http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
The AMMTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials, Manufacturing, and Testing Information

Analysis Center (AMMTIAC). AMMTIAC is a DoD-sponsored Information Analysis Center, administratively

managed by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). Policy oversight is provided by the Office of the

Secretary of Defense, Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E). The AMMTIAC Quarterly is

distributed to more than 19,000 materials, manufacturing, and testing professionals around the world.

Inquiries about AMMTIAC capabilities, products, and services may be addressed to:

Micheal J. Morgan

Director, AMMTIAC

P H O N E : 937.431.9322 x103

E M A I L : a m m t i a c @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

U R L : h t t p : //a m m t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:

AMMTIAC

ATTN: MRS. ST E P H A N I E L. KN O E L L E R

201 Mill Street

Rome, New York 13440

P H O N E : 315 . 3 3 9 . 713 6 F A X : 315 . 3 3 9 . 7107 E M A I L : a m m t i a c @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

Editor-in-Chief

Stephanie L. Knoeller

Publication Design

Cynthia Long

Copy Editor

Perry Onderdonk

Information Processing

Caron Dibert

Inquiry Services

Owen R. Conniff

Product Sales

Gina Nash

By this point, you have undoubtedly noticed the extra “cover”

on this issue of the Quarterly stating that this will be its last

mass-printed issue. Although this is the truth, our publication is

not ending – it’s just changing. Moving forward, the Quarterly

will be going electronic. The reasons for this change are several,

each of which I will discuss in

turn, however, I would first like to provide a little background.

The AMMTIAC Quarterly, like its predecessor publications

from AMPTIAC, MTIAC, NTIAC and earlier, has always been

available in a print form – either in a bulletin or journal format.

Although AMMTIAC continued the predecessor IAC tradition

of providing the Quarterly in print, it also started a tradition

of its own. Since early 2006, AMMTIAC has released both a

print and an electronic issue. The electronic versions provided

AMMTIAC the option to publish issues that were more than the

standard 16-pages. This was a luxury to our staff, who oftentimes, when preparing the Quarterly have had to shorten selected

articles so that they would fit within the Quarterly’s page limit. In

these cases, our electronic version has served as a “Director’s

Cut”, publishing the unabridged version of long articles. Moving

strictly to electronic format will allow us to publish extended

content on any issue where the content of important articles

runs long. Thus, we hope to provide you with greater content in

many of our future issues.

So, why are we doing this?

First, our electronic readership has been steadily growing over

the past several years, and as such, the receptiveness of our subscriber base to electronic media is growing. Those of you like

me, who are old enough to have watched live as Neil Armstrong

walked on the moon, grew up before computers became prevalent in our society. Although many of us eventually mastered

these tools, we still gravitate naturally towards printed media, as

they seem more “real” to us. In fact, many of us who have been

in the profession for a few decades are clearly more comfortable

with something tangible. I assume your office looks something

like mine, with a stack of “reading material” on the corner of

your desk or a side table. I certainly hope the Quarterly has been

part of your stack these past several years. Our new generation

of young professionals, however, grew up in the computer age

and has been comfortable using such electronic conveniences

since before they learned to read. As a result, we have every

reason to believe that this trend will continue toward more electronic media being not only acceptable, but also preferable.

Second, like any responsible government entity, IACs must

exercise some level of environmental consciousness in an active,

but measured way that is reasonable and makes sense. At present,

we print over 19,000 copies of the quarterly for each issue – this

adds up to a lot of paper. As we go more “paperless” in our work

environments, it makes sense to observe practices that are commensurate with that philosophy in all aspects of our operation.

Lastly, AMMTIAC is doing its part to meet Secretary Gates’

call for increased efficiencies within the DoD. Part of those savings will come through ending our free print service. Printing

and mailing newsletters to more than 19,000 readers four times

a year is an expensive undertaking. Since our electronic issues

provide the same content as our printed version, we are able to

continue serving our user community at the same level of quality and service, but at a significantly reduced cost.

If you have not already done so, I encourage you to follow the

directions on this issue’s outer jacket to sign up for the electronic newsletter. We would not want you to miss future issues. Like

the present electronic editions of the Quarterly, the coming

issues will be no different. Notification of their release will be

sent via email. This email will provide an overview of the articles

and direct you to our website, http://ammtiac.alionscience.com,

where the Quarterly will be available for download in .pdf

format. These issues are print-ready, and with a color printer and

Adobe Reader, you should be able to create your own de facto

print issue if preferred.

We do, however, recognize that there is still a good fraction of

you who would prefer to continue receiving a print copy. If you

would be interested, we encourage you to take our brief online

survey such that we can assess alternative avenues to continue

providing print service on a more limited basis in the near

future. On behalf of the entire AMMTIAC staff, we thank you

for your continued interest and support these past years, and as

we move forward into this new world. We hope that you continue to read the Quarterly and provide us with as much feedback

as possible.

Chris Grethlein, Deputy Director

A Sign of the Times

The cover features a photograph of Lockheed Martin’s C-130 Hercules production line, taken in their Marietta, GA plant. (Photo courtesy of

Peter Simmons, Lockheed Martin, Marietta, GA)

Would you be interested in a paid print subscription?

Let us know at

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/keepprintalive

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3 3

INTRODUCTION

The Importance of Manufacturing Maturity

Department of Defense (DoD) weapon systems have been rapidly

increasing in complexity for the past 50 years. New materials and

technologies are continually developed and, with them, new production methods. Although the material and technology developments

have been successful in most instances, the development of mature

manufacturing processes has notably lagged in many programs. This

has resulted in the production of unreliable components and, ultimately, systems.

First noticed in 2000, this trend has been gaining increased attention. In the 2006 annual review of the major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs)*, it was found that of the 62 MDAPs only 10%

were collecting manufacturing process data and 0% were in control

of their manufacturing process, showing a significant lack of manufacturing maturity.[1] More recently, during the 2009 annual

MDAP review, covering design, technology, and manufacturing

maturity by the General Accountability Office (GAO), a lack of

manufacturing maturity was found in almost every program. This

lack of maturity in all three areas resulted in $300

billion (FY 2010 dollars) of cost overruns and production schedules that were an average 22 months

behind the original estimates.[2, 3]

Since the early release of the GAO’s findings, the

DoD has increased the attention given to assessing

manufacturing maturity during the key reviews

within the acquisition process. In the most current

revision of the DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02,

published in December 2008, the DoD addresses

the need to consider manufacturing earlier in the

Defense Acquisition Life Cycle. The Defense

Acquisition Life Cycle is a series of weapon systems

life cycle phases, shown in Figure 1. To advance

from one phase to the next within the Defense

Acquisition Life Cycle, a milestone (A, B, or C) review must be

completed, presided over by a Milestone Decision Authority

(MDA). The MDA decides if pre-determined entrance criteria have

been met prior to granting approval to proceed. From a manufacturing standpoint, the MDA must be armed with complete knowledge of all manufacturing risks and the magnitude of those risks, so

that they can take them into account during the decision process.

The December 2008 revision of DoDI 5000.02 also included a

name change to place an added emphasis on the importance of

manufacturing maturity. The primary development phase of the

Defense Acquisition Life Cycle, termed System Design and

Development, has been renamed Engineering and Manufacturing

Development (EMD) to recognize that manufacturing development efforts must occur concurrently with product design. During

EMD, DoD Instruction 5000.02 requires that a weapon system be

designed for producibility. In addition, critical manufacturing

processes must be matured, and the manufacturing process demonstrated in a pilot line environment. To enter the Low Rate Initial

Production (LRIP) phase, which includes delivery of the initial 10%

of the total expected quantities, a program must not have any significant manufacturing risks. To begin the Full Rate Production

(FRP) phase, in which the remaining quantities are produced, the

program must demonstrate manufacturing process

control. The term control is used to describe a statistically stable manufacturing process in which the

output is predictable.

To ensure proper advancement through the

phases of the Defense Acquisition Life Cycle and

that manufacturing maturity is achieved,

Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) were

developed. MRLs are an excellent tool for evaluating the Defense Acquisition Life Cycle criteria and

identifying manufacturing risks.

MANUFACTURING READINESS LEVELS:

AN OVERVIEW

Designed to mirror Technology Readiness Levels

(TRLs), MRLs were created and promoted by the DoD’s

Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) organization in partnership

with the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel (JDMTP).

David M. Karr

US Air Force Materiel Command,

Aeronautical Systems Center (AFMC ASC/ENSM)

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH

Figure 1. An excerpt of the Defense Acquisition Life Cycle (top) with the MRL expectations at each phase and milestone (bottom).

Material Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing

Development Production & Deployment

MRL 1

Basic

Manufacturing

Implications

Identified

MRL 2

Manufacturing

Concepts

Identified

MRL 3

Manufacturing

Proof

of Concept

Developed

MRL 4

Manufacturing

Processes

In Lab

Environment

MRL 5

Components

In Production

Relevant

Environment

MRL 6

System or

Subsystem

In Production

Relevant

Environment

MRL 7

System or

Subsystem

In Production

Representative

Environment

MRL 8

Pilot Line

Demonstrated

Ready for

LRIP

MRL 9

LRIP

Demonstrated

Ready for

FRP

MRL 10

FRP

Demonstrated

Lean Production

Practices in

place

A BC

The JDMTP

The Joint Defense

Manufacturing Technology

Panel (JDMTP) was chartered

by the Director of Defense

Research and Engineering

(DDR&E). Consisting of senior

technology managers from

the Army, Navy, Air Force,

Defense Logistics Agency

(DLA), and Missile Defense

Agency (MDA), the JDMTP’s

purpose is to develop joint

ManTech program strategies

and promote the Defensewide application of ManTech.

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
Pre-MSA

Materiel Solution

Analysis (MSA)

Materiel Development

Decision

Technology Development

Component Systems

Engineering and Manufacturing Development

Post CDR Assessment

Production and Deployment

FPR Decision

Technology Readiness Levels

Manufacturing Readiness Levels

DoDI 5000.2 TRL MRL Considerations MRL Exit Criteria

1

1 2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6 7

7

8

8

9

9

10

Ops

&

Support

Research Produce Technology in a Lab

Environment

Produce Prototype

Components in a

Relevant Environment

Produce system in a

Relevant Environment

Production

Representative

Environment

Pilot Line Demo/

Ready for LRIP LPIR in place/Ready for FRP

Demonstrated

FRP/Lean Practices in Place

Manufacturing

Concepts Identified

Basic Research

Advanced

Research

Advanced

Technology

Development

Mfg Feasibility

Determined

Mfg Processes Identified

Key Processes Identified

Producibility Assessments Initiated

Mfg Process

Emerging

Producibility Assessments On-going

Mfg Cost Drivers Identified

TM Assess at TRL 1-3

Identify IB Sources

Characterize Basic

Materials for Mfg

Identify Material

Concerns

Identify Funding

Identify Advanced

ManTech Initiatives

Coordinate with

Technology Plan

TM Assess at TRL 4

Identify IB Gaps

Assess DFX

Baseline Materials

and Issues

Funding/Budgeting

for Trade Studies

Identify ManTech

or Other Initiatives

Technology

Development

Strategy should

include elements

of Mfg/QA

TM Assess at TRL 5

IB Analysis Finished

KPPs Identified

Key Characteristics

Identified

SEP includes Mfg/QA

Approach

Funding to Meet

Next Level

ManTech Initiatives

Initiated

Early Supply Chain

Assessment

Mfg Processes in Relevant Environment

Cost Drivers Analyzed

Long Lead Items Identified

Equipment in a Relevant Environment

TM Assess at TRL 6

IB Capability

Assessment

Initial Trade Studies

Materials Matured

Similiar Lines

Funding to Meet

Next Level

ManTech Solutions

Developed in

Relevant Environment

Acquisition Strategy

includes Mfg/QA

Quality Thresholds

Established

TM Assess at TRL 7

IB Monitored

PEP Completed

Materials Being

Proven

Funding to Meet

Next Level

ManTech Solutions

Demonstrated

Supply Chain

being assessed

BOM Identified

QA Data

Collected

TM Assess at TRL 7

Establish

Multi-sources

Pilot Line Builds

Validated

Materials Proven

Funding to Meet

Next Level

ManTech Solutions

Validated

Quality

Characteristics

Validated

BOM Supports

LRIP

TM Assess at TRL 8

IB Supports Schedule

Continuous Process

Improvement is

Ongoing

Materials in Control

Funding to Meet

Next Level

Quality Validation

with LRIP Articles

Make/Buy Supports

FRP

IB Capabilities

Assessment

TM Assess at TRL 9

Monitor &

Manage all Key

Characteristics at

Six Sigma Level

Funding to Meet

Six Sigma Goals

No Make/Buy

Changes

Key/Critical

Suppliers all Meet

Six Sigma Goals

Mfg Processes in

Development

Producibility

Improvement

Underway

Trade Studies

Supply Chain

Mgt in Place

Process Maturity

Demonstrated

All Materials Ready for LRIP

Mfg Process Proven

Supply Chain

Stable for LRIP

Mfg Processes

Operated at Target

Quality, Cost,

& Performance

Supply Chain

Established &

Meeting Lead Times

Lean/Six Sigma

Production in Place

Meeting or

Exceeding Cost,

Schedule &

Performance Goals

A B C

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

IB = Industrial Base

DFX = Design for Manufacturing

QA = Quality Assurance

KPP = Key Performance Paramaters

SEP = Systems Engineering Plan

PEP = Producibility Engineering Plan

BOM = Bill of Materials

TM = Technology Maturity

TRLs are well-understood concepts within the DoD that measure

the maturity of critical technology elements using a numerical scale

from one to nine: a one denotes a basic research technology and a

nine an operationally proven technology. The numerical scale provides a universal language that can be used to communicate current

maturity and future expectations. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between MRLs, TRLs, and the Defense Acquisition Life Cycle.

The MRL Working Group, which consists of representatives

from each of the DoD Services, the Missile Defense Agency, and the

defense industry, was established by the JDMTP to develop detailed

definitions and criteria for each of the MRLs and to develop an

MRL assessment process. The definitions and criteria were developed using industry and defense proven best manufacturing, engineering, and management practices. To ensure that industry concerns were addressed, several hands-on workshops for both large

and small companies were held to help develop the MRL criteria

and assessment process.

MRLs are intended to set expectations for a program at each

phase of the Defense Acquisition Life Cycle. If a program does not

reach its target MRL, a Manufacturing Maturation Plan (i.e., risk

reduction plan) must be developed. It is important that MRLs not

be viewed as program go or no-go criteria. Doing this would apply

unnecessary pressure to the assessment team and inhibit the ability

of the team to provide an honest evaluation of the risk(s).

MRL determinations are made through the evaluation of nine

topic areas or threads. These threads (Figure 3) are similar to the

topics typically addressed during a Production Readiness Review

(PRR). PRRs are one-time events held prior to Milestone C. They

have been used by the DoD for several years to determine if a

program is ready to progress into the Production phase of the

Defense Acquisition Life Cycle. MRL assessments, on the other

hand, are conducted throughout the acquisition cycle.

With an MRL assessment, the threads are arranged in a matrix.

Objective criteria are provided for each thread and level to reflect

the growing expectation of maturity as the program progresses

through its life cycle. An excerpt of the MRL matrix is shown in

Figure 4. During the early MRL phases, manufacturing feasibility is

the only expectation. As a program progresses through development, the MRL criteria become more stringent and production

representative manufacturing processes are anticipated. At the finish

4 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3

Figure 2. Illustration of the relationship between MRLs, the Defense Acquisition Life Cycle, as defined in DoD Instruction 5000.2, and TRLs. This

chart also lists the considerations and exit criteria for each MRL.[4]

Figure 3. The nine MRL threads.

Technology and Industrial Base

Design

Cost and Funding

Materials

Process Capability and Control

Quality Management

Manufacturing Personnel

Facilities

Manufacturing Management

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
CC

Acquisition Phase Engineering & Mfg Development (EMD)

DoD Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs)

Technical Reviews CDR

Thread Sub-Thread MRL 7

Industrial capability to

support production has

been analyzed. Sole/

single/foreign sources

stability is assessed/

monitored. Developing

potential alternate

sources as necessary.

A.1 - Technology

Transition to

Production

Technology

Maturity

Should be assessed at TRL 7 Should be assessed at TRL 7

A - Technology & Industrial Base

Industrial Capability

Assessment (ICA) for MS

C has been completed.

Industrial capability is in

place to support LRIP.

Sources are available,

multi-sourcing where

cost-effective or necessary

to mitigate risk.

Manufacturing technology

efforts continuing. Required

manufacturing technology

development solutions

demonstrated in a production representative environment.

A.2 - Manufacturing

Technology

Development

Primary manufacturing

technology efforts concluding, and some improvement efforts continuing.

Required manufacturing

technology solutions

validated on a pilot line.

Detailed producibility

trade studies using knowledge of key design characteristics and related...

B.1 - Productibility

Program

Producibility improvements

implemented on system.

Known producibility issues

have been resolved and...

MRL 8

PRR/SVR

Low-Rate Initial

Production (LRIP)

Full-Rate Production

(FRP)

FCA

MRL 9

Industrial capability is in

place to support start of

FRP.

Should be assessed at TRL 9 Should be assessed at TRL 9

Industrial capability

supports FRP. Industrial

capability assessed to

support modifications,

upgrades, surge and other

potential manufacturing

requirements.

Manufacturing technology

process improvements

efforts initiated for FRP.

Manufacturing technology

continuous process

improvements ongoing.

Prior producibility improvements analyzed for

effectiveness during LRIP.

Producibility issues/risks...

Design producibility

improvements demonstrated in FRP. Process

producibility ...

MRL 10

FRP

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3 5

of the EMD phase, programs should make use of the same tooling,

test equipment, workforce, work instructions, and methods that

will be used during the production phases.

MANUFACTURING READINESS ASSESSMENTS

To conduct an MRL-based review, also known as a manufacturing

readiness assessment (MRA), knowledgeable personnel are required

to apply the objective criteria in the MRL matrix to the manufacturing process of interest and to determine its maturity. These reviews

are typically conducted by small teams of two to six manufacturing,

quality, and systems engineering experts. At most supplier locations,

the reviews last for one or two days, depending upon the nature and

complexity of the manufacturing process being reviewed.

Manufacturing readiness assessments (MRAs) are straightforward. The most challenging phase of the assessment is the up-front

planning, which determines the scope and extent of the review.

The government-contractor team must select the components,

suppliers, or technologies that warrant a review. Often, the magnitude of the potential manufacturing risks determines whether or

not a review should be conducted. A list of questions has been

developed for the team to use in determining the potential risks

for a given component or supplier. These questions are available in

the MRL Deskbook.

Unfortunately, in many cases, cost constraints limit the situations

in which reviews are conducted. Although each individual review is

not costly, the preparation, execution, and follow-up at the various

suppliers may be cost-prohibitive, especially if these activities have

not been budgeted for during contract negotiations. The contractual arrangements between the government and the prime contractor,

along with those between the prime contractor and the lower tier

suppliers, can have a major impact on whether this will be an easy

issue to solve. Contractors operating under a cost-type contract

usually have more flexibility in the number of suppliers they visit.

Conversely, the contractors operating under a fixed price contract

may not have that flexibility. Therefore, it is critical that MRL

assessments be included in Request for Proposals and in the final,

contractual Statement of Work (SOW), which should include a

clear definition of the methodology and scope of the assessments.

An MRL plan documenting this information can be included as an

attachment to the contract.

Once an assessment is complete and an MRL number has been

assigned, the team must develop Manufacturing Maturation

Plans (MMPs) for any threads that were not scored at the target

MRL. The MMPs need to identify the target and actual MRLs,

the reason(s) for the shortfall(s), and an action plan for achieving

the desired MRL that includes a schedule and list of needed

resources.

MRLS AND THE AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS CENTER

The Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC), a division of the Air

Force’s Materiel Command, has been required by its Commander,

Lieutenant General Thomas J. Owen, to implement MRLs prior to

reaching a major milestone of the Defense Acquisition Life Cycle.

As a result, ASC has conducted several MRL assessments and has

had a variety of experiences pertaining to MRAs. The common

trend has been success – success in conducting reviews, in identifying risks that might have otherwise been missed, and in elevating

the visibility of manufacturing considerations.

The MRL Deskbook was developed by the MRL Working Group as a guide for anyone implementing MRLs. The deskbook

includes MRL definitions, the relationships of the MRLs to the acquisition life cycle, the steps in the MRL assessment process, and

options for including MRLs in requests for proposals and contracts. It is available at www.dodmrl.com and is updated annually,

or as needed, by the MRL Working Group to incorporate lessons learned and best practices.

Figure 4. MRL matrix excerpt.

The MRL

Deskbook

1

6

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
6 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3

MRL Concerns and Remedies

Although successful overall, some programs have resisted MRAs,

arguing that MRLs do not apply to them because their program is

different. To address this concern, the ASC Engineering

Directorate, the MRL process owner at ASC, has worked hand-inhand with the programs to tailor the MRA to their unique situations. Once the programs understood the potential benefits of

MRLs and the flexibility they had in conducting the MRL assessments, they were willing to make them work. ASC’s Engineering

Directorate attempts to provide as much flexibility as possible without losing sight of the ultimate goal, which is to identify manufacturing risks using the objective MRL criteria.

Unique program situations have led to several different types of

assessments. The traditional approach is the on-site review, much

like a PRR. However, programs have also conducted desk-audits,

which are assessments performed entirely by the Air Force with no

visits to the contractors. ASC conducts assessments in this manner

only in truly unique situations where no contractor involvement is

possible (i.e., when there is no contract vehicle in place to obtain

contractor participation). In situations like this, the Air Force must

rely upon information generated earlier in the program or on information gleaned from market research or industrial base analyses.

When executed in this manner, the assessments are not as thorough

as one with contractor involvement, but at a minimum, the manufacturing issues are being considered and analyzed.

Another approach is to conduct MRL assessments during competitive acquisitions. If manufacturing issues could be a discriminator during source selections, then the offerors are asked to perform

an MRL self-assessment and discuss the results in their proposals.

The government’s Source Selection Evaluation Team is then

responsible for evaluating the offerors’ assessments and for asking

follow-up questions as needed to gain additional insight. This

information is used to help weigh the manufacturing risks among

the offerors.

Concern has also been expressed as to whether there are enough

trained personnel to conduct MRL assessments effectively.

Although the basic answer is yes, each Service and Acquisition

Center is manned differently. To date, ASC has been fortunate

enough to have sufficient resources to conduct MRL assessments.

This should be the case for the near future as well. However, as more

programs start implementing MRLs and conducting reviews at

numerous suppliers, the demand for trained manufacturing engineers may create resource issues.

Another common concern is the honesty of the MRL assessments, especially the self-assessments conducted by the contractors.

ASC has found, however, that their industry partners have done

very thorough and honest assessments. For one large aircraft modernization program, the Air Force team knew that a lower tier supplier would not be at the target MRL of 8. The government team

members were concerned that either the supplier would try to project a false picture of their maturity or the prime contractor would

argue for a higher rating. Either way, the Air Force team went into

the assessment expecting significant confrontation. To the delight

of the Air Force, the supplier presented their self-assessment openly and honestly, rating themselves at MRL 6. The prime contractor

readily agreed. As a result, the team was able to spend more time

effectively working problem resolutions rather than arguing over

the rating.

Lessons Learned

Training has emerged as a key lesson learned. This includes training

for the program office, the prime contractor, and all suppliers that will

be hosting an assessment. ASC has found that individuals and organizations (both within the government and in industry) not familiar

with MRLs may be reluctant to use them. A large portion of this

reluctance stems from a lack of understanding about what MRLs are

and how they are used. Once organizations have received training

(either in-depth or at overview level), they are much more accepting

and often become avid supporters of the concept. Training materials

are available from multiple sources, including the www.dodmrl.com

website. Nevertheless, the best resources are the Services’ MRL Focal

Points. ASC has even provided on-site training for the lower tier suppliers. It was found that the improved understanding and buy-in was

well worth the investment in time and travel.

ASC has also recognized that contractor self-assessments are a

valuable part of the process. The government team provides contractors with the MRL matrix (or related list of questions) and asks

them to develop and provide responses prior to the team arriving for

the on-site review. In addition to familiarizing the assessment team

with the contractor’s products and processes, the self-assessment

allows for a more effective discussion of the issues because all parties

can be better prepared to address the areas of weakness.

ASC Success Stories

There have been several Air Force success stories relating to the

implementation of MRLs. One specific success story includes an Air

Force bomber modification program. The program office personnel, in conjunction with the prime contractor, assessed a dozen key

suppliers and identified numerous risk areas that required

Manufacturing Maturation Plans. The identified risks ranged from

product oriented actions (design changes and diminishing manufacturing source issues) to factory process improvements (quality and

production control systems). The program office was thankful they

had conducted the assessments and firmly believed that, had the

MRL process not been in place, many of these risks would not have

surfaced until the program started production, resulting in cost and

schedule impacts.

ASC has found that MRL reviews can also provide benefits to the

prime contractors and suppliers. In some instances, where there is

limited government program office manning, the government engineers and program managers may not be aware of issues at lower tier

suppliers. In the case of another Air Force bomber modification

program, the MRL assessment revealed diminishing manufacturing

source issues at suppliers for which the government had to take

action to resolve. The contractors were pleased to be able to elevate

the issue to the government customer. In another example, the

MRL assessment for a piece of personal protection equipment identified the need for additional manufacturing technology development. This finding led the government to allocate additional funding for the contractor to improve manufacturing process yields,

which will improve schedule confidence and reduce cost.

ACHIEVING PROGRESS

MRLs can be viewed as a snapshot of manufacturing maturity at a

moment in time, as a final exam, or even as a midcourse quiz. Very

few students can take a test without studying and expect to pass

with flying colors. Just like studying for a test, preparation is the key

to successfully achieving target MRLs. Preparation involves much

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
more than just getting ready for the review itself. It involves activities and behaviors throughout the life cycle of a weapon system that

continually mature the manufacturing processes and systems.

Since MRLs are primarily criteria and expectations for program

phases and milestones, they do not directly describe the on-going

practices that need to be implemented throughout a program to

ensure success. The MIL-HDBK-896, Manufacturing and Quality

Program, was written specifically to complement the MRLs by

describing a set of best manufacturing and quality practices that will

enable the achievement of target MRLs. The handbook organizes

best practices by the threads of the MRL matrix. For each thread,

the handbook provides suggested tools, techniques, and practices

that will enable successful progression through the Manufacturing

Readiness Levels.

Using the design thread as an example, MIL-HDBK-896 recommends the implementation of a formal producibility program, the

identification of key characteristics, and the consideration of production process capabilities during design trade studies. By properly applying these practices, the program has an excellent chance of

meeting the design thread criteria during an MRL assessment.

THE FUTURE OF MRLS

MRLs are emerging as the tool of choice for assessing manufacturing maturity. Their usage will continue to grow as more government

customers become familiar with them and begin to contractually

require MRAs. Once an organization uses MRLs, they realize how

easy MRLs are to apply and the extensive benefits that MRLs bring.

The Air Force’s Aeronautical Systems Center and Air Armament

Center require that MRL assessments be conducted prior to major

program milestones so that decision makers are well aware of manufacturing risks. More defense industry partners are gaining experience with MRLs and are incorporating them into their own internal corporate practices.

The MRL Working Group continues to refine the MRL criteria

matrix and to improve the MRL assessment process. Although

changes are very minor at this point, the team practices continuous

improvement to ensure the best possible tools are available by incorporating the latest lessons learned into the criteria and process. The

group plans to continue hosting annual workshops with government

and industry to assess progress and update the core documents.

The GAO studied the adoption of MRLs in both the government and industry and reported their results in GAO-10-439, DoD

Can Achieve Better Outcomes by Standardizing the Way

Manufacturing Risks Are Managed. They found that MRLs “offer the

potential for the DoD to achieve savings and efficiencies in developing and acquiring weapon systems” and that “commercial firms

have adopted MRLs or are employing similar criteria in their product development processes.”[5] The GAO recommended that the

DoD use MRLs for assessing manufacturing readiness across DoD

programs. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has been

considering an MRL policy for all of the Services. A clear message

from OSD on the adoption of MRLs would cement MRLs as the

Standard Operating Procedure across the defense industry for

assessing manufacturing maturity.

SUMMARY

In ASC’s experience, MRLs are clearly accomplishing the purpose

for which they were designed, bringing more attention to manufacturing issues. Mr. Frank Grimsley, ASC’s Technical Director for the

Systems Engineering Division, reports that, “The MRL assessment

process at ASC identifies potential risks to production early and

gives the US Air Force the ability to hit the ground running in

solving those risk areas before they impact cost or schedule. It makes

the USAF a much smarter customer.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Mr. Tom Lastoskie, AFIT SYS 213

Course Director, for his contributions to this article.

REFERENCES

*An MDAP is a DoD acquisition program that is not highly sensitive or

classified. MDAPs are designated or estimated by the Secretary of Defense

to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, test,

and evaluation of more than $365,000,000 (updated to FY 2000 constant

dollars), or an eventual total expenditure for procurement of more than

$2,190,000,000 (updated to FY 2000 constant dollars).[6]

[1] “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,”

United States Government Accountability Office, GAO Report No. GAO07-406SP, March 2007.

[2] Sullivan, M.J., “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon

Programs,” United States Government Accountability Office, GAO Report

No. GAO-10-388SP, March 2010, p. 2.

[3] Sullivan, M.J., “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon

Programs,” United States Government Accountability Office, GAO Report

No. GAO-09-326SP, March 2009, p. 7.

[4] “Manufacturing Readiness Levels,” http://www.dodmrl.com/MRL_

Overview_Chart.pdf, accessed September 2010.

[5] Sullivan, M., “Best Practices: DoD Can Achieve Better Outcomes by

Standardizing the Way Manufacturing Risks Are Managed,” United States

Government Accountability Office, GAO Report No. GAO-10-439, April

2010, pp. 28 & 43.

[6] Defense Acquisition University, “Major Defense Acquisition Programs

(MDAP),” https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=141955&

lang=en-US, accessed September 2010.

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3 7

To comment on this article, email: ammtiac@alionscience.com

RESOURCES

The website www.dodmrl.com is available for anyone who would like more information on MRLs. It serves as a “one-stop shopping” repository for

MRL resources and contains the MRL Deskbook, the MRL matrix, brief training tutorials, and two automated tools to help in conducting assessments.

The MRA Tool is an Excel-based program that facilitates evaluation and documentation of MRL assessments by multiple evaluators. The MRL ASSIST

program provides questions to supplement the MRL matrix and help evaluators gain additional insight into manufacturing evaluation areas.

The Air Force Institute of Technology has developed a course that allows students hands-on experience in conducting a simulated MRL assessment.

This course, designated SYS 213: “Manufacturing Readiness Assessments,” is open to all branches of DoD and industry, although a minimal fee may

be required for contractors.

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
...through

Weapon System Assessments

Analysis of Alternatives

Materials Selection

Product Design

Process Design

Cost Benefit Analysis

Process Assessment

Prototype Development

Lean Manufacturing/Six Sigma

Quality Control/Quality Assurance

Process Verification/Validation

Product Testing & Validation

Mike Morgan

Director

937.542.9908

mmorgan@alionscience.com

Christopher Fink

Manufacturing Engineer

315.339.7048

cfink@alionscience.com

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com

The Advanced Materials, Manufacturing, and Testing Information Analysis Center (AMMTIAC) is a DoD Information Analysis Center (IAC) sponsored by the Defense

Technical Information Center (DTIC). IACs serve as information repository and technology transfer organizations for the DoD and other government agencies.

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3 9

Christopher W. Fink

AMMTIAC

Rome, NY techsolutions 17

Toolkit for DoD Manufacturing Engineers

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Defense (DoD), more often than not, requires

that its products be held to elevated quality and performance

standards, especially when compared to commercial products. These

higher expectations lead to increased scrutiny, and subsequently, significant differences between the production cycles for DoD weapons

systems and commercial products. Thus, to produce weapon systems

and their components for the DoD, manufacturing engineers must

have specialized and superior manufacturing knowledge.

In a commercial manufacturing setting, each manufacturer has its

own set of production guidelines. These guidelines set the policies and

standard operating procedures for material sourcing, supply chain

management, product assembly, and quality. Likewise, the DoD has

its own set of agency-wide guidelines for the manufacture of weapon

systems. These guidelines coincide with the phases of the Defense

Acquisition Life Cycle. However, because the Defense Acquisition

Life Cycle is complex, there are numerous guidelines to follow.

This sizeable quantity of guidelines can pose challenges to manufacturing engineers as they work to remain up-to-date with the latest updates and changes. To mitigate hiccups in the transmission of

this information, several resources have been developed to aid in the

dissemination of the most current rules and regulations, to share lessons learned, and to foster collaboration between manufacturing

groups within the DoD.

This article provides an overview of the resources available for

DoD manufacturing engineers. These resources can be utilized to

aid in the delivery of weapon systems that meet performance and

quality requirements on schedule and without cost overruns.

DOD REGULATIONS

DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02 provides a simplified, flexible

management framework for translating capability needs and technology opportunities into stable, affordable, and well-managed

acquisition programs. Moreover, it details the proper operation of

the Defense Acquisition Life Cycle system and provides detail for

program managers, explaining how they should be implementing

this directive.[1]

In this instruction, the DoD Defense Acquisition Life Cycle

framework is presented. Furthermore, each Service is assigned key

responsibilities, the majority of which are necessary for carrying out

the tasks related to DoD weapon system development and production. Most importantly, the DoDI 5000.02 framework places

increased importance on developing mature manufacturing processes early in the weapon system development process. To do this, the

framework requires manufacturing readiness assessments as an exit

criterion for three different acquisition phases. The System

Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the Defense

Acquisition Life Cycle was renamed Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) in this instruction as well.[2]

GUIDING DOCUMENTS

Several publications have been created and made available to assist

manufacturing engineers in meeting the manufacturing-related

requirements set forth in DoDI 5000.02. These documents cover

process design, manufacturing maturity, part quality, obsolescence,

and process improvements.

MIL-HDBK-896

The DoD Handbook Manufacturing and

Quality Program (MIL-HDBK-896) is a collection of best practices for weapon system

production and product quality. MIL-HDBK896 was created by the Manufacturing and

Quality Branch of the Air Force’s Aeronautical

Systems Center Engineering Directorate. This

branch is also responsible for maintaining the handbook and ensuring that all information is up-to-date.

The 11-page MIL-HDBK-896 is intended for use across the

services, in parallel with the guidance provided by the DoD’s

Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook and the Air Force’s

Manufacturing Development Guide. It provides detailed guidelines

for the performance of manufacturing readiness assessments. In

addition, this handbook defines the production and quality-related

terms commonly used in the DoD.[3]

Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook

The DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level

Deskbook was developed by the Joint Defense

Manufacturing Technology Panel’s (JDMTP’s)

Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL)

Working Group. This deskbook is a comprehensive resource that discusses manufacturing

readiness levels (MRLs) and manufacturing

readiness assessments (MRAs).

The MRL Deskbook provides detailed definitions for each MRL.

It also presents the MRL threads and sub-threads and provides

detailed instructions for incorporating MRLs and MRAs into

source selection criteria as well as other facets of the government

proposal process. Since the MRL Deskbook is updated on an annual

basis, or as needed, it is continuously evolving to best support DoD

manufacturing efforts.

Process maturity is critical to the success of a weapon system. To

address readiness in pre-weapon system acquisitions, the MRL

Deskbook provides guidance to ensure that manufacturing-related

considerations are the focus during the Materiel Solution Analysis

and Technology Development phases of the Defense Acquisition

Life Cycle. In addition, best practices are provided to address manufacturing maturity during the EMD and the Production and

Deployment phases of weapon system acquisition.

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
10 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3

techsolutions 17

Table 1. The Manufacturing Development Guide best practice

focus areas.

Best Practice Area

Manufacturing Capability Assessment and Risk Management

Production Cost Modeling

Key Suppliers

Key Characteristics and Processes

Variability Reduction

Virtual Manufacturing

Design Trade Studies

Process Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis

Product and Process Validation

Manufacturing Process Control and Continuous Improvement

Factory Efficiency

Technology Obsolescence and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources

One of the main methods for evaluating process maturity is

the MRA. MRAs are employed to measure the maturity of a manufacturing process, playing an important role prior to major

Milestone Reviews and acquisition decisions. The MRL Deskbook

further describes how to develop the scope of an MRA, prepare

the contractor for the MRA, and carry out the MRA. The information gathered during an MRA is used to identify manufacturing risks and develop risk management and manufacturing maturation plans (MMPs).

The DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook can be

accessed online through the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level

resource website at http://www.dodmrl.org/ or http://www.dod

mrl.com.[4]

Manufacturing Development Guide

The Air Force Manufacturing Development

Guide (MDG) provides guidance for

improving Air Force weapon system acquisition. However, much of the information

can be utilized by non-Air Force organizations interested in operational improvement.[5] This guide provides tools to

ensure that important design and manufacturing decisions are

made early in the development process. Further, the MDG details

the positive impacts that result from making manufacturing

decisions early in the acquisition process, specifically those related to the financial and contractual considerations. The MDG

presents the defense industry with quality-related tools and techniques that have produced positive results in the commercial

manufacturing industry.

The best practices and lessons learned, that relate to these

industry-adopted tools and techniques, are described in Chapter

6 of the MDG. Rationale for each tool and technique is provided

as well to significantly reduce the potential for misinterpretation

during the implementation of these practices into the Integrated

Product and Process Development (IPPD) process. Table 1 lists

the MDG’s best practice focus areas. The MDG also defines the

roles that manufacturing engineers, for the contractor and the

government, play in developing the weapon system and requisite

production process. A sample of the contractor and government

manufacturing engineers’ responsibilities can be found in Table

2.[5]

DMSMS Guidebook

The DoD Diminishing Manufacturing

Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS): A

Guidebook of Best Practices and Tools for

Implementing a DMSMS Management

Program (Report # SD-22) is a comprehensive resource that aids in the management

of DMSMS. This guidebook was compiled

and published by the Defense Standardization Program Office

(DSPO). DMSMS relates to the loss of a source for a material or

item, which in most instances surfaces when a supplier discontinues the production of a particular product or when the product

becomes unavailable. Written for program managers, the

DMSMS guidebook contains methods for managing and mitigating part obsolescence issues common within the DoD, specifically in the areas of electronic, electrical, and mechanical parts.

These methods were derived from the best practices identified by

several DoD organizations.

The DMSMS guidebook defines a proactive DMSMS manTable 2. Example of Tasks and Responsibilities for manufacturing

engineers during IPPD. [5]

Responsible for Task Task Description

Government

Manufacturing

Engineer

Contractor

Manufacturing

Engineer

Participate in trade studies

Develop and refine Production Cost Model

Initiate mapping of Key Characteristics & Processes

Establish data collection for process capability

requirements

Initiate process development as required

Participate in manufacturing capability

and risk assessments

Integrate suppliers into production process

Develop and validate production plan

Implement efforts to reduce variability

Implement efforts to prevent defects

Monitor process variation

Develop plan for implementing process/product

changes

Implement continuous process improvement

techniques (Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma)

Maintain Production Cost Model

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3 11

AMMTIAC A D V A N C E D M A T E R I A L S , M A N U F A C T U R I N G A N D T E S T I N G

agement process, which can be used to build an effective DMSMS

Program. It also defines the DMSMS support metrics that are used

to measure the effectiveness of a proactive DMSMS Program, promotes cost-effective supply chain management integrity through

DMSMS problem resolution at the lowest level, and promotes the

exercise of best practices throughout the DMSMS management

cycle.[6]

The four levels of DMSMS program intensity are described in

Table 3. Table 4 provides the mitigation practices for each intensity

level. Additional DMSMS program guidance is provided through

tools in the form of DMSMS-related documents, web-based

resources, and design interface assessment criteria.

The DMSMS guidebook can be accessed electronically through

the DMSMS Sharing Portal at http://www.dmsms.org/.

DoD CPIT Guidebook

The DoD’s Continuous Process Improvement

Transformation Guidebook (CPIT Guidebook)

was developed under an initiative set forth by

the former Under Secretary of Defense,

Gerald England. Continuous process

improvement (CPI) is a process that ensures a

continued improvement in an organization’s

performance. The key to CPI success is consistent and sustainable

leadership and guidance. When considering CPI methodologies,

any organization that delivers services or produces products should

be viewed as a transformation mechanism.[7]

The CPIT Guidebook provides a method for improving DoD

operational performance. In order for the continuous process

improvement (CPI) method to produce lasting results, a culture of

continuous improvement needs to be implemented. The CPIT

Guidebook outlines four integral components that are needed for

lasting continuous improvement efforts. These needed components

are: a broad, structured CPI implementation method; focus on CPI

implementation within a structure of goals that are aligned to a

warfighter-driven, outcome-based metric; emphasis on the management and integration of CPI projects; and methods for determining

how well projects and organizations progress with CPI initiatives,

training, and certification.[8]

Upon CPI process initiation, customer requirements and organizational resources are transformed into goods, services, and

business outcomes for the customer’s benefit, known as process

completion. The results can be tangible or knowledge-based. While

Table 4. DMSMS Mitigation Practices.[6]

Table 3. DMSMS Intensity Levels.[6]

Intensity Level Description

Level 1 Current practices for resolving identified obsolescence

risks are satisfactory.

Level 2 Current practices for resolving future obsolescence

risks are satisfactory.

Level 3 Current practices for mitigating obsolescence risks are

adequate for situation where likelihood of opportunity

to reduce total ownership costs is high.

Level 4 Current practices implemented during conceptual

design phase continue through the weapon system

sustainment cycle.

Intensity Level 1

DMSMS program established

and funded

DMT formed

DMT trained in

• DMSMS fundamentals

and

• DMSMS for executives

DMSMS program plan written

and approved

Complete BOM developed

with periodic reviews planned

to keep it current

Solutions to near-term

obsolescence problems

implemented

For new acquisitions, DMSMS

tasking and data byproducts

inserted in the development,

production, or support contracts

Intensity Level 2

All level 1 practices implemented

BOM processed through a

predictive tool

Results of predictive tool output

analyzed

DMSMS solution database

established

Budget established to fund future

obsolescence solutions

Website established

Method established to prioritize

LRUs/WRAs for DMSMS risk

Intensity Level 3

All Level 2 Practices implemented

DMSMS life-cycle costs and cost

avoidance estimates developed

DMT trained

• DMSMS essentials,

• DMSMS case studies,

and

• advanced DMSMS

Funding shortfall and impact

identified and communicated to

decision makers

For legacy systems, DMSMS

tasking and data requirements

included in applicable contracts

Circuit design guidelines

established

Technology assessment and

insertion under way

DMSMS metrics establisheda

Electronic data interchange used

Intensity Level 4

All Level 3 practices implemented

Technology road mapping used

System upgrades planned

Technology transparency attained

Accessibility realized for alternate

source development (VHDL,

emulation, MEPs)

Notes: BOM = bill of materials, DMT = DMSMS management team, LRU = line replaceable unit, MEP = Manufacturing Extension Partnership, VHDL=VHSIC (Very High Speed Integrated Circuit)

Hardware Description Language, WRA = weapons replaceable assembly.

aMetrics include number of cases, number of solutions implemented, life-cycle cost, and cost avoidance.

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
12 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3

techsolutions 17

serving a customer, organizations need to also be measuring their

performance.

The successful implementation of a continuous improvement culture requires clearly defined roles and responsibilities

in addition to a concise framework. The CPIT Guidebook

identifies the roles and responsibilities of staff, members and

the various DoD organizations needed to implement and execute CPI. In addition to providing roles and responsibilities,

the CPIT Guidebook provides problem solving tools for eliminating waste and reducing variability in CPI efforts.[8]

The DoD CPIT Guidebook can be

accessed electronically through the Defense

Acquisition University’s Publication website at http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/Lists/

GuideBook/AllItems.aspx.

ONLINE RESOURCES

There are several online resources available

for defense industry manufacturing engineers that can augment the compiled

handbooks and guidebooks presented in

the previous section. These resources

include continuing education modules,

technical forums, and Service-specific

enterprise improvement websites.

Defense Acquisition University Resources

Training Courses

The Defense Acquisition University

(DAU) provides continuous learning

modules and training courses that cover a

wide variety of technical, contractual, and

management topic areas. Table 5 provides

a complete list of DAU training course tracks. The tracks of

greatest interest and highest importance to manufacturing

engineers are the Logistics and Production, Quality, and

Manufacturing (PQM) training course tracks. The Logistics Track

offers courses on:

• Systems Sustainment Management,

• Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM),

• Intermediate Acquisition Logistics,

• Configuration Management,

• Intermediate Systems Sustainment Management,

• Performance-Based Logistics, and

• Enterprise Life Cycle Logistics Management.

More information on the Logistics Training Courses can be

found at http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/tabnav.aspx?

tab=LOG.

The PQM track offers courses on:

• Defense Specification Management,

• Specification Selection and Application,

• Intermediate Production, Quality, and Manufacturing,

• Preparation of Commercial Item Description for Engineering

and Technical Personnel, and

• Advanced Production, Quality, and Manufacturing.[9]

For more information on the PQM Training courses, visit

http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/tabnav.aspx?tab=PQM.

The Engineering and Technology continuous learning module

provided by DAU contains several courses that are beneficial to

manufacturing engineers in the defense industry as well. These

courses cover modeling and simulation, ISO certifications, value

engineering, Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs), and

process improvement methods such as Six Sigma and Lean Six

Table 5. DAU Training Course Tracks.[9]

Acquisition Management

Auditing

Business, Cost Estimating, and Financial Management

Contracting

Contracting Officer’s Representative

Facilities Engineering

Grants

Industrial/Contract Property Management

Information Resource Management

Logistics

Production, Quality, and Manufacturing

Program Management

Requirements Management

Software Acquisition Management

Science and Technology Management

Systems Planning, Research, Development and Engineering

Test and Evaluation

Figure 1. PQM Module Home Page.[10]

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3 13

AMMTIAC A D V A N C E D M A T E R I A L S , M A N U F A C T U R I N G A N D T E S T I N G

13

Sigma. Detailed information

on the continuous learning

modules offered by the DAU

can be found at http://icata

log.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/

tabnavcl.aspx.

Acquisition Community

Connection Production,

Quality and Manufacturing

(PQM) Portal

In addition to offering continuing education courses in

manufacturing-related topic

areas, DAU also houses an online portal where defense industry

engineers, program managers, and other acquisition-related personnel can gather and share relevant information (reference material,

best practices, websites, and case studies). The Production, Quality

and Manufacturing (PQM) module houses several resources related

to manufacturing within the defense industry. The PQM module

has twelve topic areas, as presented in Table 6. Each topic area has

a Question and Answer forum, a list of applicable metrics, and a

brief overview of what is new to that topic area. The information

contained in the PQM portal is provided by members of the PQM

community and is updated regularly. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of

the PQM module homepage.[10]

Continuous Process Improvement/Lean Six Sigma Program Office

A subordinate of the Office of the Deputy Chief Management

Officer, the Continuous Process Improvement Lean Six Sigma

Program Office (CPI/LSS) was established in 2007 to help the

DoD components meet their CPI goals.[11] The CPI/LSS Office

assists the individual Services in the initialization and sustainment

of CPI efforts. In addition, the CPI/LSS Office collects process

improvement best practices and provides training to develop

performance improvement capabilities throughout the DoD.

Further information on the CPI/LSS Office can be found at

http://dcmo.defense.gov/index.html.

Army Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) Knowledge Center

The Continuous Process Improvement Knowledge Center (CPIKC)

is a component of the Army Office of Business Transformation. This

center provides the framework (Table 7) as well as the tools and techniques necessary to identify Army customers’ needs and requirements (commonly known as the “Voice of the Customer”) and for

optimizing processes to meet the Army’s needs.[7] The CPIKC also

provides resources that raise

awareness, provide insight

into, and replicate best

business practices. Tools

and templates that support

process improvement initiatives are provided.[7] In

addition, the CPIKC provides critical success factors

and industry best practices

to improve the effectiveness of Army CPI efforts.

The information, resources, and best practices available

through the Army’s Continuous Process Improvement Knowledge

Center can be accessed at http://www.armyobt.army.mil/cpi-kcwelcome.html.

SUMMARY

The production of DoD weapon systems is extremely challenging,

especially for manufacturing engineers, due to the elevated performance, quality, and lifespan standards required by the DoD. Ensuring

that a weapon system is produced in the most efficient manner,

while also meeting performance and quality specifications requires

a focused approach for both development and production. This

focused approach should be based upon the lessons learned and best

practices obtained over several decades of weapon system production. The availability of this information along with program offices

dedicated to the optimization of manufacturing processes are vital

to manufacturing engineers responsible for producing weapon systems that meet performance and quality specifications. In the

future, increased access to requirements, best practices, lessons

learned, as well as increased collaboration between manufacturing

colleagues (through forums and online portals) will help ensure that

DoD weapon systems are produced at the highest quality for the

right cost.

REFERENCES

[1] Gordon, M., “Manufacturing Implications within new DoDI

5000.02,” National Center for Advanced Technologies, 8 December 2008.

[2] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,

“Department of Defense Instruction: Operation of the Defense Acquisition

System,” DoDI Number 5000.02, 8 December 2008.

[3] Department of Defense Handbook: Manufacturing and Quality Program,

MIL-HDBK-896, 8 August 2008, https://acc.dau.mil/Community

Browser.aspx?id=230018&lang=en-US, accessed September 2010.

[4] Office of the Secretary of Defense Manufacturing Technology Program

and the Joint Service/Industry MRL Working Group, Manufacturing

Readiness Level Deskbook, 30 July 2010, http://www.dodmrl.

com/MRL_Deskbook_30_July_2010.pdf, accessed September 2010.

[5] Karr, D., Manufacturing Development Guide, Aeronautical Systems

Center (ASC/ENSM), May 2006, pp. 4, 22, https://acc.dau.mil/Com

munityBrowser.aspx?id=23362&lang=en-US, accessed September 2010.

[6] Defense Standardization Program Office, Diminishing Manufacturing

Sources and Material Shortages: A Guidebook of Best Practices and Tools for

Implementing a DMSMS Management Program, SD-22, September 2009,

pp. 3, 7-8.

[7] US Army Office of Business Transformation, “Welcome to the

Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) Knowledge Center,” http://www.

armyobt.army.mil/cpi-kc-welcome.html, accessed September 2010.

[8] Continuous Process Improvement Transformation Guidebook, Department

of Defense, May 2006, pp. 1-3.

[9] “Training Courses and Schedules,” Defense Acquisition University,

http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/tabnav.aspx?tab=PQM, accessed

September 2010.

[10] Defense Acquisition University, “Acquisition Community

Connection: Where the DoD AT&L Workforce Meets to Share Knowledge

– PQM,” https://acc.dau.mil/pqm, accessed October 2010.

[11] “Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer,” http://dcmo.

defense.gov/index.html, accessed September 2010.

Table 6. PQM Topic Areas.

