The changing face of the big 'I'

Any discussion regarding the language employed in the integrated logistic support (ILS) field will invariably gravitate towards the Big ‘I’ - integrated. It really doesn’t matter where the subject begins, that is where it will end up - stressing the importance of an ‘integrated’ approach. ?

But, are we all talking about integrated in the same sense of the word?

The image below is a recreation of an image that was used in an article (Integrated Logistic SUpport - The Life-Cycle Task of Support Management) in the 1968 Defense Industry Bulletin. Written by Colonel Gerald Holsclaw (USAF) and Fred T Carlson, the article was penned to explain the then-fledgling concept of ILS, presumably to industry.

Col. Holsclaw used the image to support his explanation that the integration of support management could be visualized in two dimensions:

1. Horizontally
2. Vertically

Horizontal Integration

In his article, Col. Holsclaw describes horizontal integration as the support management responsibilities spanning the life-cycle of the weapon or equipment. 'Horizontal' as in, laid out along a timeline. Which, of course, is true.

But, in this case, I prefer to think of horizontal integration, though, in the sense of support management being brought together with other relevant management topics.

In this sense, it describes the shift from the asynchronous development of equipment and its support whereby the equipment would be developed and then its logistic solution to the more concurrent effort that we (hopefully) recognise today whereby the equipment and its logistic support are created together.

Vertical Integration

Vertical integration, as described by Col. Holsclaw, is the management of all of the logistic support elements and the coordination of the interface of support with system design at the appropriate time along the development timeline.

This, I think, is probably the sense in which 'integrated' is most used.

It may also be the most confused and is often conflated with the 'integration' between the tasks that comprise logistic support analysis (LSA). Those tasks do need to be integrated, for sure, but that is not, I think, what the integrated in integrated logistic support is getting at.

Organisational Integration

A term that will likely not catch on.

With the advent of integrated product and process development (IPPD) and integrated product teams (IPTs), in the US, came another, far more difficult-to-achieve meaning of 'integrated'.

IPPD and IPTs were, and are, an attempt at giving suppliers (as well as customers) some skin in the game. A stake, that is, in the success of the product. So now, each stakeholder must not only achieve horizontal and vertical integration within their organisation (as described) but must also be integrated with each other. Integration in this sense, with a combined team focussed on the success of the product, is a key enabler for concepts like performance-based logistics (PBL).

So, when you talk about the importance of the big 'I', in what sense are you talking?

PS - I know how pedantic Support people are (I am one) so let's not focus on the Support Elements that are listed in the picture. I'm sure that many of you saw that they are not what is recognised today and have been unable to shake that feeling while reading the rest of the article. My assumption is that they were correct at the time that the original image was created and, in any case, they are not the focus of this short piece.