (parts, maintainers, tech support, and others) employed during the processes of the Product Support stage of the lifecycle of a capital good….but the MSM is a foolish bunch that is clueless regarding our true manufacturing might, and in turn our true Product Support prowess which is second-to-none in the world and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Here are some facts about the US manufacturing sector from a recent article from Barrons:

“The U.S. economy is the largest and most productive on the planet. With just 4.6% of the global population, the U.S. accounts for roughly one-quarter of global output, generating more output in a year than the next three largest economies (Japan, China and Germany) combined. America’s economy is three times the size of China’s; the per capita income of China is only about 10% of that of the U.S.

The United States is a manufacturing superpower; we’re still in the business of making stuff, despite incessant reports to the contrary. We shouldn’t equate the demise of Detroit with the death of U.S. manufacturing. The U.S. makes more goods in a year than any other country, although America’s share of global manufacturing output was roughly 17.5% in 2008, down from 22.4% in 1990 and about 20.5% in 1980.

Many U.S. manufacturers have held their own the past few decades, even in the face of stiff competition from Japan, Germany and China. China’s share of global manufacturing has increased sharply over the past decades, hitting 17.2% in 2008, close to the U.S. number. However, the Chinese figure includes mining and quarrying, and electricity, gas, and water supply, in addition to manufacturing, and most of China’s gains came at the expense of Japan, South Korea, Mexico and others — not the U.S.

The largest exporter in the world is neither Germany nor China. It’s the U.S., despite annual trade deficits and all the chatter about U.S. companies not making anything the world wants to buy.”

Giuntini & Co. Featured Content on IDGA

Jun 09
2010

Ron Giuntini’s latest industry-shaping white paper, ‘The 20 Elements of an Outcome-Based Product Support Business Model for the Military Sector’ is the current ‘featured content’ on IDGA.org. Check it out to learn about the 20 mandatory points that the DoD requires every model to include. Visit the IDGA at www.idga.org.

Outcome-Based Pricing Offerings, Industry Leaders Agree

Jun 03
2010

Traditional pricing models of cost-plus and transaction-based for system/equipment product support offerings are changing today. This is being driven by end-users wanting to materially shift their risk of unfavorable availability, reliability and Total Ownership Cost (TOC) to their suppliers. This new pricing model is referred to as outcome-based. It can be quite profitable for a supplier, if the operational aspects are managed well, as well as be highly advantageous to maintenance organization…or it can generate significant levels of red ink if the supplier doesn’t do its homework, and the maintenance organization’s operations may become less effective. These pricing programs can be offered in the following packages:

  • Fixed price per unit of system/equipment output (i.e. Power By The Hour; customer doesn’t pay for reliability problems)
  • Fixed price for a period (i.e. extended warranty; customer doesn’t pay for reliability problems)
  • Fixed price for performance (i.e. pay for uptime; customer doesn’t pay for reliability, nor for materiel availability problems)

The above presents revenue recognition issues and cost accrual challenges for the finance organization of the supplier providing the above offering; the financial analysis should be done by a managerial accountant and not a financial accountant; from my experience financial accountants will often destroy an outcome-based pricing program due to their lack of the knowledge of the operational drivers for such a program.

Giuntini & Co. isn’t the only one to agree that these pricing models are the way of the future. Read further on the general subject matter related to pricing models from TATA Consulting’s website: http://www.tcs.com/offerings/platform_BPO/resources/Documents/Platform_BPO_White_Paper_Transaction_Based_Pricing_in_BPO_05_2010.pdf

info@giuntinicompany.com

Tel: 570-713-4795