D. List of issues
1. Is effectivity still an issue?
Probably not. Most of the effectivity relationships will be managed within the model as relationships between entities. Where needed additional effectivity relationships, not modeled directly, can be established by using the STEP “effectivity” link.
2. To what degree should inventory holdings be part of PLCS.
The scope of “Manage Inventory” needs more work. It is clear that PLCS should model the product properties required to operate to the logistic supply chain (e.g. product weight, transportability characteristic, required packaging etc.) It is also likely that the “static” properties of the supply chain itself would need modelling to support LSA (e.g. planned storage locations, max/min stock holdings). Opinions differed over the practicality of modelling the behaviour of the supply system (e.g. asset tracking, how long will this part take to arrive?), although this clearly will have an impact on the maintenance activity. General view was that supply system behaviour would fall within scope, but for attention later in the project.
3. Are there other standards dealing with inventory management?
4. Does PLCS extend beyond a “single system”? What is meant by “FLEET Issues”
The “Fleet” issue are now addressed in the STR – issue resolved?.
5. Are there extra information requirements arising from the need to AUDIT support history and maintain product traceability
Yes: see Section 6.2 (Configuration Change).
6. How to model equipment state?
NN suggests that conditions to be monitored should be specified by the support engineering activity (e .g. likelihood of performing as required on next or future missions, Time required to restore full capability) Agreed we need a generic capability to report on product state (or condition) – we cannot do precise modeling here.
7. How to model Operating (usage) and Maintenance History
[1] ISO/TC184/SC4/WG3/T8 Draft Interim report of Prelim Work Item to develop Planning Model for Life Cycle Support
[2] Authors Notes:
- The term “Manage Supply Chain” is proposed as a replacement for “Manage Inventory” to indicate the full extent of this activity, which encompasses the acquisition of components for manufacture as well as for product maintenance.
- This remains a weak area and needs more work
[3] The NATO CALS Data Model Version 3.
[4] Note: PLCS will provide a capability for managing tasks at least equivalent to that of the NCMD.
[5] Authors note – this is a useful start, but is not complete. The full list of LSA tasks from current specification should be reviewed based on the work of Task 2.4 NATO CALS PP#1
[6] Is reporting of spares usage a discrepancy report? See also comments on failure reporting under Maintenance Management Reports; the difference between actual and expected usage is a discrepancy.
[7]The term “Operating and Servicing Tasks” is used in TLBM and in existing Standards – do we need to be consistent, or does “Servicing” cover both?
[8] Authors note: reporting of failures and discrepancies is necessary, but may not be sufficient. PLCS may need to address feedback of the routine maintenance undertaken in terms of time taken, parts used etc. (failure prevention). Material state can also be assessed independently of failures (e.g. a structural survey). It may also be necessary to record conditions under which failure occurred and to record the precise details of the failure (See also Support Engineering)
[9] Note: need to address here the issue of permissible configuration of product_instance. Many-to-many relationship between product_design and product_instance where only one of the associations is effective?
[10] LdB: applicable classes shall be defined in an Agreement of Common Understanding between the partners sharing the information. This applies to all class entities described in this section.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.