CM- The Communications Process
by Steve Adams
Prior to 1992, the baseline for newly developed weapon systems, as reflected in the status accounting records of participating organizations, contained many inconsistencies. Yet, each itemcontained in the system had gone through tedious reviews and audits. How could the status accounting records of the project office, the contractor and the subcontractor contain conflicting data? The CM Process Audit Plan
By April, 1992, an audit plan which contained three basic objectives was approved by all parties.
In August, 1991, the Project Office CM Division began an effort to identify the true configuration. It quickly became apparent that the inconsistencies in the status accounting records were only a symptom of a much larger problem. Our inquiries led us to the manufacturing planning paper.
Why were parts called out in the planning paper different than those officially released in the product baseline?
By January of 1992, the project office and prime contractor began to prepare for periodic audits of the CM process. It was the CM process that had to assure integrity in each of the following areas: technical data packages (TDP's),
engineering changes,
translations from the TDP to the planning,
status accounting and
product conformance to requirements.Confirm that all parties work to the same baseline when producing production items.
Confirm that approved changes are processed, managed and recorded correctly.
Confirm the implementation points of approved changes.Instead of having a government team, a prime contractor team and a sub-contractor team, disciplines from each group are pooled into focus groups. Each group must use the same CM process check list.
The results to date, have been remarkable. Not only were deficiencies identified, but each member of each team was able to see the importance of the CM process. They learned how to assure that the process is effective.
The contractors appreciated the fact that both their efficiency and their conformance to contract requirements improved significantly.
Manufacturing engineering had to be a participating member of the audit teams.
Methods of identifying change incorporation points had to be improved and standardized.
The ability to communicate effectively through released information had to be improved.
The following are considerations are most important for achieving an effective CM process:Specifics Of Needed Improvements
The following is a summary of specific areas which needed improved communications.The item hierarchy in the TDP was not compared to the hierarchy used by manufacturing planning because manufacturing engineering was not a participant. Sub-contractors often built their products to in-house TDP's instead of the government approved TDP's.
In-house government representatives often worked to the contractor's data without knowing how it compared to the official TDP.
Engineering release records for new programs often exclude items that were used on previous programs because their documents carry the original contract as the release authority.
Engineering change incorporation points were confusing. Essentially everyone was confused about the effectivity codes.Serial number cut-in effectivity was certified for "document only" changes.
It was often assumed that the planned effectivity was the actual effectivity.
Effectivities for changes to inspection equipment was the planned effectivity for the item being inspected.
Software changes were the most confusing of all. They used the planned effectivity for the parent hardware.
Lower tier changes used end-item serial numbers for effectivities which could not be verified by manufacturing planning.The physical item hierarchy and manufacturing planning must both be formally controlled.
Top-down documentation reviews without the benefit of a physical item hierarchy are not adequate. It must be complete and accurate.
Having a large number of technical experts does not guarantee an adequate audit. The creator-user approach is much more effective.
The CM process must be documented. The procedures must be clear, concise and valid.Impact Of New Initiatives
New initiatives, such as performance-based procurement, may challenge the structure of CM as a discipline and how CM is conducted. It is imperative that the importance of the CM process not be diminished with changes in acquisition strategy.
In fact, performance-based contracting necessitates that more emphasis, not less, be directed toward the communication process through which designs are transformed into quality products at lower costs.
Whoever builds and delivers a product needs an efficient communication process. An effective CM process is a prerequisite.
Institute of Configuration Management Scottsdale, AZ 85261-5656 Tel: (480) 998-8600 Fax: (480) 998-8923 Email: info@icmhq.com