 |
Simulation
Systems and
Applications,
Inc. |
| Info Engineering | ||||
| Company Info | Press Releases | Simulation Resources | Tampa Bay Links | |
FIRST
NTDC AND INDUSTRY CONFERENCE
Papers Presented at the First Naval Training Device Center
and Industry Conference
29 November–1 December 1966
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE NTDC/INDUSTRY CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION TO THE CONFERENCE
PREDICTION
OF COST AND LEAD TIME
PROPOSAL
REQUIREMENTS IN TECHNICAL, COST AND MANAGEMENT FACTORS
CONTRACTOR
PARTICIPATION IN VALUE ENGINEERING
CONTRACTOR-CONDUCTED
TRAINING AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
PROVISIONING
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND REPAIR PARTS
MAINTAINABILITY
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DESIGN OF TRAINING DEVICES
AUTOMATIC
BUILT-IN TEST EQUIPMENT FOR TRAINING DEVICES
3M MAINTENANCE
DATA SYSTEM AND AUGMENTED SUPPORT
CONTRACTOR
COMMENTS ON NTDC PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
PROBLEMS OF
INCENTIVE TYPE CONTRACTS IN AN R&D ENVIRONMENT
THE NAVAL
TRAINING DEVICE CENTER RESEARCH PROGRAM
PERT AND ITS
USE AT THE NAVAL TRAINING DEVICE CENTER
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING AND CONTROL TECHNIQUE
RELIABILITY
OF ONE-OF-A-KIND TRAINING SYSTEMS
|
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE NTDC/INDUSTRY CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION TO THE CONFERENCE Dr. Hanns H. Wolff Technical Director, Naval Training Device Center and
Conference General Chairman Welcome to the Naval
Training Device Center/Industry Conference.
We at the Naval Training Device Center have been looking forward for
quite some time to meet with you and discuss with you mutual problems that
relate to the procurement of training devices on a broad, general basis
rather than to discuss individually with you detailed problems as they
confront us from day to day in specific procurements. Though such an idea of
meeting and discussing general problems with the industry has been simmering
here at NTDC for quite some time, it was only early this year, when Captain
Dunn of DCNO-AIR suggested a meeting of this kind, that we decided to put an
all-out effort on arranging such a conference. While the initial
suggestion was a meeting concerned with the delivery of trainers for the air
warfare program, we felt that this conference should cover the whole program
NTDC is involved in and that we should have the whole trainer industry
participate in this conference. I am sure that all of you
will agree with me that a close cooperation between the vendor and customer,
trainer industry and NTDC, and a mutual understanding and appreciation of
each other’s problems is necessary if the trainer industry wants to stay in
business, which is obviously only possible if the Government is a completely
satisfied customer. This paper is
available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. E. X. Blaschka, Head,
Program Control Department Naval Training Device
Center A new word was introduced to the Department of
Defense jargon only five years ago to describe a different planning/budgeting
system. Today, it is impossible to
discuss the Department of Defense planning/budgeting system without using
this particular word again and again either as a noun, as a verb or as an
adjective. This one word has expanded
into a descriptive vocabulary without which we would be unable to communicate
our thoughts relative to the Defense Budget process. This key word in our vocabulary is the
word–PROGRAM. We use this word in so
many descriptive ways–PROGRAMMING, PROGRAMMED, PROGRAM CALL, PROGRAM CHANGE
REQUESTS, PROGRAM ELEMENTS, PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, PROGRAM PACKAGE, PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, PROGRAM MANAGER, PROGRAM SPONSOR and PROGRAM CYCLE, which is the
topic of my address to you today. How did the word
‘PROGRAM” become part and parcel of our planning/budgeting vocabulary? All stories must have a beginning–this one
began when Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and his comptroller,
Charles J. Hitch, were resolved in 1961 to create something entirely new in
the Pentagon: orderly procedures for translating strategic objectives into
budgets. Hitch, who had been the Rand
Corporation’s chief economist, proposed a “programming system”, in which
military plans were divided into broad “program packages” (e.g. strategic
retaliatory forces, continental defense forces, airlift and sealift forces,
research and development), when subdivided into hundreds of “program
elements” (e.g. the fleet Ballistic Missile system, VTOL Aircraft, Marine
Divisions, and Recruit Training) are typical program elements. The plan was to be kept five years
ahead. Thus each year’s set of
programs was, in effect, only the first slice out of a five-year plan. This DOD Programming system was introduced
in the spring of 1961 for application to the development of the FY 1963
budget. This paper is
available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. Lt. Col. Philip J. Cunningham, Army Participation
Group The Army Participation Group
was organized in 1950 as a result of a joint Army-Navy Secretarial
Agreement. By utilizing the resources
of the Naval Training Device Center, we provide for the Army a specialized
capability in the development of training devices, thus performing a mission
in the training area similar to the mission of major subordinate commands in
other areas. This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium
CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. PREDICTION OF COST AND LEAD TIME G. V. Amico,
Acting Associate Technical Director (Engineering) Naval Training Device Center The task of looking into the
future and predicting or forecasting always has some element of risk or
unknown. Reducing the risk element to
a manageable tolerance requires a positive and concerted effort on the part
of the estimator. The crystal ball
cannot be given credence in the estimating process. How then do you take the element of risk out of estimating? Today I would like to develop
the techniques, which are employed in preparing budget cost and lead-time
estimates within NTDC and how these techniques can also be applied to
contractor cost estimating. This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium
CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS IN TECHNICAL, COST
AND MANAGEMENT FACTORS H. Rosenblum Head, Air
Warfare Department (Land Support) Naval Training Device
Center Previous speakers have
provided a broad picture of the preparation required bringing a program to
that point when Industry can be solicited for proposals. In most cases Industry by this time has
had an awareness of the general program requirements by virtue of the synopsis
announcement in the Department of Commerce Daily Bulletin. It is assumed that that segment of
Industry which has an interest in the program begins at that point to prepare
for the anticipated competition. And
probably the most interested members of the Industry community started
preparations earlier than the announcement time. This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium
CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. R. L. Bidwell Martin
Company Value Engineering is an
organized approach for reducing costs.
Value Engineering is the application of techniques to identify the
function or functions of a product or service; determine the absolute
necessity of all functions; establish a monetary value for the essential
functions, and provide these functions reliably at the proper time and place
at lowest overall cost. We believe it
must apply to all operating levels from concept to grave–life cycle. It must also be organized–plant-wide,
project-wide. This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium
CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. CONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION IN VALUE
ENGINEERING F. W. Rozell,
Value Engineer Engineering
Services Department Naval Training Device
Center I want to thank Colonel
Bidwell for his fine presentation and for making our job of encouraging
contractors to practice Value Engineering (VE) a lot easier. Value engineering has grown so much and so fast in
the past 5 years that it is difficult to determine how much each company
knows about it. There are
representatives in the audience from companies that are experts in the use
and application of Value Engineering.
They are fully aware of its theory, practice, benefits and
shortcomings. There are also
representatives that have heard of VE, have thought off installing it in
their companies, and want to know more about it. This paper is
available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. J. A. Mallon,
Drawing Control Engineer Engineering
Services Department Naval Training Device
Center The topic of this presentation is the procurement of
engineering drawings, and the control of the quality of these drawings. Although I am directly concerned with
drawings, I feel it is only natural to be more interested in an item itself
than in the drawing of the item. This
is particularly true of engineering drawings of an item. With the item itself, there is no
necessity to try to visualize anything.
It is right there. Depending
on its size and complexity, you can turn it over in your fingers, or walk
around it. You can study it, analyze
it. There is little misunderstanding
or misinterpretation. However, with
an engineering drawing, it is necessary to be able to visualize what the item
is really like. Depending on the
scale of the drawing, you might have to picture it much larger, or much
smaller. In other words, it requires
more thought to visualize what an object is really like when only the engineering
drawing is available. This paper is
available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. MAINTAINABILITY, MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS RECORDS AND CONTRACTOR AUGMENTED SUPPORT AS A PART OF THE INTEGRATED
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM H. C. Okraski Head, Maintenance
Engineering Division (Acting) Naval Training Device
Center The effectiveness of a training device is a measure
of “how well” the device performs its mission, “how long” the device will
maintain a specified level of performance throughout a given mission, and
“how often” the device is ready when it is needed. The Department of Defense has stated by the issuance of
Department of Defense Directive 4100, 35, that material readiness, or “how
often” and equipment is available, can best be achieved through effective
integrated logistic support. With the increasing amount of money required to
support the training devices in the field and realizing the relatively poor
availability of them in the past, the Naval Training Device Center recognized
the need for more definitive, cost effective, logistic support
requirements. In June of 1966, the
Center issued bulletin 40-1 entitled “Integrated Logistic Support for
Training Devices.” Bulletin 40-1
contains all of the contractual requirements necessary to provide for
effective support of training devices for their programmed life cycle. This paper is
available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. CONTRACTOR-CONDUCTED TRAINING AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS REQUIREMENTS J. D.
Armstrong, Head Training
Applications and Publications Department Naval Training Device
Center My presentation deals with two sections of Bulletin
40-1. I shall first address myself to
Section 4, which covers contractor-conducted training courses. This will be follow by Section 6, which
spells out publication requirements.
As I present the information I will emphasize areas of general
deficiencies on the part of the Government and on the part of contractors,
and indicate in-work or possible solutions. Section 4 is the requirement for the contractor to
conduct operation and maintenance training courses. The objective of these courses is to train the minimum number
of government personnel to assume device maintenance, operation and
programming responsibility from the contractor at the earliest possible data. This requirement for the contractor to conduct
operation and maintenance training courses is a two-edged sword because it
also obligates the Government to supply the students for the course. I’d like first to discuss the government’s
handling of its obligations to provide the students. Two types of personnel are designated as students
for the courses: 1)
Military
technicians–normally training Device Man–from the activity which will receive
the device.
2)
Civilian
engineers/technicians from the Training Device Center.
This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. PROVISIONING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND REPAIR PARTS (Mrs.)
Frances S. Smith Head, Support
Liaison Division Naval Training Device
Center With this presentation we begin Part III of the
Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) area, and I will talk directly to Section 5
of Bulletin 40-1. It is the intent of
Bulletin 40-1 to insure that “tools for more effective training” are indeed
“available tools”; available throughout the life cycle of the training
device. This can only be achieved by
maximizing the maintainability characteristics of the device through the
design considerations, and by determining the support requirements of the
device as they are recognized throughout design and development. Objectively, Section 5 of Bulletin 40-1
aims to achieve a measurable increase in training device effectiveness
through positive identification of training device repair parts, reduction in
the range of parts by use of military standard items, standard commercial
items, and multiple use of the same components in the system, improved
availability of repair parts and reduced logistic support costs. During this presentation, I will emphasize the
importance and significance of the Contractor Augmented Support Period,
highlight the important elements of Provisioning Technical Documentation and
the need for adequate and timely submission of Provisioning Data to enable
the Navy to procure repair parts, touch on the role of the electronics Supply
Office (ESO) in the Integrated Logistic Support Picture, and I will mention
the “Supply Platform” which we work from. This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. MAINTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS IN THE
DESIGN OF TRAINING DEVICES Don R. Taylor Maintainability
Engineer Modification
and Maintenance Engineering Department Naval Training Device
Center Maintainability has been described as a
characteristic of design and installation which is expressed as the
probability that an item will be restored to a specific condition within a
specified time using prescribed procedures and resources. Lacks of maintenance considerations have proven to
be costly, time consuming, and in some cases, the total effectiveness of
equipment has been destroyed. Some
examples of these given by General Osmonski at a Maintainability-Engineering
and Management Seminar conducted by George Washington University in January
of this year: 1)
A
battle tank where the engine had to be pulled to change a sparkplug
2)
A
personnel carrier whose engine had to be removed to change the oil
3)
A
mechanized artillery piece where components of its power train had to be
dropped to clear or replace an air filter.
Hitting closer to home, examples of the lack of
maintainability considerations in Training Devices developed for the
Center. I won’t mention the Device by
name to prevent further embarrassment. This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. AUTOMATIC BUILT-IN TEST EQUIPMENT FOR
TRAINING DEVICES Lyman A.
Whalen, Aerospace Engineer Modification
and Maintenance Engineering Department Naval Training Device
Center Automation of electronic test, checkout and support
equipment has grown over the past few years until it now represents a
substantial nationwide effort. Very often in the past, little thought and time were
devoted to the design of support and checkout equipment. It is now evident that the same
consideration should be given to the design of a test equipment system as we
give to the design of a weapon system.
This requires a thorough analysis of the mission of the test system
and its environment. It also means
making trade-offs between the constraints of cost, time, operator skill
levels, accuracy, repeatability, and user confidence to arrive at an optimum
test system. The alternative to the test system approach would be
to solve each of the test equipment design problems independently,
considering only the immediate requirements of the equipment under test. One solution to the test system problem would be the
utilization of Automatic Built-In Test Equipment. Such equipment can be used for fault detection, fault
isolation, and continuous performance monitoring. Automatic Built-In Test Equipment has been used for aircraft
and aerospace applications for quite some time, giving us extensive
background information to draw upon.
Our primary goal is to achieve the maximum availability for our
training devices. This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. 3M MAINTENANCE DATA SYSTEM AND AUGMENTED
SUPPORT R. N.
Underwood, Head Field
Services Support Division Naval Training Device Center A new term, which is gaining greater emphasis at NTDC, is 3M, Maintenance and Material Management, on overall support
management. The Maintenance Data
Collection System, which I will discuss first, is one very important element
of the 3M system. One which provides
us with essential feedback for key management decisions concerning training
device procurement, reliability, and support. My discussion is not only intended to acquaint you with the
Maintenance Data Collection System, but also to convey our extreme interest
in you as contractors and military, playing your respective roles in support
of the goals of this system. Simply
stated, the Maintenance Data Collection System (MDCS) is an efficient
information system for reporting maintenance actions during the reliability
test and augmented support phases of a training device contract. The Maintenance Data Collection System,
which embodies many exciting advantages of modern reporting methods, has
projected training device development and support programs into the age of
automatic data processing (ADP).
