The mathematical models used in the Air Force applications are complex and can be difficult to understand. The basic idea behind readiness-based leveling is a simple one: evaluate alternative courses of action about spares--how many to buy, where to put them, and so on--based explicitly on how many mission-ready aircraft that action supports.
This edition of the Journal presents three featured articles: "Leadership Lessons from America's Ace of Aces," "Department of Defense Overseas Construction Authorities," and "Sizing Inventories with Readiness-Based Sparing."
In "Leadership Lessons from America's Ace of Aces," the author illustrates how Captain Eddie Rickenbacker's approach to maintenance demonstrated a keen appreciation for four maintenance leadership focus areas--focus on the mission, balance requirements, leading people, and ingenuity. These tenets are captured in today's aircraft maintenance tactics, techniques, and procedures.
In the second feature Mr Phillips summarizes the process by which the Congress authorizes and appropriates funds for military construction, focusing on the two major funding options--military construction funds and operations and maintenance funds.
In the final featured article the authors demonstrate that using fill rate or service level to size spares inventories will unavoidably lead to misallocation of resources across weapon systems and to larger inventories than what is needed to support any given level of readiness. They contend these facts provide clear evidence of the superiority of readiness-based sparing (RBS) methods for optimally sizing Air Force spares inventories. They conclude that neither fill-rate nor service-level methods can provide performance comparable to RBS, nor do either deserve to be considered in place of RBS.