ILS vs IPS: The element in the room
There is growing pressure, globally, for those that subscribe to the tenets of integrated logistic support (ILS) to move to the more contemporary integrated product support (IPS) and, amongst the learned community, to whom this kind of thing matters, there are generally two schools of thought...
The first is that IPS is a new concept, designed to solve the flaws of ILS and its poor reputation. Adopting IPS, if you subscribe to this thought process, is a significant undertaking that requires careful planning and execution. A change of policy and process from one concept (ILS) to an entirely new beast in IPS.
The second school of thought is that ILS and IPS are essentially the same thing. Despite terminology changes, there is largely no difference. If you do one, you already do the other. They are interchangeable and the changes in terminology largely satisfy a requirement to suggest progress away from the much-maligned ILS.
For the avoidance of doubt, I belong to that second school of thought.
I've been wondering though, if you are living in an ILS world and are considering a ‘move’ to IPS, what is the basis for comparison?
I’ve explored the name change (at least in terms of ASD changing the name of its S-Series Specifications from ILS to IPS) in a previous post. This time, based on a common argument for the adoption of IPS which goes something along the lines of IPS is different because, whereas ILS was confined to the acquisition phase, IPS introduced two new elements which now make it a through-life activity, I want to explore a possible comparison at the level of the ‘support element’ concept.
And then, there were 12...
The two new elements were first introduced in 2011. Let's look at the difference between the ‘traditional’ 10 elements of ILS, as described by DODD 5000.39 - Acquisition and Management of Integrated Logistic Support for Systems and Equipment (1983), and the 12 elements of IPS which were introduced, in their initial form, by the US DoD’s Product Support Manager Guidebook (2011).
We'll come back to the two new elements in a little while. First, let's look at the evolutionary changes to the existing elements.
The paragraphs that follow are direct quotes from the Defense Acquisition University's (DAU) Integrated Product Support Element Guidebook (2011) and they summarise the evolution of the existing ILS elements.
The Maintenance Planning and Management Product Support Element has been expanded to include all activities and events associated with transitioning the early initial maintenance concept into a detailed plan that is executed during fielding and continue through the Operations & Sustainment (O&S) phase. Figure P1, Product Support Element Migration, summarizes these changes;
Training and Training Devices is now Training and Training Support. The whole concept now spans the overall spectrum of training solutions, to include, but not limited to classroom training, special devices, simulators, and distance learning. The result is the use of training solutions that provide a continuous, yet realistic training experience;
The Facilities element has been expanded to Facilities and Infrastructure. Due to trends such as globalization and reliance on information technologies, product support operations are no longer just “brick and mortar” facilities and include new technologies related to physical security, utilities, and operation of sites.
Finally, Computer resources support has become simply Computer Resources to account for the significant role that information technology and the necessary computer infrastructure for both weapon system support operations as well as supporting the support operations.
There is a peculiarity, which I cannot explain, in that the IPS Element Guidebook (2011) states that "Training and Training Devices is now Training and Training Support" but that element had already been called Training and Training Support since 1983.
What we see, generally, is a broadening of scope. A trend away from a narrow view to a broader one.
Evolution, not revolution.
That process of evolution, though, has been ever-present since the formalisation of the ILS elements in 1964. Starting with 7 before moving to 9 and, finally, settling for a period on what I have been referring to as the 'traditional' 10 ILS elements.
So, if evolution of the ILS elements has happened in the past, without impacting the name of the concept, it stands to reason that they could have evolved this time, without impacting the name of the concept. The evolution of the ILS elements and the change in name from logistic to product support may have happened at a similar time but there is no causal relationship.
But, what about the two new elements introduced by the Product Support Manager’s Guidebook (2011)?
The Tautological Two
A tautology is a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words. So, why have I called the new elements the ‘tautological two’?
When Colonel Gerald Holsclaw (USAF) and Fred T Carlson wrote their article titled “Integrated Logistic Support”, in a 1968 Defense Industry Bulletin (an article that I have referred to, unashamedly, in several other posts/articles) they gave it a tagline of “The Life-Cycle Task of Support Management”.
They went on to say…
Management integration of logistic support elements into the systems engineering management process should start at the beginning of concept formulation for a weapon system or piece of equipment. Support management continues through the contract definition, development and production phases of the equipment lifecycle. Unlike other elements of systems engineering management which terminate with acquisition of the equipment by using the commands, the support management task continues on during operations, with emphasis then on performance instead of planning.
With that quote from 1968 in mind, let’s go back to the Integrated Product Support Element Guidebook (2011) to see how the two new elements are defined, starting with Product Support Management...
Product Support Management has been introduced as a stand-alone element to include contract development and management, budget planning, IPT management, and other business, financial, contract and operational responsibilities. Per DoDI 5000.02, the PM/PSM shall work with the user to document performance and sustainment requirements in performance agreements specifying objective outcomes, measures, resource commitments, and stakeholder responsibilities. The PM shall employ effective Performance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL) planning, development, implementation, and management;
From this point on, unless I am referring to a particular text or either of the concepts - ILS or IPS - I will simply refer to 'integrated support' or to its analytical arm 'support analysis'.
Support management is not an ingredient of integrated support. Integrated support is a description of the best way to manage support.
Integrated support is support management.
This element was introduced with the guidebook that was issued to the then newly mandated position of Product Support Manager in the US. They have, in effect, introduced an element called Product Support Management under the role of Product Support Manager which seems redundant to me.
As for Sustaining Engineering,
The second new Product Support Element is Sustaining Engineering, which focuses on engineering activities specifically related to ensuring no degradation of the technical performance of the system over its life cycle. Sustaining engineering activities also include opportunities to improve or modify the performance of fielded systems based on technological opportunities or evolving threat scenarios;
Sustaining Engineering is the element that is often attributed to the expansion of integrated support from an acquisition activity to a through-life one. Except, as we’ve already seen, integrated support has always been a through-life activity.
Always.
I think this talks to the often-trod conflation of integrated support and support analysis. At its inception in 1973 MIL-STD-1388-1 - Logistic Support Analysis limited its scope and application to design, development and deployment stages - without going any further.
During those early lifecycle phases, the only support activity that is happening is analytical. It is understandable, then, if you look at that as a snapshot, integrated support and support analysis appear to be equivalent. One and the same.
This is a skewed view however, that misses the point that integrated support also delivers support for the rest of the system's life. So, as the product matures and the support activity becomes real, the scopes of the integrated support and support analysis concepts begin to diverge and, if you subscribe to the MIL-STD-1388-1 (1973) view that support analysis only happens during the early phases, the nature of integrated support changes from design to realisation.
Sustaining Engineering does not extend integrated support through-life.
The tautology here is less obvious than for that of the Product Support Management element. Here, the tautology is caused by perception. The perception that the introduction of Sustaining Engineering somehow extends the reach of integrated support across the lifecycle. A perception which - I have shown - is demonstrably nonsense.
Sustaining Engineering does extend support analysis through-life - it just doesn’t call it that.
What’s curious, though, is that MIL-STD-1388-1A - Logistic Support Analysis (1983) had already done that and expanded its applicability to all phases of the system/equipment lifecycle.
So, what is Sustaining Engineering achieving? Is it just formalising that there is a through-life analytical process which forms part of Support and, therefore, should be managed alongside the delivery of support?
If so, why not call it SA?
领英推荐
Are the Elements a suitable basis for Comparison?
I’ve shown that, aside from the tautological two, the elements have a clear evolutionary path which, when you put them side-by-side and track them through history, is undeniable.
When you look at element level, IPS and ILS are not different concepts. They represent the same concept at different points of its evolution. But, is it right to compare them on those grounds?
In order to compare them, you must first define what an element is.
What is an ILS Element?
In truth, I've been sitting on this article (or one like it at least) for quite some time but have never really known where to go with it or how to write it. My start point was the 14 ILS elements, as detailed by the UK MOD's Def Stan 00-600 Part 1:
If you ask someone what an ILS element is, you'll get a list of the elements that they can recall at the time, but that doesn't answer the question.
It’s understandable, look at the list (above) ↑↑...
There isn’t a single category of ‘thing’ that all of those elements fall into and, therefore, no single, easy definition of what an element is. Reliability and Maintainability, for example, are design attributes of an equipment, while Integrated Logistic Support Planning is an activity, and Support & Test Equipment are physical items.
Def Stan 00-600 Part 1 does not include a definition of ‘ILS element’, nor can a definition be found in:
It seems that the concept of the ‘ILS element’ is either so universally accepted that there is little value in defining it for the layman or it is of so little import that it hasn’t been worth taking the time to define it.
4100.35G - Integrated Logistic Support Planning Guide (1968) doesn’t include a definition, per se, but includes the following image…
While I enjoy the simplicity of presenting them as ‘Things to Manage’, I don’t think this answers the question.
There are also some contemporary attempts. Mil-HDBK-502A - Product Support Analysis (2013) has a paragraph entitled IPS elements and then, as far as I can tell, spends no time describing what an element is:
5.3.4.6 IPS elements. Supportability, cost, and readiness drivers may be identified from a number of perspectives: drivers could be specific IPS elements; specific support functions (e.g., alignment or calibration requirements); specific mission subsystems/components; or specific features of the operational scenario/requirement.
And another attempt from SAE-TA-STD-0017A - Product Support Analysis (2022) describes the elements as:
Those critical functions related to product readiness including, but not limited to, materiel management, distribution, technical data management, maintenance, training, cataloging, configuration management, engineering support, repair parts management, failure reporting and analysis, reliability growth tracking, and the logistics components (e.g., support equipment, spares) required to accomplish the functions.
Note that these two contemporary definitions are not from integrated support documents but, rather, they are from support analysis documents.
The Integrated Product Support Element Guidebook (2011) has this to say:
The Performance Based Life Cycle Product Support approach to DoD sustainment relies on understanding and integrating all the functional components which are available to make up the required product support infrastructure. These functional components are grouped into twelve categories called the Integrated Product Support (IPS) Elements.
So, having done that reading and considered the available definitions, I've concluded that support elements are business functions that, in combination, enable the realisation and sustainment of operational capability. This means that - and I realise I'm at risk of being tautological myself - a support element must be...
'a business function that directly enables the realisation and sustainment of operational capability'.
Can you compare ILS and IPS at Element-level?
Sure you can.
If you do though, you will reach the same conclusion that I have. Proper implementation of ILS supported with through-life logistic support analysis (LSA) will get you to the same place as a proper implementation of IPS because it is the same thing. Equally, replacing a poor implementation of ILS with a poor implementation of IPS will get you to the same place too. This is the most dangerous for organisations looking at this supposed change because, if not considered carefully, it will lead to potentially very expensive change programmes to implement a concept they already have.
As for the elements, 4100.35G - Integrated Logistic Support Planning Guide (1968) stated:
The elements are changeable, flexible and for the organisation to determine for themselves. As long as all business functions that enable its operational capability are considered, a project, an organisation can structure them how they see fit.
You can see evidence of that in the UK’s 14 ILS elements that I mentioned earlier. The UK has 14 elements, not the traditional 10, but still calls its concept 'ILS'.
You can change and update and add elements without changing the name of the concept.
Epilogue
The fundamental principle of integrated support is that taking a one-team approach to developing and deploying a capability will maximise your return on investment.
As long as you’re doing that, who cares what you call the concept?
There is a tendency to conflate the S-Series with the concept of IPS. They are not equivalent.?One is a flavour of the other.
The S-Series describes a type of IPS.
In the US, IPS has a real provenance, a genuine evolution (led by DoD) of ILS via concepts like integrated process and product development (IPPD) which led to integrated product teams (IPTs). Support, as part of an integrated product team = equals integrated product support.
The IPS Council changed its name because the word logistics was confusing.
'Product' was chosen as the replacement because it existed as a concept in S1000D and PLCS already. If I was being cynical, I’d suggest that it may have been selected to make the S-Series more appealing to the US market. A market that has been implementing IPS for some time.
The S-Series adopted the same 12 Elements of IPS that were introduced by the Product Support Manager Guidebook (2011). The guidebook has moved on however and the update in 2022 has continued the evolution of the elements with Computer Resources having become Information Technology (IT) Systems Continuous Support.
The S-Series has not yet implemented that change and so, they are beginning to diverge again.
That they are not the same is an important point.
I think, when organisations talk about 'adopting IPS' they mean to use the term IPS and its predefined elements as an internal framework for structuring its support. You can adopt IPS without adopting the S-Series.
Equally, you could use the S-Series to support your programmes, without formally adopting IPS as your internal framework. NATO, for example, has rejected the adoption of the IPS terminology. Opting instead to retain the ILS acronym, albeit with the 'L' standing for Lifecycle rather than Logistic; a change that will take place when the next issue of its ALP-10 document is released. That document will also include guidance on how the S-Series Specifications for IPS might be used within an Integrated Lifecycle Support programme and, incidentally, a new ILS element which seeks to integrate environmental considerations into support management.
A final thought, and one that came up recently in conversation, in the US the IPS elements appear in a guidebook and, as guidance, they are a framework that is not strictly contractable. In the UK, Def Stan 00-600 and its 14 ILS elements is, by definition, a contractable document. So is the S-Series and its 12 elements.
Let the decision to adopt a framework be a considered one. There are benefits, of course, in standardisation but there is also real benefit in thinking for oneself and not losing sight of the point…
A one-team approach to developing and deploying a capability will maximise your return on investment.?
Maintenance, Reliability and Support Engineer, Integrated Logistics Support
5 个月excellent article Lee. ive sent it to our team for a read.
Principal Consultant @ Horsell | Business Strategy & Development
1 年A rational, non-emotive article that, for me, reinforces the view that IPS is an evolution of ILS. At the working level the principles of 'Logistics Support' and LSA are unchanged. There is no need to throw the 'ILS Baby' out the window. The practitioner techniques are the same, but the tools have moved on. In the interests of cost-efficiency, organisations need to do a cost-benefit analysis before mandating the wholesale adoption of S-Series and supporting tools. Now to educate Acquisition Managers that Capability is not about the 'Shiny New Toy'. They need to support the definition, design, development, delivery and sustainment (Systems Engineering 101) of a cost-effective Support System as well.
Support Integration Specialist at Boeing
1 年Fantastic article. As someone grappling with ILS/IPS and the S-Series I am going to refer to this many times
CPEng | CSEP | FIEAust | MBA
1 年Great article (and very timely) Lee Fitzsimons! These are such loaded terms. Now, if you can determine the true definition of the word 'PRODUCT' that would really be something! This is a problematic term, because it is seen as both a realised (off-the-shelf or developed) system while also being a conceptual construct somewhat ambiguously entangled with capability system. It is not easy to distinguish these concepts, so with a shift to IPS we may be making that problem even starker. Additionally, since you mention the UK MoD's 14 elements, and the US DoD's 12 (up from 10), dare I open Pandora's box and ask you to demarcate the 12 IPS Elements from the 9 FIC Elements (which include 'Support' as one element) and from the Materiel System = ( Mission System + Support System ) construct? What about the 5 Support System Constituent Capabilities (SSCC) which include 4 of the 10/12 ILS/IPS Elements (Supply Support, Engineering Support, Maintenance Support and Training Support) along with a fifth 'Operations/Operating Support' which is not an ILS/IPS Element??? In all seriousness, I agree that in evolving concepts, we often inadvertently create more confusion. Would be good for US, UK and AUS to work on a single agreed shared framework.
Director
1 年Excellent Summary of ILS/IPS Lee. This will help many of us in this area of profession. Great job. Many forget the main purpose, to support and to serve the end customer. To really give the end customer and user what he needs. It is not a matter of doing it perfect, but it must fit its purpose. Unfortunately, we people (independent of profession), are today the greatest problem. The human complexity problems start to take overhand in many companies. The lack of cooperation and the lack of will for cooperation is continuously increasing. Problem caused by human complexity are today the greatest cost driver and, this is one “elephant in the room” hardly no-one wants to speak about. I may be one of very few people who talks about it. People tend to fear anything they do not understand. The psychological reasons behind I cannot explain here (but I know it). So please be aware of the effects of the misunderstanding of this area of profession. The lack of understanding of ILS/IPS is one of the greatest hurdles to overcome.