A A Logistics Support System Case

The system being architected is LEAPS, a Logistics Evaluation, Analysis, and Planning System. The Level 1 functional decomposition of the system is shown in Figure A.1. This decomposition places in evidence the eight major functional areas for LEAPS. The general requirements for the system, sometimes also called system requirements, are:

• DOS PC-Based (target machine: 386, 25-MHz processor, 80-Meg hard drive, mouse)

• Event-driven (activities initiated based on completion of prior activities)

Figure A.1. Level 1 functional decomposition.

• Windows-compatible

• "Transparent" access to commercially available packages

• Flexibility required for growth to meet expanding user demands

The requirements specific to the individual functional areas are listed in Exhibit A.1.

The alternative architectures to meet the stated requirements are shown in Table A.1. We note that as we move from Alternative 1 to 3, we increasingly rely on commercial software to implement the stated functional capabilities.

The evaluation of the three alternatives is depicted in Table A.2. This figure shows the following weighted scores:

Alternative 1: Score = 4.71 Alternative 2: Score = 6.20 Alternative 3: Score = 6.10

Thus, there is a preference for Alternative 2, but the composite score is not a great deal higher than that for Alternative 3.

This evaluation process was accomplished through pairwise comparisons, followed by a manual consistency check. Schedule considerations were developed in relative terms under the following ground rules:

• Using existing commercial packages = 1 time unit

• Modifying commercial packages = 3 time units

• Developing new software components = 8 time units

A preliminary costing was carried out to develop the numbers in Table A.2 under the two categories of acquisition and maintenance cost. The four key performance evaluation criteria were:

Exhibit A.1: Functional Requirements—LEAPS

—Provide a uniform look and feel for all functional operations —Provide ready access to all functional capabilities

—Handle all life-cycle phases (20-30 years)

—Generate project start and completion dates based on the completion of program milestones

—Handle unique aspects of integrated logistics support elements —Address other supportability-related factors (i.e., environmental impacts/limitations) —Support development of alternative courses of action

• Cost estimation:

—Address all life-cycle phases for all system components (ground, space, air)

—Accommodate proven cost-estimating experience, cost-estimating relationships, and new cost-estimating requirements —Support formalized cost formats (i.e., Big 6)

—Include ''canned'' desk-top RAM models and access to external models and simulations —Accept user-developed RAM models

• Documentation:

—Include templates for standard logistics reports —Provide user capability to develop templates for special report and study formats

—Provide graphical representation of analysis results (RAM, trade-off, cost estimating)

—Provide user capability to develop specialized graphics as desired

• Data management:

—Maintain milestones data with the linkages to program activities —Provide access to logistics support analysis records —Link cost data to system components (through work breakdown structures and logistics control numbers)

TABLE A.1 Alternative to Function Mapping—LEAPS

User Trade-Off Cost RAM

Interface Scheduling Analysis Estimation Analysis

Documentation Graphics

Data Management

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Build Build

Alternative 3 Build

Build Build Build

Modify MS Project MS Excel Build

MS Project

Build MS Excel

MS Word Power Word

MS Excel M°difygr°Und MS Excel MS Word and space

MS Power Point Build

MS Power Point ^radox for Windows

MS Power Point MS Access

Note: Ms = Microsoft.

CO CO

TABLE A.2 Alternative Evaluation—LEAPS

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Cost 0.55

Acquisition 0.44

9

1

3

1

3

7

7

1

9

5

7

1

7

7

7

7

9

9

7

5

7

7

7

7

Maintenance 0.11

9

3

3

1

3

7

7

3

9

5

7

1

7

7

7

7

9

7

7

5

7

7

7

7

Schedule 1.12

Acquisition 0.09

7

1

3

1

3

9

9

1

7

5

9

1

9

9

9

7

7

9

9

3

9

9

9

7

Maintenance 0.03

7

3

3

1

3

9

9

3

7

5

9

1

9

9

9

7

7

7

9

3

9

9

9

7

Performance 0.33

Ease of Use 0.16

7

9

9

9

9

9

7

9

7

7

9

9

9

9

7

5

7

5

9

5

9

9

7

7

Speed 0.02

5

9

9

9

9

9

5

9

5

7

9

9

9

9

5

7

5

5

9

3

9

9

5

7

Data sharing 0.05

5

9

9

9

9

7

7

9

5

5

7

9

7

7

7

5

5

3

7

1

7

7

7

5

Consistency 0.10

7

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

7

5

9

9

9

9

9

3

7

3

9

1

9

9

9

7

Alternative score 4.71 6.20 6.10

Raw scores are measures of goodness: least good = 1; most good = 9. Total score reflects weightings indicated.

Alternative score 4.71 6.20 6.10

Raw scores are measures of goodness: least good = 1; most good = 9. Total score reflects weightings indicated.

1. Ease of use

2. Speed

3. Data sharing

4. Consistency

In this case, a separate risk analysis and definition of possible future improvements (preplanned product improvements—P3I) were also part of the case. These were supplemented by an analysis that included a market assessment, a calculation of internal rate of return (IROR) for the product, the formulation of schedules, and a first-order look at sales (revenues), costs, and the estimated break-even point.

Project Management Made Easy

Project Management Made Easy

What you need to know about… Project Management Made Easy! Project management consists of more than just a large building project and can encompass small projects as well. No matter what the size of your project, you need to have some sort of project management. How you manage your project has everything to do with its outcome.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment