Advertisement

Inserting Innovations In-Service

  • Clive Kerr
  • Robert Phaal
  • David Probert
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 304)

Abstract

Military platforms have exceptionally long lifecycles and given the state of defense budgets there is a significant trend in sustaining the operational capability of legacy platforms for much greater periods than originally designed. In the context of through-life management, one of the key questions is how to manage the flow of technology for platform modernization during the in-service phase of the lifecycle? Inserting technological innovations in-service is achieved through technology insertion processes. Technology insertion is the pre-eminent activity for both maintaining and enhancing the functional capability of a platform especially given the likely changes in future military operations, the pace of change in technology and with the increasing focus on lifecycle cost reduction. This chapter provides an introduction to technology insertion together with an overview of the key issues that practitioners are faced with. As an aid to planning technology insertion projects, a decision-support framework is presented.

Keywords

Technology insertion military upgrade obsolescence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lincoln, J.W.: Managing the aging aircraft problem. Report Number: RTO-MP-079(II) Ageing Mechanisms and Control, Research and Technology Organization, NATO, Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hill, O.J.: Aircraft modifications: Assessing the current state of Air Force aircraft modifications and the implications for future military capability. Pardee RAND Graduate School Dissertation Series, Report Number: RGSD-207, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kerr, C.I.V., Phaal, R., Probert, D.R.: Technology insertion in the defence industry: A primer. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 222(8), 1009–1023 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strong, G.: Technology insertion - A worldwide perspective. Journal of Defence Science 9(3), 114–121 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tiron, R.: Aging avionics spell doom for air force, study warns. National Defense, NDIA’s Business and Technology Magazine (August 2001), http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Aug/Aging_Avionics.htm
  6. 6.
    Bracken, P., Brandt, L., Johnson, S.E.: The changing landscape of defense innovation. Defense Horizons Paper Number 47, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington DC, United States of America (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sutterfield, J.M., Jones, S.R.: Supporting tired iron: The challenges of supporting aging aircraft - Transformation or train wreck. In: Rainey, J.C., Scott, B.F. (eds.) 2004 Logistics Dimensions - Readings in the Issues and Concerns Facing Air Force Logistics in the 21st Century, vol. 2, pp. 18–52. Air Force Logistics Management Agency, Maxwell AFB (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Milas, M.J., Vanderbok, R.: Beyond proactive DMSMS, what’s next: Coordinated technology management. In: 9th Joint FAA/DoD/NASA Conference on Aging Aircraft, Atlanta, United States of America, March 6-9 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kerr, C.I.V., Phaal, R., Probert, D.R.: Aligning R&D with changing product requirements in an evolutionary acquisition environment. In: The R&D Management Conference 2008, Ottawa, Canada, June 18-20 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    MoD – Ministry of Defence: Defence industrial strategy. Report Number: Cm 6697, The Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Young, S.H.H.: Gallery of USAF weapons. Air Force Magazine 89(5), 146–169 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wagner, M.: New system saves money, improves KC-135 performance. Air Force Materiel Command News Service (June 2005), http://www.afmc-pub.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/news/archive/2005/June/AFMCNS220605-11.htm
  13. 13.
    DID – Defense Industry Daily: KC-135 design innovation could save $583M, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/07/kc135-design-innovation-could-save-583m/index.php
  14. 14.
    Wagner, M.: New system improves KC-135 performance, saves money. Airlift Tanker Quarterly 13(3), 21 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garbarino, M.: Lighter, stronger, reliable. Hilltop Times (September 30, 2004), http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.asp?edition=173&storyid=4912
  16. 16.
    Kerr, C., Phaal, R., Probert, D.: A strategic capabilities-based representation of the future British armed forces. International Journal of Intelligent Defence Support Systems 1(1), 27–42 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Phaal, R., Farrukh, C., Probert, D.: Customizing roadmapping. Research-Technology Management 47(2), 26–37 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kerr, C., Phaal, R., Probert, D.: A framework for strategic military capabilities in defense transformation. In: The 11th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS 2006) - Coalition Command and Control in the Networked Era, Cambridge, United Kingdom, September 26-28 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    MoD – Ministry of Defence: The acquisition handbook, 6th edn. The Ministry of Defence, London, United Kingdom (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bessant, J., Tidd, J.: Innovation and entrepreneurship. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goodman, R.A.: The dual mission of technology in strategic affairs. In: Dorf, R.C. (ed.) The technology management handbook, pp. 1617–1620. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    CAIG – Cost Analysis Improvement Group: Operating and support cost-estimating guide. Cost Analysis Improvement Group, Office of the Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington DC, United States of America (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Irvin, K.A.: The B-52: Past, present, future. In: Rainey, J.C., Scott, B.F., Reichard, J.O. (eds.) Global thinking, global logistics, pp. 32–41. Air Force Logistics Management Agency, Maxwell AFB (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herbert, A.J.: The 2018 bomber and its friends. Air Force Magazine 89(10), 24–29 (2006)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Webber, G., Smith, J., Anderson, J., Bachkosky, J., Brown, D., Fratarangelo, P., Hogan, R., Johnson, J., Katz, D., Kelly, M., Lister, M., Robinson, D., Rodriguez, J., Rumpf, R., Sinnett, J., Spindel, R., Windsor, G.: Life cycle technology insertion. Report Number: NRAC 02-02, Naval Research Advisory Committee Report, US Navy, Washington, United States of America (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    US Army: 2007 Army modernization plan. Department of the Army, The Pentagon, Washington DC, United States of America (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P., Probert, D.R.: Strategic roadmapping: A workshop approach for identifying and exploring strategic issues and opportunities. Engineering Management Journal 19(1), 3–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    MoD – Ministry of Defence: MoD roadmapping guidance. Report Number: FBG/36/09, Acquisition Management System, Ministry of Defence, London, United Kingdom (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ankersen, C.: Capabilities and capacities. In: Bland, D.L. (ed.) Transforming national defence administration, pp. 11–17. Queen’s University School of Policy Studies, Ontario (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    MoD – Ministry of Defence: Enabling acquisition change: An examination of the Ministry of Defence’s ability to undertake through-life capability management. A report by the Enabling Acquisition Change Team Leader, Ministry of Defence, London, United Kingdom (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith, L., Rao, R.: New ideas from the Army (really). Fortune 130(6), 203–212 (1994)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Churchill, A.: The DSAC view on technology insertion. Distillation - The Science Journal for Dstl. Staff 6, 5–8 (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barber, A.H., Gilmore, D.L.: Maritime access: Do defenders hold all the cards? Defense Horizons 4, 1–8 (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brooks, T.A., Jenkins, H., Polmar, N., Pirie, R., Ryan, T.D., Sommerer, J., Weldon, W., Wolbarsht, J.: Science and technology for naval warfare 2015-2020. Report Number: NRAC 05-3, Naval Research Advisory Committee, Arlington, United States of America (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thompson, L.: Cruise missile defense: Connecting theater capabilities to homeland needs. Lexington Institute, Arlington, United States of America (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    RAF – Royal Air Force: Royal Air Force strategy: Agile, adaptable, capable. The Royal Air Force, United Kingdom (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    MoD – Ministry of Defence: The UK joint high level operational concept. Report Number: Joint HLOC, The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre, Ministry of Defence, Shrivenham, United Kingdom (2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    MoD – Ministry of Defence: British air power doctrine. Report Number: AP 3000, The Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom (1999)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    RAF – Royal Air Force: Future air and space operational concept. Report Number: FASOC, The Royal Air Force, United Kingdom (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    MoD – Ministry of Defence: Capability audit. Acquisition Management System, Ministry of Defence, London, United Kingdom. (2003), http://www.ams.mod.uk/ams/content/docs/capaudit/capaudit.htm
  41. 41.
    Balaban, H.S., Greer, W.L.: Model for evaluating the cost consequences of deferring new system acquisition through upgrades. Report Number: P-3424, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, United States of America (1999)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tirpak, J.A.: Making the best of the fighter force. Air Force Magazine 90(3), 40–45 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tirpak, J.A.: A clamor for airlift. Air Force Magazine 83(12), 24–30 (2000)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hebert, A.J.: Checking up on old aircraft. Air Force Magazine 87(12), 32–37 (2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kreisher, O.: Aircraft geriatrics. Seapower Magazine 49(11), 31–35 (2006)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Magnuson, S.: Aging aircraft, war costs weigh heavily in future budgets. National Defense, NDIA’s Business & Technology Magazine (January 2007), http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/January/AgingAircraft.htm
  47. 47.
    Gan, X., Woodford, S.: Technology insertion cost-benefit handbook. Report Number: QINETIQ/D&TS/CS/HB0605269/1.0, TI MPA (Technology Insertion Major Programme Area), QinetiQ, Farnborough, United Kingdom (2006)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    GAO – Government Accountability Office: Tactical aircraft: Recapitalization goals are not supported by knowledge-based F-22A and JSF business cases. Report Number: GAO-06-487T, The Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, United States of America (2006)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Greenfield, V.A., Persselin, D.: An economic framework for evaluating military aircraft replacement. Report Number: MR-1489-AF. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (2002)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dowling, T., Hood, R., Hirst, R., Barker, D., Lomas, E., Phillips, E., Griffiths, A., King, B., Field, D.: Agile capability and adaptable systems. Report Number: QINETIQ/EMEA/TECS/CR0700304, TI MPA (Technology Insertion Major Programme Area), QinetiQ, Farnborough, United Kingdom (2007)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kosiak, S.M.: Buying tomorrow’s military: Options for modernizing the US defense capital stock. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington DC, United States of America (2001)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    DoD – Department of Defense: Diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages guidebook. Department of Defense, United States of America (2005), http://www.dmsms.org/file.jsp?storename=DoD_DMSMS_Guidebook_4_7_05.pdf
  53. 53.
    US Army: Army acquisition policy. Report Number: AR 70-1, Department of the Army, The Pentagon, Washington DC, United States of America (2003)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    CBO – Congressional Budget Office: The potential costs resulting from increased usage of military equipment in ongoing operations. CBO Testimony by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Congressional Budget Office, The Congress of the United States, Washington DC, United States of America (2005)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Minter, C.: Diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages in the systems engineering process. In: Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages, DMSMS 1999 Conference, Monterey, United States of America, April 19-22 (1999)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Livingston, H.: Diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages management practices. Defense Microelectronics Activity, Department of Defense, United States of America (2000), http://www.dmea.osd.mil/docs/geb1_paper.pdf
  57. 57.
    Suman, L.L.M.: Cost-benefit analysis tool for avionics parts obsolescence. In: Rainey, J.C., Scott, B.F., Waller, G. (eds.) 2003 Logistics Dimensions - Strategy, Issues and Analyses, pp. 151–166. Air Force Logistics Management Agency, Maxwell AFB (2002)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    CBO – Congressional Budget Office: Budget options for national defense. Congressional Budget Office, The Congress of the United States, Washington DC, United States of America (2000)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Forbes, J.A., Hutcheson, D.W., Staples, B.: Using technology to reduce cost of ownership. Annotated briefing, vol.1, Report Number: LG404RD4, Logistics Management Institute, McLean, United States of America (1996)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hutcheson, D.W.: Using technology to reduce cost of ownership - Volume 2: Business case, vol. 2, Report Number: LG404RD4, Logistics Management Institute, McLean, United States of America (1996)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Keating, E.G., Dixon, M.: Investigating optimal replacement of aging air force systems. Report Number: MR-1763-AF. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (2003)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Keating, E.G., Snyder, D., Dixon, M., Loredo, E.N.: Aging aircraft repair-replacement decisions with depot-level capacity as a policy choice variable. Report Number: MG-241-AF. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (2005)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bouchereau, V., Rowlands, H.: Methods and techniques to help quality function deployment. Benchmarking: An International Journal 7(1), 8–19 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Akao, Y.: Quality function deployment: Integrating customer requirements into product design. Productivity Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shen, X.X., Tan, K.C., Xie, M.: Benchmarking in QFD for quality improvement. Benchmarking: An International Journal 7(4), 282–291 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Krause, M.E.: Attack operations for missile defense. Report Number: 28, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, United States of America (2002)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bicheno, J.: The lean toolbox. Picsie Books, Buckingham (2000)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Birchall, D., Tovstiga, G.: Capabilities for strategic advantage: Leading through technological innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2005)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    JSA-TTCP – Joint Systems and Analysis group of the Technical Cooperation Program: Guide to capability-based planning. In: Military Operations Research Society (MORS) ‘Capabilities-Based Planning: The Road Ahead Workshop’, Alexandria, United States of America, October 19-21 (2004)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Cohen, L.: Quality function deployment: How to make QFD work for you. Addison Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Leary, M., Burvill, C.: Enhancing the quality function deployment conceptual design tool. Transactions of the ASME: Journal of Mechanical Design 129(7), 701–708 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    NAO – National Audit Office: Ministry of Defence major projects report 2005, Report Number: HC 595-I, The Stationery Office, London, United Kingdom (2005)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    DoD – Department of Defense: Operation of the defense acquisition system. DoD Instruction 5000.2, Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, United States of America (2003)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Marple, J., Clark, B., Jones, C., Zubrow, D.: Measures in support of evolutionary acquisition. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, United States of America (2001)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    GAO – Government Accountability Office: Joint strike fighter: DoD plans to enter production before testing demonstrates acceptable performance. Report Number: GAO-06-356, The Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, United States of America (2006)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Henderson, D.E., Gabb, A.P.: Using evolutionary acquisition for the procurement of complex systems. Report Number: DSTO-TR-0481, Electronics and Surveillance Research Laboratory, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Department of Defence, Salisbury, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Skorczewski, L.: Technology insertion in military aerospace programmes. Journal of Defence Science 9(3), 126–130 (2004)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ostgaard, J., Carbonell, J., Benning, S.: Aging avionics: A science and technology challenge or acquisition challenge. Report Number: RTO-EN-14 Lecture Series 218 ‘Aging engines, avionics, subsystems and helicopters’, Research and Technology Organization, NATO, Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France (2000)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    IBM – IBM Business Consulting: Enabling technology insertion through smart acquisition. Report Number: QINETIQ/S&E/SPI/CR041575, TI MPA (Technology Insertion Major Programme Area), QinetiQ, Farnborough, United Kingdom (2004)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chedister, R.: AAC contributions to situational awareness. In: The Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) InfoTech 2005, Dayton, United States of America, October 18-20 (2005)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Gibbs, R.: Open architecture stores integration software for implementation of a universal armament interface. In: Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems Working Group Meeting, Chicago, United States of America, July 25-28 (2005)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bryan, T.: Open systems: Fielding superior combat capability quicker. Program Manager 27(1), 48–56 (1998)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hanratty, M., Lightsey, R.H., Larson, A.G.: Open systems and the systems engineering process. Acquisition Review Quarterly, 47–59 (Winter 1999)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Gouré, D.: Modularity, the littoral combat ship and the future of the United States Navy. Lexington Institute, Arlington, United States of America (2006)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    O’Rourke, R.: Navy Aegis cruiser and destroyer modernization: Background and issues for congress. Report Number: RS22595, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington DC, United States of America (2008)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    MacKenzie, S.C., Tuteja, R.: Modular capabilities for the Canadian Navy’s single class surface combatant: A perspective on flexibility. Report Number: DRDC-CR-2006-004, Defence Research and Development Canada, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Dowling, T., Pardoe, T.: Technology insertion metrics. Report Number: QINETIQ/D&TS/CS/CR050825, TI MPA (Technology Insertion Major Programme Area), QinetiQ, Farnborough, United Kingdom (2005)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lorell, M.A., Lowell, J.F., Kennedy, M., Levaux, H.P.: Cheaper, faster, better? Commercial approaches to weapons acquisition. Report Number: MR-1147-AF. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (2000)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    DID – Defense Industry Daily: Lockheed upgrades US submarine acoustics under A-RCI program (2006), http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/lockheed-upgrades-us-submarine-acoustics-under-arci-program-updated/index.php
  90. 90.
    Kerr, G., Miller, R.W.: A revolutionary use of COTS in a submarine sonar system. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (November 2004) (CrossTalk), http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2004/11/0411Kerr.html
  91. 91.
    GAO – Government Accountability Office: Matching resources with requirements is key to the unmanned combat air vehicle program’s success. Report Number: GAO-03-598, The Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, United States of America (2003)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    DID – Defense Industry Daily, Building a better LANTIRN: Denmark spends $20M to upgrade targeting pods (2006), http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/11/building-a-better-lantirn-denmark-spends-20m-to-upgrade-targeting-pods/index.php
  93. 93.
    Chait, R., Lyons, J., Long, D.: Critical technology events in the development of the Abrams tank: Project Hindsight revisited. Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington DC, United States of America (2005)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Bakken, B.E.: Handbook on long term defence planning. Report Number: RTO-TR-069, Research and Technology Organisation, NATO, Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France (2003)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mahnken, T.G.: The cruise missile challenge. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington DC, United States of America (2005)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Correll, J.T.: Revolution by adaptation. Air Force Magazine 87(2), 62–63 (2004)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Dowling, T.: Technology insertion and obsolescence. Journal of Defence Science 9(3), 151–155 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    DND – Department of National Defence: Canadian defence beyond 2010: The way ahead - An RMA concept paper. RMA Operational Working Group, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    von Karman, T.: Toward new horizons. United States Army Air Force, Washington DC, United States of America (1945)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Kosiak, S.M.: Matching resources with requirements: Options for modernizing the US Air Force. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington DC, United States of America (2004)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    MoD – Ministry of Defence: Defence technology strategy for the demands of the 21st century. Report Number: DTS, Ministry of Defence, London, United Kingdom (2006)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Raupp, G.B.: A new paradigm for disruptive technology development and transition. In: National Defense Industry Association’s 7th Annual Science and Engineering Technology Conference, Orlando, United States of America, April 20 (2006)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kerr, C.I.V., Mortara, L., Phaal, R., Probert, D.R.: A conceptual model for technology intelligence. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 2(1), 73–93 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Chait, R., Lyons, J., Long, D.: Critical technology events in the development of the Apache helicopter: Project Hindsight revisited. Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington DC, United States of America (2006)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    US Army: Materiel requirements. Regulation Number: AR 71-9, Department of the Army, The Pentagon, Washington DC, United States of America (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clive Kerr
    • 1
  • Robert Phaal
    • 1
  • David Probert
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeMill LaneUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations