MOD Reliability and Maintainability Process Guidance
Assessment
PROCESS 306
EVALUATE RISK. DEVELOP MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND
SELECT OPTIMUM R&M SOLUTIONS
1. OBJECTIVES
The objective of this process is to evaluate the risks that may prevent the design solution
options possessing the desired R&M1 characteristics and to develop and optimise a strategy
which will mitigate these risks (through a proposed R&M Programme(s)) and enable the
desired capability to be achieved and delivered.
2. INTRODUCTION
The risks of the design solutions not possessing the required R&M characteristics and hence
able to fulfil the desired capability have already been identified when developing the R&M
Options (Activity 301-07) and their ongoing evaluated (Activity 302-01). It is now necessary
to determine how feasible it is to remove or reduce such risks by addressing the factors that
contribute to them. This will be achieved by reviewing the requirement, the time, monies and
technology available to deliver them and the consequence of doing nothing.
3. RESPONSIBILITIES
Accountability
The Project Manager is accountable for the delivery of the R&M programme throughout the
acquisition phases of the project however the responsibilities for the daily management of
many of the activities involved may be delegated to other members of the Project Team.
Responsibility
The Project Team R&M Focal Point through the forum of the R&M Panel or associated R&M
Working Groups will usually be responsible for carrying out many of the activities described
in this guidance document. He/she must therefore be given authority by the Project Manager
to programme major R&M assurance activities which should be developed in co-operation
with other key assurance areas, especially Safety, Cost of Ownership (COO), Risk and
Supportability disciplines.
4. SCHEDULE
This process should be carried out iteratively through the Assessment Phase.
1
R&M is a generic term which embraces the qualities of Availability, Reliability, Maintainability, Durability,
RCM and Testability.
Version 2.0
Page 1
Process 306
Evaluate Risk, Develop Mitigation Strategies and Select Optimum R&M Solutions
5. INPUTS
The following inputs will be required to carry out this process:
 R&M Risks previously associated with individual Design Solutions options.
6. OUTPUTS
 Prioritised list of preferred R&M options to develop and deliver the compliant
capability;
 Outline R&M Programme strategy;
 Input to the R&M Case in the form of an Evidence Acceptance Framework to support
the down selection process and provide traceability.
7. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
Activity 306-01 – Determine Probability of Removing/Reducing Risk
Determine the probability of reducing the R&M risks associated with each solution option.
Performance, cost and timescale risks have previously (Activity 305-07) been traded off for
the various design solution options, however these design solutions will have a number of
their own inherent risks associated with them. It is necessary to determine the probability of
removing or reducing these risks.
These risks are not only restricted to the top level KURs associated with R&M through
statements relating to availability or sustainability but other factors e.g. ability to operate
across the environmental profile, to be designed within the size and weight restraints, to
integrate with or into other systems, technology insertion etc. The following four activities
306-02 through to 306-05) consider this mitigation further.
Activity 306-02 – Determine if Requirement can be Modified to Reduce Risk
Determine in association with the stakeholders if any of the risk can be mitigated by
modifying the requirement.
Changing, or relaxing a requirement to mitigate a risk is probably the quickest, easiest and
cheapest of the options considered here, however the implications if not considered fully are
probably the greatest. Before changing a requirement the following should be considered:
 Has the Requirements Analysis (Ao, PSA) been conducted properly?
 Are requirements fully justified or have they been ‘gold plated’?
 Is the metric appropriate or would another be more suited?
Operational analysis seldom addresses the detailed specification of R&M but expresses itself
in terms of capability, other times availability of the solution, and it is the acquisition process
that evolves this requirement into that of the URD and future SRD. The sustainability of that
capability can be retained by high reliability with little maintenance but conversely by a high
maintenance intervention with a solution which is relatively unreliable. While the former
Page 2
Version 2.0
MOD Reliability and Maintainability Process Guidance
Assessment
may be unaffordable initially the latter may be unacceptable through life and compromise is
often sort. Where compromise cannot be achieved or the reliability-maintenance burden
balanced, risk will exist. Achieving such a balance is far from straightforward particularly
when it is constantly being driven by the influence of the projects cost, time and technology
restraints, however understanding the detailed capability requirements can often greatly assist.
For a given common solution the specific requirements of one user could be vastly different
to that of another. A medium utility vehicle may cover more kilometres in a month over
harsher terrain in the hands of a front line unit yet, may travel less distance in a year when
operated by the more static support arms. Similarly a training establishment my use a system
or equipment far greater than a front line unit purely because of the capability while essential
may seldom be required for operational use. Therefore it is important to appreciate and
understand all the specific users needs and specify appropriately. Where requirements
conflict it may be more appropriate and cost effective to compromise and accept the greater
maintenance burden for one user while exceeding that of the other.
Requirements which are ‘better than last time’ are fraught with risk because they have seldom
been thought through even if the specification of that previous purchase was known. In the
early phases of the project keep the R&M requirements in the simple terms of duty cycle,
conditions and period with any associated maintenance restraint. This will make them easier
to be understood and the consequence of change to mitigate risk easier to appreciate. When a
requirement is extended or reduced by a given measure, whether it is kilometres, hours,
rounds etc. most stakeholders will understand the change relatively quickly. However should
such changes be expressed in terms of reliability/probability for many in an audience it will
be more difficult to quantify the change in a meaningful measure and care, time and effort
needs to be invested to ensure all stakeholders appreciate the consequence of such change.
Unfortunately customers and other stakeholders often do not appreciate the acquisition
consequence of their requirements. While every practical effort should be taken to satisfy
their genuine needs there is nothing to be lost by discussing those requirements, in details
with such stakeholders, to ensure that the effort to mitigate the associated risks is warranted
and not to satisfy little more than a potential ‘wish list’.
Activity 306-03 – Determine if Cost/Time/Technology is Available to Mitigate Risk
Determine if risks associated with each solution option can be mitigated within the perceived
budget, time and technology constraints.
Unfortunately few capabilities can be readily satisfied off the shelf resulting in the majority of
projects needing some degree of development, in some instances this will be from scratch on
the drawing-board, other times minor modifications to an existing product. Whether a
solution needs extensive development or whether on the few occasions it can be acquired
directly for use there will always be risk that procuring, developing where necessary and
demonstrating compliance of the R&M elements of the solution options cannot be achieved
within the cost, time and technology restraints available.
When procuring and where necessary developing the solution options if they cannot be
achieved within these restraints the risks must be discussed with all the stakeholders and
compromised reached. Increasing the available budget or extending the in-service date would
provide options for reducing such risks as would alternative options to reducing the
performance characteristics of the requirement. Similarly when technology cannot address
Version 2.0
Page 3
Process 306
Evaluate Risk, Develop Mitigation Strategies and Select Optimum R&M Solutions
the shortfalls the only option may be in conjunction with the stakeholders to reconsider the
requirements.
Demonstrating compliance performs two functions; first to ensure that what was contracted
for has been delivered but equally to ensure that a compliant solution is not falsely rejected.
Demonstrating compliance in most instances is both time consuming and expensive therefore
while not completing it may alleviate one risk it may well introduce others and hence warrant
careful consideration as another risk reduction option.
Activity 306-04 – Determine if Solution can be Changed/Modified to Mitigate Risk
Determine if the proposed solutions would be tolerant of change and modification to enable
the perceived risks to be mitigated.
Whether a capability is to be designed from scratch, the integration of a number of proven
assemblies or could, in most parts, be satisfied through proprietary Commercial Off The Shelf
(COTS) or Military Off The Shelf (MOTS) solutions any shortfall (risk) to develop and
demonstrate compliance will require mitigation. Even when finance and time are available it
cannot be assumed without question that risk will always be resolved.
The COTS or MOTS solution may be so specialised they would not tolerate such
modification to reduce risk or the implications of modification would perhaps cost more
financially and/or in programme time than an alternative option. Risk mitigation for a given
solution option however may not only be restricted for technical reasons, manufacturers may
be incapable or unwilling to mitigate risk. The latter being particularly common when the
quantity required is small or the supplier already has a sound customer base and adopt a take
it or leave it attitude.
Other risks however may not relate directly to a manufacturers ability or willingness to
develop and manufacture but to the confidence we have in the solution concept. Sound
proven technology used in a novel way or the unusual integration of proven technology or
systems can each influence risk and create mitigation dilemma. Risk however my not be
restricted to the new acquisition, the requirement of a solution to be tolerant of existing
systems and/or to integrate legacy systems and equipment, particularly when these systems
and equipment’s are vintage, into them can quickly escalate risk. In recent years the
requirement for vehicle manufacturers to stay abreast of engine emission regulations and IT
manufacturers to retain backwards compatibility with legacy computer systems and networks
are examples of solution being challenged to satisfy capabilities. While it may be perceived
that these are design integration issues the inability to successfully resolve them are seen inservice as a reliability issue and maintenance burden.
Activity 306-05 – Determine Consequence of Doing Nothing
Determine in association with the stakeholders the consequence of not mitigating the risk for
each proposed solution.
Accepting a risk and doing nothing to mitigate it may seem to contradict all that has been
advised so far but it remains an alternative which warrants consideration. Even for the most
polished requirement and hence solution option there may be times where the resources are
just not available, the risk is small or is so dependant on other factors at this time it cannot be
perceived to be mitigated.
Page 4
Version 2.0
MOD Reliability and Maintainability Process Guidance
Assessment
That is not to suggest it should not be assessed, in fact if at this time nothing is going to be
done about it, it is of the highest priority that it is assessed in depth to ensure the consequence
of doing nothing now and potentially in the future are fully appreciated. Such assessment
should be conducted with the full co-operation of all interested stakeholders and through the
forum of the projects risk management system. The risk and therefore mitigating action must
be considered within the context of the operating environment and scenario because accepting
the risk may well impose limitations on these parameters. Particularly when this capability is
to form an integral part of another equipment or system then the consequences must also be
considered towards the host solution of not directly mitigating the risk.
However not all risks are solution based some will relate to time or confidence both of which
may be beyond the projects resources. One solution may be preferred to another yet the
penalty may be development time which the customer would be willing to tolerate to obtain
the solution. Alternatively while funds may be available to develop the solution they may not
be sufficient to provide the desired confidence through trialling and testing that compliance
has been achieved. In both these instances a pragmatic approach is required and as with all
risks an informed decision made to optimise the shortfall.
Activity 306-06 – Develop Assessment Matrix
Develop an assessment matrix and process to enable the selection and prioritisation in
respect of R&M of the proposed solutions.
The Assessment Matrix needs to be developed in parallel with the risk analysis activities
throughout this process to enable the preferred solution in respect of R&M to be selected
based on informed knowledge and appreciation of the potential risks and their mitigation.
The content of the matrix will be determined by the acquisition strategy and the solution
options however it will need to embrace not only the options but the risks involved and the
proposed mitigation with the relevant arguments and assumptions supporting them.
For each risk it will be necessary to determine the cost, time, technical limitations and any
subsequent long term implications to the capability of the subsequent mitigation. Much of
this should already form part of the project risk register however in selecting the preferred
solution option it is necessary to compare their qualities as well as the full costs of the
mitigation to enable an informed decision to be made regarding such comparison. Subject to
the form of the project risk register this may be insufficient for the needs of the R&M Focal
Point, however, there is much information already written in AOF and other reference text
books addressing three or preferred five point estimating methodology.
Activity 306-07 – Populate Assessment Matrix
Populate the assessment matrix with the evidence, arguments, assumptions, constraints and
risks to enable the proposed solutions to be prioritised in respect of their R&M qualities.
Subject to the way in which the project is being managed and where responsibilities lay
within the project team will depend by whom and how the Assessment Matrix will be
populated. Usually it is conducted as a function of the R&M Panel however it is as likely to
be delegated to an R&M working group or a sub-committee of the projects risk management
committee to which the R&M Focal Point will find themselves having a significant input
whichever the forum. The process of populating the matrix is not a one-off activity but
should be completed as information becomes available for each option. As information and
Version 2.0
Page 5
Process 306
Evaluate Risk, Develop Mitigation Strategies and Select Optimum R&M Solutions
supporting evidence and argument changes likewise the matrix needs to be updated to reflect
such changes to ensure that the selection process will be made using the most current
information, arguments and assumptions available.
The majority of projects employ a form based risk management assessment system which will
most likely satisfy the requirements for R&M data entry with little or no modification.
Whichever method is adopted it needs to be a systematic approach to ensure each solution
option is assessed, based on the same criteria and not already biased, during the data entry
process.
Activity 306-08 – Select Preferred R&M Option
With a view of achieving and demonstrating compliance, prioritise the proposed solution
from an R&M perspective.
A sound, well constructed Assessment Matrix should have the inherent properties to generate
a prioritised output of solution options with very little intervention beyond that of data entry.
However, which is the preferred R&M solution option and which are the projects preferred
solution option seldom co-inside and compromise will be required to select that most suited to
best deliver the capability within the project resources.
The Project Management Committee needs to be advised through the Chair of the R&M Panel
of the prioritised options to satisfy the capability from an R&M perspective with the
advantages and disadvantages of each option explained in detail. While one option may be
preferred over another, should it be unaffordable, or cannot be contracted for it will not
happen. Conversely an option which is less desirable in terms of R&M but which is
affordable may with appropriate support satisfy the Customers expectations completely.
8. RECORDS AND DOCUMENTATION
A populated R&M Assessment Matrix of R&M Solution Options for inclusion in the R&M
Case;
A recommendation from the R&M Panel in the form of a prioritised list of R&M Solution
Options with associated advantages and disadvantages which if implemented would enable
the R&M requirements of the capability to be delivered;
An updated R&M Case Report.
9. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE AND GUIDANCE
R&M Management Responsibilities and Requirements for Programmes and Plans are set out
in Def Stan 00-40 Part 1: http://www.dstan.mod.uk;
Guidance on R&M progressive assurance throughout the CADMID cycle is available in Def
Stan 00-42, Part 3: http://www.dstan.mod.uk and from the R&M area of the AOF:
http://www.aof.mod.uk
Guidance is available from the R&M area of the AOF: http://www.aof.mod.uk ;
Page 6
Version 2.0
MOD Reliability and Maintainability Process Guidance
Assessment
General guidance on R&M tools and techniques can be found in: Applied R&M Manual for
Defence Systems (GR-77): http://www.sars.org.uk/bok.htm and on the Defence Intranet.
Version 2.0
Page 7
Process 306
Evaluate Risk, Develop Mitigation Strategies and Select Optimum R&M Solutions
Process 306 - Evaluate Risk, Develop Mitigation Strategies and Select Optimum R&M Solutions
Page 8
Version 2.0