Navy Aircraft Carrier Gap Analysis
Justin Hornback & Robin Smith
Decision Analysis and Its Applications to Systems Engineering
INCOSE/SCEA
November 18, 2009
The Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) Carrier Readiness Team (CRT)
required holistic view for assessing strategic plans for future
aircraft carrier availability
Problem: The NAE CRT required a holistic understanding of the risks associated with the looming aircraft
carrier availability gap and how best to handle these risks.
– Reduction in number of aircraft carriers from 11 to 10, planned retirement of USS Enterprise 2012
– Demand for aircraft carrier deployment unchanged
Several important questions needed to be addressed:
– How does risk impact aircraft carrier operational availability (Ao)?
– What are the cost and schedule impacts of risk?
– How should mitigation dollars be prioritized against high-impact risks?
– Is historical data useful for future planning?
– How does one carrier in the enterprise(portfolio) impact the others?
Previous attempts to address this problem were largely qualitative in nature and lacked a rigorous analytical
framework and incorporated no uncertainty or risk.
Applied the operational RISC-IQTM methodology to this problem to address these challenges.
Constrained Resources and Emphasis on Efficiency Makes
Understanding Risks Essential to Carrying Out Strategic Objectives
1
NAE Risk Methodology
Risk ID &
Foundational
Aircraft Carrier
Operations
Efforts
(Initial Data Gathering &
Formulation; Risks Identified
from a Variety of Sources)
Historical Data
Analyses
(Data Gathered,
Trends & Outliers Analyzed)
Definitions Definitions
Constraints Stakeholder
Risk Modeling Constraints
Survey Results
Objectives
Assumptions Stakeholder
Risk Modeling
Collaboration Objectives
Assumptions
Survey
(Key Inputs Discussed & 1 2 3 4
Reviewed)
DRAFT FINAL
Cost Schedule Cost Schedule
Risk Risk Mapping
Risk A
(Discrete Risks Mapped to Cost Risk B
Elements & Schedule Tasks)
2
NAE Risk Methodology (cont’d)
Cost Risk Schedule
600 Risk 1
FY08$M
500 0.8
400
300 Modeling
Cumulative Probability
0.6
200
100 0.4
0
2009 2011 2013 2015
2010 2012 2014 2016 (Simulations Run to Evaluate 0.2
Risk Impacts on Cost & 0
34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20
Schedule) -0.2
Months Meeting Availability Objective
Translation to Ao Metrics
Availability Metrics
(Simulation Results Compiled,
Aggregate Ao Metrics Calculated)
Sensitivity Analyses
Risk Modeling
Risk Modeling
(Simulation Data Analyzed,
Excursions Run, “What If” Cases Cost/
Developed) Schedule
Drivers
Recommendations Strategic Focus Areas:
- A, B, C Maintenance
Schedules During Months D,
E, F -
(Results Compiled & System Dependency G
Recommendations Formulated) - Bottleneck Point H
- Costs of I, J, K
- Stakeholder L
3
Schedules were overlaid upon another to create the “S” curve from
the Monte Carlo simulations Likelihood (Percentage)
Months achieving desired
readiness level (48 max)
=
Multiple Scenario generation
Slope of S curve relates the amount
of risk associated with a scenario
4
Key Challenges
Client‟s first application of this methodology
Politically charged environment
– Potential conflict with previous Congressional Briefings
Diverse stakeholders
– World-wide implications
Initial resistance due to client‟s unfamiliarity with the process
– Report Card of performance
Client used to stand-alone (i.e., stoplight chart) risk management
that did not reveal the range of potential outcomes
– Optimistic Schedules
Complex environment with intricate interdependencies
– Cyclical critical path
– Resource constraints, industrial complex
5
Applying the RISC- IQ methodology supplied the client with
information required to make informed decisions
This process was beneficial in that it..
– Quantified the intuition of industry stakeholders
• Specified availability of assets
– Examined the root cause of schedule divergences
– Allowed the client to build confidence in their „go forward‟ plan
– Built a foundation from which further analyses can be conducted
• Expansion outside of Aircraft Carriers
– Generated a portfolio of risk models
• Each risk model represented a unique compilation of data
which created…
Quantifiable and Defendable Results
6
Aircraft Carrier Maintenance Stack-Up
September 2009, four carriers in carrier maintenance at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Newport News
(NGSB NN) creating work capacity risks across all four carriers.
– 36% of aircraft carrier fleet
2004 CV/CVN Maintenance Availability Schedule projected 1 carrier at NGSB – September 2009
– CVN 65 EDSRA
Risk Analysis of 2004 CV/CVN Maintenance Schedule projects potential of 3 carriers - September 2009
– CVN 65 EDSRA (>90%)
– CVN 70 PSA/SRA (50%)
– CVN 77 PSA/SRA (80%)
– (% likelihood/potential of CVN maintenance event occurring at NGSB NN - September 2009)
CVN 71 RCOH was not projected due to the 2004 scheduled RCOH start date of 11/2009. This date was
moved up to 9/2/2009 during CVN 71 RCOH planning in 2007.
7
Questions?
Justin Hornback
hornback_justin@bah.com
Robin Smith
smith_robin_k@bah.com
8