Hot Topics

Policy & Guidance

Product Design

Process Design & Control

Lessons Learned

Continuous Process Improvement

Supply Chain Management

e-Manufacturing

Tools

Training Center

Community Connection

Assessing Manufacturing Risk

Table 7. Army CPI Framework Steps.

Step Title

1 Define Business Drivers

2 Architect & Align Strategies

3 Develop Vision

4 Current State Understanding

5 Future State Design

6 Road Map Development

7 Execution

8 Continuing Improvement

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
The Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel (JDMTP)

consists of technical principals from the individual Manufacturing

Technology (ManTech) Programs of the Air Force, Army, Navy,

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and Missile Defense Agency

(MDA); the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Department of

Energy; and the Department of Commerce. This panel, chartered in

1999, has main objectives to guide the investment strategy for the

Department of Defense (DoD) ManTech Program and to develop

strategies that can be utilized by the ManTech Programs to mature

and transition emerging manufacturing technologies to, and across,

the Services. The JDMTP is also responsible for reporting to and

executing tasks assigned by the Director of Defense Research and

Engineering (DDR&E).[1]

Although focused on ManTech, the JDMTP’s roles are multifaceted. Not only does the JDMTP provide investment and technology

insertion guidance for DoD ManTech, but it also reviews and assesses DoD-related manufacturing problems and identifies areas for collaboration between the individual ManTech programs, private

industry, and academia. This broadened teaming enables the

JDMTP to increase the ManTech return on investment and transition to mature and novel manufacturing technologies in a reduced

amount of time. The JDMTP is also responsible for developing

methods by which information can be exchanged between subject

matter experts in the manufacturing community to assist in the identification of manufacturing technology solutions. Similarly, because

the JDMTP is a collaborative group, they can work to minimize

instances of effort duplication within the ManTech Programs.[2]

Aside from assisting the ManTech Program physically, the

JDMTP also assists the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for

Advanced Systems and Concepts (DUSD(ASC)) in developing,

when needed, and biennially updating the five-year DoD ManTech

Strategic Plan.[3] This plan outlines the DoD ManTech Strategic

Thrusts, overviews the defense manufacturing industry’s current

strategies, and describes the role of the DoD ManTech Program

within those strategies. In parallel, the JDMTP is responsible for

ensuring that current ManTech efforts are integrated and coordinated with those initiatives developed by other federal organizations

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).[1]

Strategies developed by the JDMTP are structured around one of

its four technical subpanels (Figure 1). A brief description of each subpanel’s focus is presented in Table 1. The individual ManTech programs also use these subpanels to optimize the use of available funding

and to enable the development of relevant manufacturing processes.[4]

In addition to the technical subpanels, the JDMTP also uses

working groups to provide a more focused approach for solving

issues that affect multiple services. For example, in 2001 the

JDMTP created a joint working group that focused on identifying

a method to assess manufacturing maturity and to provide a classification or measurement system for the various stages of process

maturity, since a lack of manufacturing maturity was noted to be a

recurring problem throughout the DoD. Comprised of representatives from the DoD Science & Technology, DoD Acquisition,

industry, and academia, this working group developed the

Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) definitions and the assessment process framework.

GENERAL REFERENCE

Dynamics Research Corporation, “US Department of Defense

Manufacturing Technology Program,” https://www.dodmantech.

com, accessed September 2010.

REFERENCES

[1] Davis, L.A., A.M. Andrews II, H. Hellwig, P.G. Gaffney II, and D.P.

Keller, “Charter: Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel,” https://

www.dodmantech.com/pubs/JDMTPCharter-Signed_8Jun99.pdf, 8 June

1999, p. 1.

[2] “Manufacturing Technology Program Investment Strategy,” https://

www.dodmantech.com/invest/index.asp?main=invest, Dynamics Research

Corporation, accessed September 2010.

[3] ODUSD(ASC) and JDMTP, “The DoD Manufacturing Technology

Panel Strategic Plan: Delivering Defense Affordability,” March 2009, pp. 3,

18.

[4] “Army ManTech: Program Overview,” last updated 22 February 2007,

http://www.armymantech.com/over.htm, accessed September 2010.

[5] Office of Technology Transition Activities, “Manufacturing Technology

(ManTech) Program,” http://www.acq.osd.mil/ott/techtransit/refroom/

2000/D.pdf, accessed October 2010.

To comment on this article, email: ammtiac@alionscience.com

14 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3

Table 1. JDMTP Technical Subpanel Focuses.[2, 5]

Subpanel Focus

Metals Processing Address development of agile, cost-effective

and Fabrication processes for state-of-the-art ferrous and

non-ferrous alloys, specialty materials, material

joining, and material inspection

Composites Processing Address development of affordable, robust

and Fabrication processes for fabrication of advanced

composite structures for implementation in

aircraft, ships, soldier protection, and

ground vehicles

Electronics Processing Address development of fabrication processes

and Fabrication for integrated circuitry, printed circuit boards,

electronic devices, analog and digital

electronics, photonics, electro-optic devices

Advanced Accelerate implementation of world-class

Manufacturing Enterprise industrial practices, advanced design, and

information systems that support weapon

system development, production, and

sustainment

Figure 1. JDMTP Structure.[3,5]

Ex Officio:

• OSD, DARPA

• Agencies: DOE, Dept.

of Commerce (NIST), NSF

Metals

Processing &

Fabrication

Composites

Processing &

Fabrication

Electronics

Processing &

Fabrication

Advanced

Manufacturing

Enterprise

ManTech Principals

(Army, Air Force, Navy,

DLA, MDA)

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3 15

AMMTIAC Directory

TECHNICAL MANAGER/COR

Dr. Khershed Cooper

Naval Research Laboratory

Code 6354

4555 Overlook Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20375

202.767.0181

Email: cooper@anvil.nrl.navy.mil

AMMTIAC DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

315.339.7009, Fax: 315.339.7107

Email: cgrethlein@alionscience.com

MATERIALS TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

Jeffrey D. Guthrie

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

315.339.7058, Fax: 315.339.7107

Email: jguthrie@alionscience.com

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

(DTIC) POC

Glenda Smith, DTIC-I

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Ste 0944

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

703.767.9127, Fax: 703.767.9174

Email: gsmith@dtic.mil

CONTRACTS FACILITATOR

Judy E. Tallarino

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

315.339.7092, Fax: 315.339.7107

Email: jtallarino@alionscience.com

MANUFACTURING TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

315.339.7009, Fax: 315.339.7107

Email: cgrethlein@alionscience.com

AMMTIAC DIRECTOR

Micheal J. Morgan

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

937.431.9322 x103, Fax: 315.339.7107

Email: mmorgan@alionscience.com

TECHNICAL INQUIRY SERVICES MANAGER

Owen R. Conniff

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

315.339.7026, Fax: 315.339.7107

Email: oconniff@alionscience.com

NON-DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION

AND TESTING TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

David S. Forsyth

9063 Bee Caves Road

Austin, TX 78733-6201

512.263.2101 x223, Fax: 512.263.3530

Email: dforsyth@tri-austin.com

For a listing of upcoming materials, manufacturing & testing related events, please visit our website:

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/calendar

call:

315.339.7090

email:

ammtiac@alionscience.com

or visit:

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/experts

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
Free Subscription

For new subscribers:

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/subscribe/

For existing subscribers:

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/certify

AMMTIAC... keeping you connected and making the world greener!

This will be the last printed issue of the AMMTIAC Quarterly.

Please follow the links for delivery of the AMMTIAC Quarterly

(pdf download) via the AMMTIAC eNews.

Please add/keep me on the eNews electronic delivery list

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/quarterly