CG-LIMS Implementation Strategy
- 1. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD CG‐LIMS Implementation Strategy A White Paper Jim Sylvester 3/30/2010 7:36 AM SYLVESTER. Digitally signed by SYLVESTER.JAMES. MJ.1045298317 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, JAMES. ou=PKI, ou=USCG, cn=SYLVESTER.JAMES. MJ.1045298317 MJ.1045298317 Reason: I am the author of this document Date: 2010.03.30 07:37:36 -04'00' This paper is intended assist in building a vision of how CG‐LIMS capability will be brought into productive use across all asset type communities from several legacy logistics data systems while taking in to consideration the business process transformation currently underway for logistics in general.
- 2. CG‐LIMS Implementation Strategy Logistics Business Process Transformation Since the LMTO 1 concluded in 2005 that IT consolidation is only possible if an organization transforms to use a common business process, the basic strategy of legacy system transition was established. Logistics transformation as implemented by the LTPIO 2 fulfilled the strategy of business process transformation before IT acquisition. One of the several business processes supporting Coast Guard logistics at the time was identified as an internal best practice based on product line concepts, disciplined configuration management, bi-level maintenance, and well aligned with established industry standards. The chosen process was that of the CG Aviation logistics community. The transformation plan established by LTPIO was based on matching the IT tool to the business process. The IT tool in use for aviation support was ALMIS 3 . A transformation infrastructure consisting of playbooks, process guides, training curriculum, training staff, interim policies, and transformation schedules was developed and implemented by LTPIO. The transformation process includes RCM 4 backfit analysis for legacy assets to be properly enrolled into ALMIS. The LTPIO established a transformation capability that “could” be leveraged in the CG-LIMS implementation strategy, which is a multi-pronged approach to final IT consolidation. This is not to say that logistics transformation capabilities that exist today “should” be leveraged in the CG-LIMS implementation strategy. The future of funding of logistics transformation has never been a sure thing, and if incorporated into the CG-LIMS implementation strategy, may well represent an unnecessary risk and complexity. It should be clear, however, that the original outcome objective of the logistics transformation was IT consolidation. CG-LIMS represents that strategic objective. The logistics transformation is preparing the organization at the process level to use a single IT tool (CG-LIMS) with requirements based on those processes. This means that as the transformation continues, progressively more people and asset types will be prepositioned to use a tool like CG-LIMS. 1 Logistics Management Transformation Office (LMTO) – chartered in 2004 to develop a plan to consolidate logistics systems to a common IT system for all logistics. This group concluded in a 2005 business case documenting two critical points. The first point was that the IT tool stove pipes derive from diverse business processes. The second point was that the business case for consolidating IT systems is not in the system costs, it is in the efficiency and effectiveness of a common business process. 2 Logistics Transformation Program Integration Office (LTPIO) – chartered in 2005 to implement the strategic conclusion of LMTO’s business case. 3 Aviation Logistics Management Information System (ALMIS) – subsequently renamed to “Asset” Logistics Management Information System to accommodate the non-aviation assets which were to be enrolled under logistics transformation. Comprised of EAL(mission/ops), ACMS, AMMIS, A-TIMS/TMAPS and Decision Support Systems (DSS). 4 Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) – a systems engineering process for determining configuration items and maintenance appropriate to sustaining operational and support objectives for availability, reliability and maintainability. The “backfit” process is often required for undocumented legacy assets or, for changes in mission or operational plans which alter the support requirements of an asset. See U.S. Navy Sea Systems Command RCM Handbook (S9081-AB-GIB-010). Page 2 of 8
- 3. CG‐LIMS Implementation Strategy CG-LIMS Acquisition Planning The Clinger-Cohen Act recommended IT projects to deliver new capability in small usable increments. Supporting that objective, part of the segmented acquisition strategy for CG-LIMS includes a first segment targeting complete functionality of one of the modules (ACMS) in ALMIS, allowing that module to be shut down once the first segment of CG-LIMS has been delivered and fully implemented for all ACMS enrolled assets. Similarly, the second segment which is supply chain and inventory management will allow AMMIS to be turned off after full implementation. Full implementation of the third segment for Technical Data Management will allow A-TIMS and any remaining technical document management tools to be turned off. This particular part of the strategy also enables the sunset of one entire legacy logistics system (ALMIS). All of the segment implementations, and the ability to shut down a legacy module, will depend heavily on interim integration with internal and external legacy systems; logistics and financial. Financial integration is a bit of a moving target depending on the progress of the DHS TASC effort. Therefore, interim financial integration may be required to CG financial systems; whereas FOC integration will likely be to a DHS Enterprise financial system. Segments of CG-LIMS capability include: 1) Configuration & Maintenance Management (allows turn off of ACMS) 2) Supply Chain Management (allows turn off of AMMIS) 3) Technical Data Management (allows turn off of A-TIMS, may retain TMAPS) 4) Financial Integration (enables successful CFO Audit) 5) All other integration (enables DoD and OGA interoperability) Logistics Transformation The logistics transformation process is delivering units and/or assets in one of three tier states after transformation: • Tier 1: Fully enrolled in all components of ALMIS(EAL, ACMS, AMMIS, A- TIMS/TMAPS). Either backfit RCM will have been completed, or reliable technical data will have been already available. • Tier 2: Enrolled in EAL and ACMS; not enrolled in AMMIS, or A-TIMS/TMAPS. Tier 2 does include process plans to get from Tier 2 to Tier 1 enrollment. This includes the same backfit RCM analysis which Tier 1 enrollment requires. • Tier 3: This level of transformation treats the unit/asset minimally with the strategic expectation that the unit/asset disposition is imminent or that the value/benefit of full enrollment of the unit/asset into ALMIS or CG-LIMS is not worth the cost over the projected remaining service life. Most numerous among these assets are non-standard boats. I should make clear that the strategic plan for transformation of all assets is not, by any means, complete at the writing of this paper. Even the definition of what “all assets” actually means, is unclear. Included here is the best knowledge and vision currently available. There are a myriad of asset and inventory types that are currently either not supported by an IT system or at best exist in a spreadsheet (sometimes several) with poor (or no) data integrity rules, application level controls, or internal process controls implemented. Page 3 of 8
- 4. CG‐LIMS Implementation Strategy I fully expect that as the bulk of major asset types complete transformation and find their way into CG-LIMS that the ability to focus on the remainder of the smaller, often neglected, asset and inventory types will become easier. The availability of reliable technical data for enrollment into either ALMIS or CG-LIMS will be the second largest challenge. The absolute largest challenge for these business areas will be the process transformation itself, which will enable them to use the common enterprise IT tool. That said, the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) for CG-LIMS will state as well as possible “what” is expected of the acquisition program, and by “when”. The complexities of future transformation enrollment status, technical data quality, data sources and specific lists of assets and inventory, as discussed herein, are not likely to appear in the detail of the ORD. The ORD requires that “all” CG assets be supported by CG-LIMS by FOC. The sequencing of enrollments, data migration from legacy logistics systems, deployment and training, will be the challenge of the acquisition program. Some of those challenges are addressed in the following paragraphs. A common business process is critical to the successful implementation and acceptance of CG- LIMS. If the basic processes of mission support are not transformed to a common process model across the enterprise, the ability to use CG-LIMS as a common IT toolset will be undermined, and, the enterprise will run the risk of regressing to a world of stovepipe processes and systems. This risk cannot be overemphasized. Surface Forces - Cutters The Logistics Transformation is managing patrol boats essentially the same as small boats. The newer patrol boats are receiving RCM backfit analysis if recent technical data is not available and are being enrolled into ALMIS Tier 1. The best estimate from the Logistics Transformation group for remaining surface forces asset classes and unit types is as follows: 225 & 175 Tier 1 Sep 2010 DOG Tier 1 Nov 2010 110' WPB Tier 2 Nov 2010 HEC Tier 2 Nov 2010 WMEC Tier 2 Feb 2011 EAGLE Tier 1 Feb 2011 The Tier 2 plan for legacy HEC’s and MEC’s raises the question regarding deployment and data sources for migration. ACMS enrollment will mean that configuration and knowledge of maintenance procedures will be available. However, the MPC’s, while in a standard format, will potentially be stored outside of the ALMIS environment. That shouldn’t be a major issue, since ALMIS MPC’s are generated today using an XML editing tool and stored in a web accessible repository for field access. Transformation could use the same methodology for HEC’s and MEC’s. Supply data (e.g. AMMIS) would not be enrolled for HEC’s/MEC’s. That kind of data Page 4 of 8
- 5. CG‐LIMS Implementation Strategy would exist to some degree in CMPlus, however the supply data may not match the transformed MPC’s, unless Transformation specifically addresses this with CMPlus. Should CMPlus be inherently part of the Tier 2 strategy for HEC’s/MEC’s, the deployment (loss of network connectivity) challenge would be handled for legacy HEC’s/MEC’s. However, this would also create another data source for supply data migration into CG-LIMS, using either CMPlus or FLS(NESSS). Notably, this discussion has not addressed NSC’s, FRC’s or OPC’s. Additional information will be needed from the Transformation group WRT the planned tier treatment and timing of transformation of these asset classes, in order to determine a path for these assets being migrated/enrolled into CG-LIMS. Anything above Tier 2 treatment which uses CMPlus, will face the challenge of lengthy deployments and periodic loss of network connectivity. The reader should understand that transformation schedule reflected above is not the same as the CG-LIMS implementation timeline reflected in the CG-LIMS ORD (section 1.3-Timeframe). 5 Limited or zero network connectivity is explicitly addressed in the CG-LIMS ORD. C4ISR C4ISR assets are largely embedded components in other asset platforms and will thus be treated according to the strategy for that platform type. However, there are some stand alone C4ISR systems which will need to be treated as an asset class. The transformation currently has plans for one of these systems. The intent is to transform DGPS using a Tier 1 approach in Apr 2010. For DGPS this means that data migration will be from ALMIS components to CG-LIMS. Shore Facilities A distinct challenge for logistics transformation is the shore facilities community. This asset community has traditionally had no enterprise O-level maintenance program (except at Facility Engineering units). Therefore, much of the basic RCM technical data necessary to achieve enrollment of facility assets, simply doesn’t exist for most of the facility assets. While some facilities do have high risk profiles for life safety and/or economics (driving considerations in a failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA), performed as part of an RCM process), most do not. Therefore, though the sheer magnitude of assets requiring backfit RCM analysis may seem daunting (greater than 20,000 including buildings and structures), the level of effort associated with most of the individual assets may be minimal (though not trivial, by any means). The overall lack of a an O-level program for shore facilities means that there is not currently any business intelligence linkage between a supply chain, maintenance work performed on the asset, the asset configuration hierarchy, and any D-Level work which is identified, prioritized and performed on the asset. The need to build such a program means that the facilities community is likely to remain untransformed for the longest of all asset communities. Notably, NASA has recently accomplished a similar effort in their facilities world, triggered by catastrophic damage to one of their satellites prior to launch by facilities and equipment which were not properly 5 CG-LIMS Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Page 5 of 8
- 6. CG‐LIMS Implementation Strategy maintained. 6 Recent research indicates that the industry of asset management as well as the market of asset management IT tools is moving in the direction of managing all asset types with the same IT tool (air, marine, vehicles, rail, special support equipment, facilities, etc). Ironically, the IT tool (SAM) currently employed by the CG facilities community is the only COTS based tool of its type currently used by the CG, and is considered to be one of a handful of best of breed products in the asset management market. It is the expectation that the facilities community will continue to use SAM until transformed processes can begin to fill in the current gaps of data. Currently the data quality in SAM would not justify using it as a direct source of data migration into CG-LIMS without substantial analysis and ETL 7 effort. The completion of “some” amount of backfit RCM analysis and the implementation of an enterprise O-level maintenance program which is tied to D-level maintenance will be prerequisite to any migration or enrollment process for shore facility assets, whether into ALMIS components, or directly into CG-LIMS. Strategically this means the following assumptions are generally true for CG-LIMS implementation relative to shore facility assets: • “Facility” asset data will be migrated from SAM after that community has been transformed • Enrollments directly in to CG-LIMS will likely occur as the result of backfit RCM efforts where the asset either did not have data in an existing legacy logistics system, or, where the asset had no reliable RCM data on record. This would represent the sustained production capability of CG-LIMS at FOC, for any new or “discovered” asset. • The SILC community has stated explicitly that backfit RCM analysis will not be expected from the CG-LIMS acquisition program, and this will be the assumption of the PMO. Of course, as CG-LIMS approaches FOC, assets and organizations which have not yet been transformed, can be transformed and enrolled (if appropriate) using the same infrastructure and processes set up by LTPIO to begin to use CG-LIMS directly, without ever using legacy ALMIS logistics components first. This would only be a government “option”, and not necessarily an objective of the ORD or the Acquisition Program for CG-LIMS. 6 Lesson Learned from HESSI incident, #1764, 27-Jul-2006. This lesson-learned led to production of their RCM Guide for Facilities and Collateral Equipment. 7 Extraction, Transformation and Loading (ETL). Page 6 of 8
- 7. CG‐LIMS Implementation Strategy Legacy Logistics Systems Disposition Major legacy logistics systems which will eventually be sunset as transformation and CG-LIMS implementation proceeds to completion include: • ALMIS (non-mission operations modules, custom software, EAL and possibly DSS remains) • FLS including VLS, NESSS, NE-TIMS, CMPlus and ARMS (all custom) • SAM (IBM Maximo 6x based, COTS software) It is expected that other legacy logistics systems which are in marginal use will also be sunset as those assets/inventory are either enrolled by transformation, or, migrated by the CG-LIMS acquisition program. CG-LIMS Deployment & Implementation Strategy • Multi-dimensional, beginning with first segment functionality (Configuration & Maintenance Mgt) and one air asset product line (probably HC-144A) • Migrate all assets enrolled from ACMS to CG-LIMS first segment as subsequent segment development continues • With delivery of second segment (supply chain), migrate all data from AMMIS to CG- LIMS for assets currently enrolled in CG-LIMS • With delivery of third segment (Tech Data), migrate all data from A-TIMS/TMAPS to CG-LIMS for assets currently enrolled in CG-LIMS • After delivery of second segment (Supply Chain), untransformed assets will either be transformed and enrolled, or migrated into CG-LIMS directly from a legacy system. • The fourth segment of CG-LIMS will bring complete financial integration (something ALMIS does not have today). That may entail integration with the current CG Financials baseline, or with the product of the DHS TASC effort. The standards targeted are the same FSIO and FMMIA requirements in either case. • The fifth segment of CG-LIMS will bring external integration to DoD, DHS, OGA’s and private industry. • All segments will include retrospective and forward leaning interface requirements for both internal and external interfaces. Page 7 of 8
- 8. CG‐LIMS Implementation Strategy Improvements over ALMIS capabilities • Deterministic links between configuration, maintenance, technical data and supply information. • Integration to CG Core Financial Systems. • Asynchronous operation in zero or limited bandwidth environments with store and synchronize capability when network connectivity and adequate bandwidth are restored. • Automated component aging. • Warranty management. • IUID support and compliance including support for AIT (barcode scanners, etc). • Full configuration management capabilities including functional configuration traceability and audit capabilities. • Automated real time configuration auditing tied to maintenance records. • Complete inventory management capability (not just Type 2 & 4). • Ability to predict asset operational and maintenance status. • Prognostic health and machinery monitoring interface capabilities. • Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) capable of accessing external services for non-CG- LIMS functionality (such as HR and Finance), and, the ability to register CG-LIMS services as available to users both in and outside the CG. CG-LIMS ORD FOC Objectives • Consolidated capability to support all CG assets/inventory with common set of IT tools under a common Mission Support business model • Asynchronous capability to support limited or zero network connectivity operational environments • Financial integration which will support the CFO in a successful audit • The ability to shutdown all major and minor legacy logistics systems Jim Sylvester is Chief of the Logistics Systems Division at Coast Guard Headquarters and is the Sponsor’s Representative for CG-LIMS. He was a member of the LMTO, and LTPIO which planned and implemented Logistics Transformation including documentation of the Mission Support business model, and was an original member of the Mission Support Planning and Integration Team (MSPAIT) during the early days of developing the organization construct for Mission Support, and ultimately, CG Modernization. Page 8 of 8