What We Did:
The objective of this audit was to determine whether the DoD tracked, monitored, and shared lessons learned regarding impacts of predictive maintenance on weapon system sustainment. Our objective was also to determine whether select predictive maintenance strategies achieved cost and availability goals. However, during the planning phase, we identified that the Services had not fully implemented predictive maintenance strategies. Therefore, we amended our objective to determine the extent that the DoD had implemented predictive maintenance in accordance with guidance.
What We Found:
The DoD has made progress toward implementation of predictive maintenance strategies but has not fully implemented predictive maintenance on any of its weapon systems. In addition, DoD officials did not:
• develop comprehensive strategic plans or policies,
• have full visibility of CBM+ and predictive maintenance projects, or
• develop training tailored to the appropriate levels in the life-cycle sustainment workforce necessary to implement predictive maintenance strategies.
The DoD also identified challenges to implementing predictive maintenance, such as transitioning from a run to failure maintenance culture to a predictive maintenance culture, lack of a standardized method to distinguish parts removed based on forecasts, lack of accurate and usable data and algorithms to make maintenance forecasts, and limited funding and resources.
The DoD’s goal is that the Services will implement and execute CBM+ to reduce total life-cycle sustainment cost and minimize unscheduled maintenance. Therefore, the DoD could miss opportunities to decrease maintenance cost and increase weapon system availability if predictive maintenance strategies are not fully implemented across the Services, as appropriate.
What We Recommend:
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Materiel Readiness), in coordination with the CBM+ focal points for the Services and other relevant stakeholders, develop and execute a mechanism to report and provide visibility of CBM+ and predictive maintenance projects and tools; and to standardize a method to distinguish parts removed due to predictive maintenance forecasts.
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Materiel Readiness) continue updating and distribute the DoD “Condition Based Maintenance Plus Guidebook” to reflect updated CBM+ guidance. We recommend that the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Engineering, and Force Protection, and the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics:
• continue to develop clear and comprehensive guidance for their respective Services’ implementation of CBM+ and predictive maintenance that aligns with DoD Instruction 4151.22; and
• develop and tailor training to the appropriate levels in the life-cycle sustainment workforce necessary to achieve effective CBM+ and predictive maintenance implementation. We also recommend that the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics continue to develop and implement a clear and comprehensive strategic plan for scaling CBM+ and predictive maintenance across the Army enterprise.
We recommend that the Chief of Naval Operations update Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 4790.16B to detail the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, based on guidance provided by DoD Instruction 4151.22.
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Sustainment):
• develop and implement a clear and comprehensive strategic plan for scaling CBM+ and predictive maintenance across the Navy enterprise;
• develop and tailor training to the appropriate levels in the life-cycle sustainment workforce necessary to achieve effective CBM+ and predictive maintenance implementation; and
• designate a CBM+ focal point to oversee CBM+ and predictive maintenance implementation across Department of Navy