Reporting under the Maintenance Data Collection System begins
initially at the manufacturer’s plant during the Reliability Test Phase and
continues on through the on-site Augmented Support Period. Reporting ends when the contractor support
period is terminated. A single,
uncomplicated, Maintenance Action Form is used to convey maintenance actions
back to a central processing location from which many data products are
available such as: raw tabulated data, reliability data, maintainability
data, historical records of failures encountered, and numerous other possible
data products. This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website. John Regan Modification
Engineering Program Manager Up to this time the conference discussion has
highlighted the acquisition or procurement phase of the training device. Let us now consider the operational phase,
the changes that occur to the device during this phase and the part NTDC and
Industry play in incorporating these changes into the devices. For the purpose of this discussion let us assume
that the operational phase is that phase which begins when the production
contract coverage ceases and extends throughout the operational life of the
device. This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from
I/ITSEC’s Website. CONTRACTOR COMMENTS ON NTDC PROPOSAL
REQUIREMENTS R. L. Lowry Goodyear
Aerospace Corporation Goodyear Aerospace Corporation is one of a number of
trainer suppliers who have enjoyed a fine working relationship with the Naval
Training Device Center over a number of years. During this period of time, NTDC and the trainer industry have
worked together to meet the increasingly complex, training equipment needs of
the military. Because of the joint
effort, each has contributed to the other, with the result that NTDC now
stands recognized as an experienced, dedicated organization of unique skills
and capabilities and the trainer industry now stands recognized as a
distinct, industrial entity of complementary skills and capabilities. This conference reflects the continuing desire of
NTDC to work together with the trainer industry. It was arranged by NTDC for the very commendable purpose of
seeking improvement in their procurement performance. NTDC feels, quite properly, that the
search should recognize the potential contribution of industry to the
achievement of the objective. Thus,
all trainer suppliers were given the opportunity to participate so that
emphasis could be placed on contractor’s problems as they relate to the
Center’s procurement performance. This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from
I/ITSEC’s Website. PROBLEMS OF INCENTIVE TYPE CONTRACTS IN
AN R&D ENVIRONMENT Harold
Waldenberg Director of
Contracts-Avionics, ITT Federal Laboratories These comments are based solely upon personal
experiences with Army, Navy, and Air Force agencies of the Department of
Defense and should not be construed as necessarily reflecting upon
experiences with our host agency here.
Additionally, these are personal observations and not policy positions
of either a company or an industrial association. Incentive
contracting today is applied almost totally in current procurements. Certainly this exists in Government prime
contracts and also to the same proportion in subcontracts issued by these
prime contractors to their suppliers.
With such a total acceptance and application how can there be
problems? Perhaps that’s one of the
problems. Is incentive contracting a
panacea and cure-all? Is it a true
contractual remedy or is it an overworked fad soon to pass away like price
re-determination? Before
we get into the problems, let us stop for a moment, and excuse me for being
elementary and fundamental, but what is incentive contracting and why has it
come about? This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC’s
Website. THE NAVAL TRAINING DEVICE CENTER RESEARCH
PROGRAM Commander E.
C. Moss Associate
Technical Director (Research) Naval Training Device Center The research organization at the Naval Training
Device Center was formed in March 1964.
It was formed because it became apparent that, with the ever
increasing demand for training devices and the need to provide training for
more complicated tasks, the inventory of technical know-how had to be
expanded in at least the same ratio as the requirement for new training
devices. It would be well to call your attention to the fact
that research at the Center is applied, not basic research. We are not trying to extend man’s
fundamental knowledge for its own sake.
Out effort is that which draws from other research the tools,
materials, techniques, and methodologies which can be directed toward
training devices and, by selective study and experiment, demonstrate their
applicability. There are a few occasions when it is necessary to
conduct more fundamental research, but this comes about only as the result of
a void in information required to assist in our research effort. This paper is available
on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from
I/ITSEC’s Website. PERT AND ITS USE AT THE NAVAL TRAINING
DEVICE CENTER Joseph Mehr,
Research Administrator Naval Training Device Center During the past two years, under joint sponsorship
with the Small Business Administration, the Center has conducted a number of
PERT seminars and workshops for executives from industry. These sessions covered both the mechanics
and the management implications of PERT.
As a basis for today’s short presentation, I have selected the
management questions most often asked during these sessions. First: Why
PERT? What’s wrong with other methods
that have been used over the years for project control? The fact is that PERT has achieved more
attention and wider use than all the previous methods combined. Why?
Before we attempt to answer that question, let’s take a moment to
define PERT. As most of you know PERT
stands for program Evaluation and Review Technique. Of the various definitions of PERT the following three appear
to me to cover its major characteristics. PERT is a management control tool for defining,
interpreting and inter-relating what must be done to accomplish program
objectives on time. |