全球智库信息集成服务系统

• A commercial off-the-shelf solution offers the best chance for capability gain, the best potential to meet schedule demands, modest cost savings with the right recurring license contract, and limited scope of migration. Specifically, the best option is a commercial off-the-shelf solution using enterprise systems active in defense aviation or using systems that do not necessarily perform aviation maintenance but whose processes align with maintenance concepts.
• The Navy should consider increasing the budget to improve the odds that NAMS can improve readiness more quickly. The added cost to extract and clean historical data may be an additional $200 million over 16 years, which is a reasonable trade-off for a system that supports so many aircraft.
• If the Navy does not increase its efforts to clean historical data up front, its ability to improve readiness and reduce demands on its workforce will be hindered.
• The biggest risk to operations is that NAMS is insufficiently backward compatible with the Naval Aviation Logistics Command Management Information System. The biggest risks to cost are overspecification of requirements, infeasible solutions, excessive configuration or customization, and a lack of authority to authorize business process changes. The biggest risks to schedule are overspecification of requirements, infeasible solutions, excessive configuration or customization, inaccuracy in as-maintained ship configurations, and limited ship availability.
• None of the alternatives is expected to meet the goal for full deployment. All the alternatives exhibit a large degree of schedule uncertainty.
• All the alternatives are expected to meet initial operational capability within the threshold range.

The U.S. Navy's aviation maintenance capability suffers from supportability issues because of its antiquated software architecture and codebase. This report presents the results of an analysis of alternatives for fielding the Naval Aviation Maintenance System (NAMS), which is intended to help modernize the Navy's afloat and ashore maintenance capabilities.

The Navy identified several key attributes and 269 high-level requirements for NAMS to meet the demands of the current and future aviation logistics enterprise. The RAND research team used this guidance to evaluate seven alternatives in terms of effectiveness (capability and quality), cost, risk, and schedule. The primary sources of data used for these analyses were industry and government responses to a request for information, follow-up discussions with selected industry and government experts, interviews with stakeholders, a literature review, and study guidance and the study problem statement provided by the research sponsor.

Broadly speaking, the alternatives studied included maintaining the status quo, a commercial off-the-shelf solution, a government off-the-shelf solution, and a hybrid alternative combining a commercial off-the-shelf solution with the Naval Depot Maintenance System. The authors find that a commercial off-the-shelf solution is the best option.

All alternatives have challenges in meeting schedule goals. If the Navy wants to meet schedule objectives, it will likely have to give up goals to make near-term gains in readiness derived from analytics. Beneficial analytics depend on clean and accurate historical data on maintenance actions and aircraft configurations, and it is unclear to what extent current data are accurate.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Developing and Refining NAMS Alternatives

• Chapter Three

  Capability Analyses of the Alternatives

• Chapter Four

  Cost Analysis of the Alternatives

• Chapter Five

  Risk Analysis of the Alternatives

• Chapter Six

  Schedule Analysis of the Alternatives

• Chapter Seven

  Conclusions and Recommendations