Implementing the UID policy: the CH-47 approach to parts marking - Lessons Learned

Defense AT&L,  Jan-Feb, 2004  by William T. "Tim" Crosby,  Fred C. "Chris" Sautter

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

* What techniques are required to create part marks for each family of parts?

* How do you control the data included on the marks?

To determine the information necessary to answer these questions, we contracted for the U.S. Army Aviation Parts Marking Demonstration Program (Contract: DAAH10-00-C-0043, completed in September 2001) with the U.S. Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) at Fort Eustis, Va. This effort laid the foundation for weapon system managers to move forward with an understanding of the real effort they would need to invest in a parts-marking program to make it truly viable. The output of this demo was:

* A determination of the engineering effort required to obtain approval and air worthiness qualification to mark parts.

* A cross section of sample parts that were marked based upon a range of criteria, including different materials, paint, locations, and environment.

* A determination of the appropriate marking capabilities, from labels to direct part marks.

* The identification of four prime approaches to the marking of parts--

1. Opportunistic (in the field);

2. Gateways (supply and transport centers);

3. Seek and Mark (mark a single type part world wide);

4. Vendors and OEMs.

* An accounting of the costs to mark parts in legacy environment.

Parts Marking and the Larger Digital Environment

As we contemplated the move from our legacy, paper-based world into an automated maintenance environment (AME), it was necessary to fully understand the impact that changes like these could mean for the warfighter and the AIS. We wanted to get away from the historical approach (where agencies developed single-path solutions) and to adopt a more holistic approach that merged AIT, AIS, and the logistics processes across the environment. To that end, we requested and received funding from the Logistics Integration Agency, now called the Logistics Transformation Agency, to produce a concept of operations for AIT. Contracting with the Logistics Management Institute produced a report entitled "Concept of Operations for AIT in an Automated Maintenance Environment for Army Weapon Systems," AR130T1, March 2002 (referred to as the Con Ops). This document assisted us in defining the focus of our AIT implementation strategy, and it pointed to the critical aspect of that plan as we moved forward.

Data are the Key

The "I" in AIT is "identification." It was critical that each machine-readable code affixed to a part include the minimum data elements necessary to uniquely identify that part across the logistics environment. In the commercial sector, many organizations have different processes and different data elements that define "uniqueness." The Con Ops pointed out that within the DoD AME, there needed to be a clear and precise definition that could be enforced across the logistics community. This definition would register the unique identity for each component that equated to an individual "social security number."

The business rules that defined the uniqueness standard include the following: