Meaningful metrics for total life cycle costs.

In recent issues of Defense AT & L, much has been written about the importance of metrics. I would like to comment on the importance of tracking metrics associated with two aspects of total life cycle costs of an acquisition system: (1) MCTR (Mean Cost to Repair)--total cost to implement all corrective and routine maintenance actions over a specified number of missions/total number of corrective and routine maintenance actions during specified number of missions; and (2) MCTO (Mean Cost to Operate)--total cost to operate system during a specified number of missions/total number of missions

Currently, 70 to 80 percent of the total life cycle costs of an acquisition system are the operations and support costs of the system. Given the importance of having cost-effective systems, it would appear reasonable and good business sense to start specifying operations and support-cost goal targets. MCTR and MCTO thresholds and objectives could be specified in the capability needs documentation, such as the Initial Capabilities Document, Capability Development Document, and Capability Production Document. These targets could be refined when more data become available as the documents progress from ICD to CPD.

Data to support MCTR and MCTO targets could be obtained as part of the Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System (JCIDS) process. This could be accomplished during the functional area analysis, functional needs analysis, and/or functional solutions analysis.

MCTR and MCTO could be added as source selection technical and cost criteria, requiring the contractor to develop and propose methods to predict these values and demonstrate methods to ensure systems are designed with the MCTR and MCTO targets in mind. The proposed values for MCTR and MCTO could be tied to contract line-item numbers for initial and follow-on spares. Eventually, the realization or failure of systems to meet their MCTR and MCTO targets could be used as a past performance criteria for weapon system source selections.

MCTR and MCTO could play a vital role early in a system's science and technology development, as well as in its concept development. Advanced technology developments could have MCTR and MCTO requirements added. Analysis of alternatives and formal risk assessment models and matrices could also be adjusted to include MCTR and MCTO considerations.

MCTR and MCTO could play a vital role early in the systems integration and demonstration phase. Most important, the systems engineering plan and the systems engineering trade-off studies and decision matrices could include MCTR and MCTO considerations. MCTR and MCTO considerations could be added as factors for award fee incentives.

MCTR and MCTO incentives could be added in procurement contracts.

Important to note is that MCTO and MCTR cannot replace reliability, availability, and mean time to repair requirements. These considerations include operational readiness capabilities that are independent of cost. However, given the growing importance of life cycle cost for DoD weapon systems, MCTR and MCTO could be added as a quantitative independent cost metric for systems acquisition to specifically ensure that life cycle cost metrics are measured and evaluated early in the development and procurement of the weapon system.

It will not be easy at first, but given the push to achieve acquisition transformation, DoD should work with its partners in industry to make MCTR and MCTO effective metrics to help reduce total system cost and continue to ensure America's armed forces remain the best-supported and -equipped in the world.

Cosmo Calobrisi

Air Force Materiel Command 

Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB