Condition-Based Maintenance Plus

Guidebook

CLEARED
For Open Publication

Aug 08, 2024

Department of Defense
OFFICE OF PREPUBLICATION AND SECURITY REVIEW

August 2024

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Materiel Readiness

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

For Acquisition and Sustainment

Washington, DC
Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Guidebook

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment

3030 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
[email protected]
https://www.acq.osd.mil/log/MR/cbm+.html

ii
 Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Guidebook Change Record

Date Change Rationale

August 2024 Initial Version

iii
This page intentionally left blank.

iv
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Guidebook Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Overview .................................................................. 1
1.2.1. What is CBM+? ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2. Why Change? ............................................................................................................. 2
1.2.3. CBM+ History .............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.4. Achieving More Effective Maintenance ....................................................................... 7
1.2.5. Goals of CBM+ ............................................................................................................ 8
1.2.6 Benefits of CBM+ ....................................................................................................... 12
1.2.7 CBM+ End State Vision .............................................................................................. 13
1.2.8 How to Use This Guidebook ....................................................................................... 14
2 CBM+ Implementation Prerequisites ..................................................................................... 17
2.1 DoD Maintenance Programs ............................................................................................. 17
2.1.1 The Advantages of Proactive Maintenance ................................................................ 17
2.1.2 Reactive and Proactive Maintenance Approaches ..................................................... 19
2.2 Examples of Component CBM+ Initiatives ........................................................................ 21
2.2.1 Army ........................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2 Navy............................................................................................................................ 22
2.2.3 Air Force ..................................................................................................................... 22
2.2.4 Marine Corps .............................................................................................................. 23
2.2.5 Program Updates ........................................................................................................ 23
3. Essential Elements of CBM+ .................................................................................................. 25
3.1. Business/Management Elements ..................................................................................... 27
3.1.1. Policy and Doctrine .................................................................................................... 27
3.1.1.1. Initial CBM+ Policy Memorandum........................................................................... 27
3.1.1.2. DoD Acquisition Policy ............................................................................................ 27
3.1.1.3. DoD Maintenance Policy Directive ......................................................................... 28
3.1.1.4. DoD Policy Instruction ............................................................................................ 28
3.1.1.5. Military Service Policies .......................................................................................... 29
3.1.2. Business Strategy ................................................................................................. 31
3.1.3. RCM Relationship ................................................................................................. 39
3.2 Technical ........................................................................................................................... 44

I
 3.2.1. Hardware & Software Infrastructure / Tools ............................................................... 44
3.2.2. DoD Architectural Framework for CBM+ ................................................................... 51
3.2.3. Open Systems and Data Strategy ............................................................................. 57
3.3 CBM+ Essential Elements Summary ................................................................................ 61
4. CBM+ and the Total System Life Cycle ................................................................................. 63
4.1. Creating the CBM+ Environment...................................................................................... 64
4.2. CBM+ and the Acquisition Life Cycle .............................................................................. 64
4.3. CBM+ Planning / Technology Selection Phase ............................................................... 66
4.3.1. Obtain Management Support .................................................................................... 66
4.3.2. Perform RCM and Reliability Analysis ...................................................................... 66
4.3.3. Form CBM+ Team .................................................................................................... 67
4.3.4. Identify CBM+ Target Application ............................................................................. 68
4.3.5. Accomplish Proof-of-Principle ................................................................................... 69
4.3.6. Prepare Implementation Plan ................................................................................... 69
4.3.7. Examine New Technologies ..................................................................................... 70
4.3.8. Develop Data Strategy .............................................................................................. 71
4.3.9. Develop Architecture ................................................................................................ 71
4.3.10. Set Life-Cycle Metrics ............................................................................................. 71
4.3.11. Develop Deployment and Support Strategy ........................................................... 72
4.3.12. Complete the Business Case ................................................................................. 73
4.3.13. Develop Resources Strategy and an Integrated Budget ........................................ 73
4.4 CBM+ Implementation Phase............................................................................................ 74
4.4.1. Acquire CBM+ Technical Capabilities (Sensors, Communications, and Data
Repositories)........................................................................................................................ 74
4.4.2. Acquire Health Management Software ..................................................................... 74
4.4.3. Demonstrate Data Management Approach .............................................................. 75
4.4.4. Revalidate RCM and Reliability Analysis .................................................................. 75
4.4.5. Demonstrate CBM+ Element Interoperability ........................................................... 75
4.4.6. Demonstrate CBM+ Functionality ............................................................................. 76
4.4.7. Complete Pilot Program Field Test ........................................................................... 76
4.4.8. Resolve Performance and Cost Issues .................................................................... 77
4.4.9. Train Stakeholders and Users .................................................................................. 77
4.4.10. Revise Implementation Plan ................................................................................... 78
4.4.11. Update Supportability Strategy ............................................................................... 78
4.4.12. Acquire Full Production Capability .......................................................................... 78

II
 4.4.13. Accomplish CBM+ Deployment .............................................................................. 78
4.5 CBM+ Operations Phase.................................................................................................. 79
4.5.1. Continuously Analyze Condition-Related Data at Component, Platform, and
Enterprise Levels ................................................................................................................. 79
4.5.2. Revalidate RCM and Reliability Approaches ............................................................ 79
4.5.3. Develop Performance Baselines .............................................................................. 80
4.5.4. Continuously Review CBM+ Metrics......................................................................... 80
4.5.6. Refresh Enabling Technologies ................................................................................ 81
4.5.7. Revalidate Human Interfaces ................................................................................... 82
4.5.8. Periodically Update CBM+ Business Case ............................................................... 82
4.5.9. Continuously Update Resources Strategy and Integrated Budget ........................... 82
4.5.10. Optimize Maintenance Strategies ........................................................................... 83
5. Managing a CBM+ Initiative or Program ................................................................................ 85
5.1. A CBM+ Program Review Checklist ................................................................................ 85
5.2. A CBM+ Management Approach...................................................................................... 86
5.3. CBM+ Relationship with Other DoD Efforts..................................................................... 88
5.3.1 CBM+ and the Product Support Strategy .................................................................. 89
5.3.2. CBM+ and Reliability-Centered Maintenance ........................................................... 89
5.3.3. CBM+ and Performance-Based Acquisition ............................................................. 90
5.3.4. CBM+ and Systems Engineering .............................................................................. 90
5.3.5. CBM+ and Information Technology Portfolio Management ...................................... 91
5.4. Overcoming Barriers to CBM+ Implementation ............................................................... 91
5.5. Twenty Questions a Manager Should Consider .............................................................. 91
6. Measuring Success................................................................................................................ 95
6.1. Implementation Metrics .................................................................................................... 96
6.1.1. How to Measure a Successful Implementation ......................................................... 96
6.2. Operating Metrics ............................................................................................................ 98
6.2.1. How to Measure a Maintenance Program Operating in a CBM+ Environment ........ 98
6.2.2. Relevant Operating Metrics for CBM+ ...................................................................... 99
6.2.2.2. Improving Reliability ............................................................................................... 99
6.2.2.3. Reducing Life Cycle Ownership Costs ................................................................ 100
6.2.2.4. Reducing Mean Down Time ................................................................................ 100
6.3. Other Measures ............................................................................................................. 100
Appendix A. Definitions ............................................................................................................. 103
Appendix B. Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 107

III
Appendix C. References and Resources .................................................................................. 111

List of Tables

Table 1 - CBM+ Objectives and Metrics ..................................................................................... 11

Table 2 - CBM+ Strategy Checklist ............................................................................................. 17
Table 3 - CBM+ Basic Requirements.......................................................................................... 26
Table 4 - CBM+ Capabilities Relative to RCM Process Steps .................................................... 42
Table 5 - Examples of Standards Available to CBM+ Implementers .......................................... 59
Table 6 - Managing CBM+ across the Life Cycle........................................................................ 63
Table 7 - CBM+ Program Review Checklist................................................................................ 86
Table 8 - Measuring Success Checklist ...................................................................................... 95
Table 9 - A CBM+ Capability Scorecard ..................................................................................... 97
Table 10 - Internal Progress Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................... 98

List of Figures

Figure 1 - The Maintenance Continuum ....................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 - Life Cycle Costs ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3 - Product Support Strategy ............................................................................................. 4
Figure 4 - CBM+............................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 5 - Maintenance Transition ................................................................................................ 8
Figure 6 - Maintenance Approaches ........................................................................................... 19
Figure 7 - Evolution of Maintenance Strategy ............................................................................. 20
Figure 8 - Maintenance Strategy Transition ................................................................................ 21
Figure 9 - CBM+ Primary Categories and Sub-Groups .............................................................. 25
Figure 10 - Alternatives within a Business Case Analysis .......................................................... 38
Figure 11 - Classic P-to-F Curve ................................................................................................ 40
Figure 12 - CBM+ Infrastructure Areas ....................................................................................... 45
Figure 13 - CBM+ Notional Data Environment............................................................................ 48
Figure 14 - Generalized Inputs and Outputs from a Prognostic Model ....................................... 49
Figure 15 - DoDAF Architecture Product Relationships .............................................................. 53
Figure 16 - CBM+ Generic Architecture Overview ...................................................................... 54
Figure 17 - CBM+ and the Total System Life Cycle .................................................................... 65
Figure 18 - Plan, Do, Check, and Act Model ............................................................................... 87
Figure 19 - CBM+ Relationship to PSS....................................................................................... 89

IV
1. Introduction
1.1. Guidebook Objectives

This guidebook is meant to provide the user with information on the origination of CBM+,
the intent of CBM+, the necessary elements for implementing and sustaining a CBM+
instance, and examples of the tools and best practices from across the department. This
guidebook is meant to further explain and clarify the relationship and necessary elements
defined in DoDM 4151.25, Reliability-Centered Maintenance and DoDI 4151.22, Condition-
Based Maintenance.

No guidebook can ever be complete therefore this is just one tool to be used in
conjunction with other available resources. Examples of those resources include the CBM+
Working Group, the Joint Technology Working Group (JTEG), the DoD Maintenance
Symposium, DAU training opportunities, Service-led training opportunities and other
Service-specific forums made available to all CBM+ practitioners.

1.2. Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Overview

1.2.1. What is CBM+?

CBM+ is the proactive maintenance strategy developed within the Department of

Defense to achieve cost-effective weapon system life-cycle sustainment. DoD Instruction
4151.22 defines CBM+ as:

“A collaborative DoD readiness initiative focused on the development and

implementation of data analysis and sustainment technology capabilities to improve
weapon system availability and achieve optimum costs across the enterprise. CBM+ is
the application and integration of processes, technologies, and knowledge-based
capabilities to improve the reliability and maintenance effectiveness of DoD systems and
components. At its core, CBM+ is maintenance performed based on evidence of need.

CBM+ is built upon RCM and condition-based maintenance to enhance safety, increase
maintenance efficiency, improve availability, and ensure environmental integrity.

CBM+ diminishes life-cycle costs by reducing unscheduled maintenance and enabling

predictive maintenance.

1
 CBM+ turns rich data into information about component, weapon system, and fleet
conditions to more accurately forecast maintenance requirements and future weapon
system readiness to drive process cost efficiencies and enterprise activity outcomes” 1

CBM+ encompasses an architecture that enhances the principles of RCM and CBM by
incorporating enablers, tools, and technologies, that increase maintenance effectiveness and
improve materiel availability and operational readiness. CBM+ uses a systems-engineering
approach to collect data, enable analysis, and support the decision-making processes for
system acquisition, sustainment, and operations. CBM+ facilitates the development of the
appropriate maintenance strategies and maintenance plans utilizing all levels of maintenance
found along the maintenance continuum, Figure 1, ultimately improving operational
effectiveness.

Figure 1 - The Maintenance Continuum

1.2.2. Why Change?

The sustainment aspects of a weapon system’s life cycle are key to ensuring their
availability and readiness in support of our National Defense Strategies. Innovation is the
cornerstone of how we will provide better, cheaper, faster, more precise, and safer
sustainment and readiness of DoD weapon systems.

The life-cycle impact is clear when operations and support (O&S) costs are compared to
total ownership costs, as shown in Figure 2.

1
DoDI 4151.22, Conditioned Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) for Materiel Maintenance, 14 August 2020

2
 A B C 65-80% of the Life-Cycle Cost
t
en
t m
ep t gy op n &
nc men lo ent el atio n
tio nt
o
C ne
Re
fi
o
n m
ch op
v
De nst
r
uc me
od loy
Operations & Support
Te vel em o r
st em P ep
De Sy & D D

Design FRP
Concept
Decision Readiness Decision IOC FOC
Review Review

Pre-Systems Systems Systems

Acquisition Acquisition Sustainment

RDT&E Funds

Procurement Funds

Operations & Maintenance Funds

Figure 2 - Life Cycle Costs

DoD has identified warfighter expectations and seeks to conduct support operations in a
more effective as well as fiscally responsible manner. Under the umbrella of Product Support
(PS), the sustainment of a weapon system receives increased attention from Service leadership
and program managers. A Product Support Strategy (PSS) establishes clear responsibilities
and accountability for meeting warfighter expectations. It sets goals, tracks progress and
status, and balances resources to accomplish desired material readiness. CBM+, in concert
with the other PS tools (Continuous Process Improvement [CPI], cause-and-effect predictive
modeling and simulation [M&S], and desired outcomes achieved through Performance Based
Logistics [PBL]), will enhance materiel readiness. Figure 3 displays the relationship of these tools
to the PSS.

3
 Figure 3 - Product Support Strategy

CBM+ supports the larger DoD improvement efforts of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD[A&S]), with the goal of delivering cost-effective joint
logistics performance by maximizing weapon system and equipment availability through more
effective logistics processes. The strategy fully supports these broad, long-term goals
articulated in the A&S Strategy Roadmap: 2

 Enable innovative acquisition approaches that deliver warfighting capability at the

speed of relevance.

 Build a safe, secure, and resilient Defense Industrial Base (commercial and organic).

 Ensure safe and resilient DoD installations.

 Increase weapon system Mission Capability while reducing operating cost.

 Promote Acquisition & Sustainment initiatives with key international partners.

 Recruit, develop, and retain a diverse Acquisition & Sustainment workforce.

 Capable, efficient, and cost-effective installations.

To satisfy these goals and achieve its future materiel maintenance requirements, DoD
must:

 engage early-on in the acquisition process to identify and incorporate CBM+ enabling
technologies into new weapon systems;

 evaluate fielded weapons systems for opportunities to inject CBM+ enabling

technologies when supported by life-cycle readiness and cost analyses;

2
USD(A&S), Strategy Roadmap, April 2020.

4
  enhance materiel availability at the best possible cost by establishing integrated,
predictive maintenance approaches that minimize unscheduled repairs;

 eliminate unnecessary maintenance activity;

 employ the most cost-effective maintenance health management approaches and;

 integrate with supply chain operations to deliver the right parts to the right place at the
right time.

To meet these challenges, DoD management, as well as Congressional leaders, are

paying specific attention to the implementation and operationalizing of CBM+ into DoD weapon
systems and equipment, and the execution of CBM+ across the Services during the
sustainment life cycle.

1.2.3. CBM+ History

CBM+ was originally developed as a DoD initiative to provide a focus for a broad variety
of maintenance improvements that would benefit both the maintainer and the warfighter. It was
established to expand upon the tenets of reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) and condition-
based maintenance (CBM). It encompasses other technologies, processes, and procedures
that enable improved maintenance and logistics practices. 3

CBM is defined as an established approach to identifying and scheduling maintenance

tasks. It employs continuous or periodic assessment of weapon system condition using sensors
or external tests and measurements through first-hand observation or portable equipment. The
goal of CBM is to perform maintenance only when there is evidence of need. Synergy from
integrating the enabling CBM+ capabilities build upon the foundation of CBM. CBM+ continues
to evolve from this original concept into the maintenance improvement strategy that is discussed
in this Guidebook.

CBM+ includes a conscious effort to shift equipment maintenance from an unscheduled,

reactive approach at the time of failure to a more proactive and predictive approach that is driven by
condition sensing and integrated, analysis-based decisions. CBM+ focuses on inserting
technologies that improve maintenance capabilities and processes into both new and legacy
weapon systems and integrates the support elements to enable enhanced maintenance-centric

3
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness), Memorandum for the
Secretaries of the Military Departments, “Condition Based Maintenance Plus,” November 25, 2002.

5
logistics system responses. With more accurate predictions of impending failures (based on real-
time condition data), coupled with more timely and effective repairs, moving toward CBM+ will result
in dramatic savings—in time and money—and improved weapon system availability and
performance. CBM+ uses modern maintenance tools, technologies, and processes to detect the
early indications of a fault or impending failure to allow time for maintenance and supply channels to
react and minimize the impact on system operational readiness and life-cycle costs. CBM+
provides a means of optimizing the approach to maintenance and is a vehicle to reduce scheduled
maintenance requirements. The flexibility and optimization of maintenance tasks with CBM+ also
optimizes requirements for maintenance manpower, facilities, equipment, and other maintenance
resources.

CBM+ is not a single process. It is a comprehensive strategy to select, integrate, and

focus a number of process improvement capabilities, thereby enabling maintenance managers
and their customers to attain the desired levels of system and equipment readiness in the most
cost-effective manner across the total life cycle of the weapon system. CBM+ includes a variety
of interrelated and independent capabilities and initiatives—some procedural and some
technical—that can enhance maintenance planning and execution. At its core, CBM+ is
maintenance performed upon evidence of need provided by RCM analyses and other enabling
processes and technologies. Advanced engineering, maintenance, and information system
technologies, as well as contemporary business processes that underpin CBM+, fit in categories
as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - CBM+

6
CBM+ includes, but is not limited to, the following examples:

 Hardware / Software—system health monitoring and management using embedded

sensors; integrated data buses; decision support and analysis capabilities both on
and off equipment; appropriate use of diagnostics and prognostics; automated
maintenance information generation and retrieval.

 Tools—integrated electronic technical manuals (IETMS) (i.e., digitized data);

automatic identification technology (AIT); item-unique identification (IUID); portable
maintenance aids (PMAs); embedded, data-based, interactive training.

 Communications—databases; off-board interactive communication links.

 Design—open system architectures; integration of maintenance and logistics

information systems; interfaces with operational systems; designing systems that
require minimum maintenance; enabling maintenance decisions based on equipment
condition.

 Processes—RCM analyses; a balance of corrective, preventive, and predictive

maintenance processes; trend-based reliability and process improvements; integrated
information systems providing logistics system response; CPI; serialized item
management.

 Functionality—low ambiguity fault detection, isolation, and prediction; optimized

maintenance requirements and reduced logistics support footprints; configuration
management and asset visibility.

1.2.4. Achieving More Effective Maintenance

To satisfy the requirements of a changing National Defense Strategy, maintenance

managers are challenged to apply CPI 4 concepts and tools to improve maintenance agility and
responsiveness. The goal is to increase operational availability and readiness and to reduce life-
cycle total ownership costs by performing only the required repairs at the optimum time, and by
reducing stocks of spares and repair parts to support maintenance operations. CBM+ supports
these objectives by encouraging the Services to employ health monitoring technology and
reliability analysis, such as RCM, to optimize operations and supportability of major systems.

4
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Continuous Process Improvement Transformation Guidebook, May 2006.

7
More effective maintenance requires a change in the culture of the maintenance community from
a primarily reactive maintenance philosophy to a predictive and proactive, planned maintenance
philosophy. This shift moves us from an environment primarily consisting of unscheduled
maintenance to one where scheduled maintenance is the dominant element and is managed to
support operational requirements (see figure 5). In this sense, initiatives like CBM+ must adopt a
dynamic approach for evolving a set of capabilities, as opposed to perfect planning, development
of comprehensive requirements, or comprehensive reengineering.

Scheduled
“Hard-time”
Maintenance

Preventive
Predictive

Corrective

En
Unscheduled
abl
Maintenance
ed
thr
oug Leads to a smaller overall
maintenance requirement
hC
BM +
Less
Preventive
More
Predictive
Less
Corrective

Figure 5 - Maintenance Transition

CBM+ initiatives include fully developed technologies and processes that can be
implemented now as well as yet-to-be developed capabilities. CBM+ also uses proof-of-
concept and prototype activity that can be applied incrementally, not waiting for a single solution
package. To maintain consistency, CBM+ development should be based on a broad
architecture and an enterprise framework that is open to modification and can be easily
adjusted.

1.2.5. Goals of CBM+

CBM+ represents a continuous development of maintenance processes and procedures

that improve capabilities, practices, and technologies. CBM+ is a part of the transformation of

8
maintenance practices from the Industrial Age to the Information Age through the appropriate
use of emerging technologies to analyze near-real-time and historical weapon systems data to
provide a predictive maintenance capability. The challenge of CBM+ is to provide tangible
effects to DoD operations across all categories of equipment.

CBM+ is an opportunity to improve business processes, with the principal objective

being improved maintenance performance across a broad range of benefits, including greater
productivity, shorter maintenance cycles, lower costs, increased quality of the process, better
availability, and enhanced reliability of materiel resources.

Under the PSS concept, the sustainability and energy key performance parameters
(KPPs) are critical to a program’s success. The KPP metrics and supporting key system
attributes (KSAs) are defined as follows:

 Sustainment KPP. This KPP is supported by elements that provide an integrated

structure to balance sustainability with capability and affordability across the life
cycle. The two elements of the sustainment KPP are Materiel Availability and
Operational Availability.

o Materiel availability (Am) is a measure of the percentage of the total inventory

of a system that is operationally capable (ready for tasking) of performing an
assigned mission at a given time, based on materiel condition. It can be
expressed mathematically as the number of operational end items divided by
the total population.

o Operational Availability (Ao) is a measure of the percentage of time that a

system or group of systems within a unit are operationally capable of
performing an assigned mission. This value can be expressed as uptime
divided by the sum of uptime and downtime (uptime / uptime + downtime).

 Energy KPP. Energy performance (EP) is a key component of system and unit
performance and relates to the required energy consumption needed to perform
functions or tasks in operational modes, mission profiles and durations, and
environmental conditions. Demands for fuel and electric power in capability solutions
will be optimized, because they directly affect the demand on the force to provide and
protect critical energy supplies. System fuel and electric power demands, and
operation when not connected to main utilities or when not receiving supply

9
 supporting the extended periods that are consistent with support for strategic analysis
products, will be included.

 Reliability KSA. Reliability is measured by evaluating Mission Reliability (MR) and

Logistics Reliability (LR). Mission Reliability is a measure of the ability of an item to
perform its required function for the duration of a specified mission. Logistics Reliability
is a measure of the ability of an item to operate without placing a demand on the
logistics support infrastructure for repair or adjustment. Both of these metrics are
design metrics that are considered to have the most impact on a program’s operational
availability and ownership costs.

 Ownership Cost (OC) KSA. This KSA addresses the balance of the sustainment
solution by ensuring the O&S costs associated with materiel readiness are
considered when making decisions. For consistency, and to capitalize on existing
efforts in this area, the Cost Analysis Improvement Group’s O&S Cost Estimating
Structure supports this key system attribute.

 Maintainability (MX) KSA. This KSA looks at the corrective maintenance and
maintenance burden. Corrective maintenance looks at all of the actions that are
performed as a result of any failure, to restore a system, subsystem, or component to
a required condition. Maintenance burden is an evaluation of a systems
maintainability related to the demand for maintenance manpower.

 Mean down time (MDT) is the average total time required to restore an asset to its full
operational capabilities. MDT includes the time from reporting of an asset being down
to the asset being given back to operations or production to operate. 5

The relationship between various CBM+ objectives and these metrics is shown in Table 1.

5
Mean down time has been identified as an important metric to measure operational availability.

10
 Am Ao EP MR OR OC MX MDT

Enhance maintenance effectiveness with integrated X X

maintenance and logistics systems

Incorporate advanced engineering, maintenance, X

logistics/supply chain, configuration management, and
information technologies

Employ weapon system designs that use measurable, X

consistent, and accurate predictive parameters from
embedded CBM+ capabilities

Improve data about maintenance operations and X X

parts/system performance

Improve advanced diagnostics, system prognostics, and X X X X

health management capabilities based on current
condition data

Provide more accurate item tracking capabilities X

Reduce maintenance requirements by performing X X

maintenance tasks only upon evidence of need (more
proactive/predictive, less preventive and less corrective)

Enable more effective maintenance training X

Create a smaller maintenance and logistic footprint X

Improve maintenance capabilities, business processes, X

supply/maintenance planning, and responsiveness
leading to optimum weapon system availability

Minimize unique support equipment and information X

systems for individual weapon systems

Improve system maintainability as a part of design X X

modification through the use of reliability analysis

Provide interoperability/jointness to the warfighter X X

Table 1 - CBM+ Objectives and Metrics

11
Continual improvements resulting in increased readiness, technology enhancements, or new
processes must be acquired or developed. These improvements often result in the use of
resources that are always limited. Even with a policy that requires its implementation, CBM+ must
“buy its way” into a program. Service leadership and the program and support managers want to do
the right thing for the warfighter, but a return on the investment must be identified and justified. In
the long run, any Service effort to develop and deploy CBM+ should be leveraged to support other
platforms and programs and joint activities.

1.2.6 Benefits of CBM+

This Guidebook brings together many different ingredients required for a successful
CBM+ strategy. CBM+ offers a multitude of benefits that enhance maintenance practices and
system performance. These include:

• Greater Productivity: CBM+ optimizes maintenance processes, reducing unnecessary

downtime. Maintenance personnel focus on critical tasks improving overall productivity.
• Shorter Maintenance Cycles: Predictive maintenance minimizes lead time for repair.
CBM+ ensures timely interventions and reduces system outages.
• Lower Costs: Evidence-based maintenance avoids unnecessary actions.
• Increased Quality: CBM+ integrates data-driven decision-making. Maintenance actions
are aligned with actual requirements.
• Better Availability: CBM+ maximizes system uptime. Components receive attention only
when needed.
• Enhanced Reliability of Materiel Resources: CBM+ ensures that systems remain reliable
by performing interventions on a proactive approach that helps prevent unexpected
failures.

This Guidebook also describes the actions necessary to integrate these component
elements into an operational capability for more effective and efficient support of the operational
customer—the warfighter. The benefits to the warfighter can best be described within the
context of three levels (tactical, operational, and strategic): 6

6
Levels are defined in CJCSM 3500.04D, Universal Joint Task List, 1 August 2005, Enclosure B,
Appendix A.

12
  At the tactical level, CBM+ may mean new tools, test equipment, and embedded on-
board diagnostics. These tools take advantage of current and emerging commercial
and diagnostic technologies that translate system condition data (such as
temperature, vibration, cycle-time) in combination with environmental factors (like
desert, arctic, and high humidity) into proactive maintenance actions that are
performed only when there is evidence of actual need. With CBM+, maintainers can
convert weapon system or equipment condition data into proactive maintenance
actions. Scheduled inspections are supplemented or replaced because maintainers
will have analytical data that describes the condition of the weapon system and its
components.

 To the commander at the operational level, CBM+ brings the ability to meet mission
requirements and increase weapon system availability. CBM+ provides
commanders, mission planners, and logistics providers with information that enables
better maintenance decision making and mission assignment. CBM+ supports
Focused Logistics by enhancing command situational awareness at the weapon
system level.

 While some CBM+ features are installed at individual platform level, the benefits of
CBM+ are most effectively achieved when an entire fleet is incorporated, and the
information is leveraged. At the strategic level, CBM+ identifies maintenance actions
based on a near-real-time assessment of equipment status from diagnostic sensors,
equipment, and maintenance documentation. Data collected be it from embedded
sensors, such as health and usage monitoring systems, or maintainer documentation
are then translated into predictive trends or metrics that anticipate when component
failures will occur and identifies components that may require redesign or
replacement to reduce high-failure rates. Common use of items and data among the
Services on like systems will greatly reduce logistics footprints and costs.

1.2.7 CBM+ End State Vision

The Services have been directed to incorporate their CBM+ strategies into appropriate
guidance and directives to ensure implementation in organic (i.e., DoD in-house) maintenance
capabilities and operations as well as in commercially supported DoD systems and programs for
both new and legacy weapon systems. Institutionalization of the CBM+ strategy in relevant

13
regulatory publications is the first step toward attaining the ultimate end state. The envisioned
CBM+ operational environment will occur from the individual component to the platform level, in
training courses, and in deployed environments. Initially, Defense Acquisition Programs will
exploit CBM+ opportunities as elements of system performance requirements during the design
and development phase and throughout the life cycle.

Once implemented, CBM+ will be the primary reliability driver in DoD’s Product Support
Strategy. In concert with the other PS enablers (such as CPI, cause-and-effect predictive
modeling, and desired outcomes achieved through PBL), the implemented CBM+ strategy will
help optimize key performance measures of materiel readiness—MA, OA, EP, MR, LR, OC,
MX, and MDT. Ideally, the desired CBM+ end state is a trained force of maintainers from the
tactical field technician to the strategic system analyst working in an interoperable environment
to maintain complex systems using CBM+ processes and technologies. Fully implemented,
CBM+ improves maintenance decisions and helps integrate all functional aspects of life-cycle
management processes (such as funding, acquisition, distribution, supply chain management,
and system engineering).

1.2.8 How to Use This Guidebook

CBM+ is a key component of the CPI initiative. This Guidebook should be used as a
reference to assist those interested in learning more about the CBM+ strategy and, more
particularly, those charged with implementation of CBM+ as a CPI initiative to improve
maintenance and related processes. The Guidebook presents key elements and
implementation strategies for achieving incorporation of CBM+ enablers into the DoD
maintenance process.

The Guidebook is designed to allow the reader to research subject matter based upon
their experience or knowledge level and expertise in CBM+:

 Section 2 discusses CBM+ Implementation Prerequisites (“DoD Maintenance

Programs” and “Examples of Component CBM+ Initiatives”).

 Section 3 outlines the essential elements of CBM+ and how it can be implemented
effectively. Section 3 should be used as a reference for maintenance managers just
getting acquainted with CBM+.

 Section 4 summarizes the basic implementation steps for a CBM+ initiative or project.

14
  Section 5 describes the basic management approach for CBM+ and is intended for
use by the experienced CBM+ manager.

 Section 6 summarizes the basic metrics to be used for any CBM+ initiative.

Each section of the Guidebook starts with a checklist of potential points or questions that
relate to the subject matter. These checklists have been prepared at a high level for use by the
CBM+ implementer as a reference. The basic content of the checklists forms a “game plan” to
assist the readers in formulating their own CBM+ implementation strategies tailored to their
requirements and objectives.

The Guidebook does not contain an in-depth description of all possible details regarding
CBM+ implementation. It will be useful to the CBM+ implementer in selecting and adopting a broad
range of enabling hardware, software, and other tools necessary to facilitate maintenance
improvement efforts.

Anyone interested in learning more about this subject should also review the following:

 The DoD Senior-level Sustainment Leaders, through a supporting Working Group

(WG), monitors and coordinates the CBM+ strategy through research and projects.
The CBM+ WG Charter

o encourages new maintenance technologies and processes;

o investigates CBM+ efforts in selected Service programs;

o reviews Service CBM+ plans;

o shares and tracks CBM+ information and highlights CBM+ activities across both
DoD and the commercial sector.

 A CBM+ baseline was established by an LMI survey of select DoD programs within
the Services to identify the CBM+ technologies and tools of most interest to the
program managers and limited discussions with commercial firms. 7 To view the
above report and to obtain the most current information on the DoD’s CBM+ initiative
and the CBM+ WG, see https://www.acq.osd.mil/log/MR/cbm+.html

This Guidebook is an evolving document as more individuals and organizations focus on

improving their maintenance processes through new technologies, practices, and processes.

7
LMI, CBM+ Survey of Select Programs, Report LG301T6, D. Cutter and O. Thompson, January 2005.

15
Comments and suggestions to improve this Guidebook are welcome by emailing us at: OSDAS-
[email protected].

16
2 CBM+ Implementation Prerequisites

When you begin to think about implementing CBM+, you need to ensure that you’ve
prepared yourself and your workforce for the change. It is also important to ensure that you’ve
evaluated the existing maintenance program and the processes that are currently in use. Doing
this initial prerequisite work will help inform the decisions you make later as you implement
CBM+ principles into your program. Table 2 summarizes the essential information and provides
some key questions you should answer.

1. Have I thoroughly reviewed the CBM+ introductory materials in Section 1 and the
addition references in Addendum F to fully understand the basis for developing a
CBM+ strategy?

2. Do I have sufficient background information on CBM+ to assess the current

maintenance program in my organization regarding this strategy?

3. Does the CBM+ implementation team fully understand the reasons for transitioning
from current maintenance approaches to a CBM+ environment?

4. Is additional research and training needed to familiarize myself and team members
with CBM+ background, policies, technologies, or other relevant information?

5. Do I have adequate training for myself and the team and has it been accomplished?

6. Have I reviewed ongoing DoD and Service CBM+ programs to understand the status,
characteristics, and issues associated with these efforts?
Table 2 - CBM+ Strategy Checklist

2.1 DoD Maintenance Programs

Maintenance programs for DoD materiel shall be structured and managed to achieve
inherent performance, safety, and reliability levels of the materiel. Maintenance tasks restore
safety and reliability to their inherent levels when deterioration has occurred. Maintenance
programs are structured for meeting readiness and sustainability objectives (including
mobilization and surge capabilities) of national defense strategic and contingency requirements.
In addition, maintenance programs shall employ maintenance concepts that optimize process
technologies, organizational structures, and operating concepts to deliver efficient and effective
performance to the operating forces. 8

2.1.1 The Advantages of Proactive Maintenance

8
DoD Directive 4151.18, Maintenance of Military Materiel, August 31, 2018.

17
 Maintenance can be performed using a wide variety of approaches. Two main categories of
maintenance – reactive and proactive – describe the full range of options available.

• Reactive maintenance (also called corrective maintenance) is performed for items that
are selected to tun to failure or those that fail in an unplanned or unscheduled manner.
An item may be on a schedule for periodic maintenance, but if it fails prematurely, it will
require maintenance to fix. Reactive maintenance of a reparable item is almost
unscheduled in the sense the failure occurred unpredictably. Reactive maintenance
restores an item to a serviceable condition after the failure has occurred.

• Proactive maintenance is considered either preventive, predictive, or detective in nature

and the maintenance performed can range from an inspection, test, or servicing to a
complete overhaul or replacement.

o Preventive or scheduled maintenance can be accomplished using an interval-

based schedule. This interval could be a set number of calendar periods,
equipment operating time, or a cycle (such as number of starts, air vehicle
landings, rounds fired, or miles driven). Preventive maintenance may be either
scheduled or, alternatively, triggered after detection of a condition that may lead
to failure or degradation of functionality of the weapon system, equipment, or
component.

o Predictive maintenance can be categorized as either diagnostic or prognostic.

Diagnostics identify an impending failure, while prognostics add the capability to
create a reliable forecast of the remaining useful life. A reliable forecast of the
remaining useful life is an obvious benefit to enable optimum mission readiness
and maintenance planning.

o Detective maintenance (also known as failure finding) determines if a protective

device is still working and thus, will be capable of providing protection in the
event that the protected function fails. These are categorized separately in that
that a failure would not otherwise be evident to the operator. They are commonly
referred to as “hidden failures.”

More information on the development of maintenance programs and requirements can

be found in DoD Directive 4151.18, “Maintenance of Military Materiel,” DoD Instruction 4151.22,
“Condition-Based Maintenance Plus for Materiel Maintenance,” and DoD Manual 4151.25,
“Reliability-Centered Maintenance.”
Proactive maintenance can help ensure that the equipment will perform as designed.
Proactive maintenance actions, like lubrication and filter changes, or even more extensive
replacement of failure causing parts, will generally allow the equipment to run more efficiently
and meet designed service lives, resulting in greater readiness and potential cost savings.
While it will not prevent all potential end item failures, proactive maintenance can decrease the
number of failures and overall equipment downtime. Minimizing these failures translates into
savings both in maintenance and future capital equipment replacement costs. When failure
does occur or is imminent, corrective maintenance will be required.

18
2.1.2 Reactive and Proactive Maintenance Approaches

There are a wide range of maintenance approaches that can be used to structure a
maintenance program, including the use of CBM as part of a predictive maintenance process.
Figure 6 illustrates this range.
Maintenance Approaches
Reactive Proactive
Category Run-to-fail Preventive Predictive Detective
Scheduled
Sub-Category Fix when it breaks Diagnostic Prognostic Hidden Failures
Maintenance
Maintenance based Maintenance Integrated into
No scheduled on a fixed time Maintenance based based on forecast scheduled
When Scheduled
Maintenance schedule for inspect, on current condition of remaining maintenance
repair, and overhaul equipment life activities
Intolerable failure
effect and it is Maintenance Potential failure of
possible to prevent Maintenance need is projected protective devices
Why Scheduled N/A the failure effect scheduled is based as probable not readily
through a scheduled on evidence of need within mission identifiable to the
replacement or time operator
overhaul
Inserted into
Based on the useful Forecasting of
Continuous preventive
life of the component remaining
collection of maintenance plans
How Scheduled N/A forecasted during equipment life
condition monitoring at interval to
design and updated based on actual
data mitigate protected
through experience operating context
device failure
On- and off-system On- and off
Kind of Prediction None None near-real-time trend system real-time None
analysis trend analysis

Figure 6 - Maintenance Approaches

In the past, the alternative to reactive maintenance has most often been time-based or
scheduled preventive maintenance. Under this approach, major maintenance often occurs
based on pre-determined time intervals generally expressed in months or other time periods.
Maintenance actions are triggered primarily by time intervals that are based on average
historical failure rates, engineering estimates, or predetermined time cycles. Many current
maintenance activities rely on time or operation intervals for services that are labor intensive
and fail to address specific conditions driven by environmental and operational factors. While
time-driven maintenance attempts to attain a predictive approach, if falls short of a true
predictive strategy triggered by the assessment of actual equipment condition.

Although there are multiple approaches to accomplishing maintenance of weapon

systems and equipment, DoD sustainment policies prescribe greater reliance on proactive,
predictive strategies, such as providing the best use of available resources to achieve maximum
operational readiness. Each approach to maintenance has positive and negative aspects. For
example, preventive maintenance or timed component change outs may reduce failures, but

19
they could also increase maintenance downtime and consequently decrease operational
availability.
Based on equipment characteristics, operating context, and environment, any one of
these approaches may be useable. Generally, however, the transition to more effective and
proactive maintenance strategies will lead to fewer equipment failures and corresponding
increases in overall equipment life and reduced total life-cycle costs. Figure 7 demonstrates this
objective.

Figure 7 - Evolution of Maintenance Strategy

Using the family of capabilities under CBM+ will improve the detection, prediction, and
pred-failure reaction to potential failure causing conditions. Therefore, CBM+ is a valuable tool
in improving greater use and increased effectiveness of a maintenance program. The basic
intent of this guidebook is to facilitate DoD’s evolution toward greater application of the
predictive and proactive approaches to maintenance using the capabilities inherent in the CBM+
strategy. Figure 8 depicts the overarching concept of reducing the total maintenance
requirement by incorporating CBM+ technologies and practices. Through the CBM+ process,
the equipment’s maintenance plan is modified to include more predictive and proactive actions
while lessening traditional scheduled preventive actions.

20
 Figure 8 - Maintenance Strategy Transition

2.2 Examples of Component CBM+ Initiatives

In 2005, a survey was conducted to capture planned and on-going CBM+ initiatives. An
additional survey to determine maturity of those Service-level programs was conducted in 2017.
The DoD Inspector General conducted an audit in 2021 and the GAO followed with an audit in
2022. Notably, considerable progress has been made by the Military Services in various
aspects of CBM+ implementation. The following is a short summary of select programs that are
benefiting from the use of implementing and executing CBM+ principles.

2.2.1 Army

• Army rotary wing aircraft (namely the CH-47 Chinook, UH-60 Blackhawk, and AH-
64 Apache) have been outfitted with digital source collectors to gather data on
aircraft component and airframe health. The Aviation and Missile Command
reviewed data associated with a series of previous transmission failures to identify
and proactively replace transmissions in ten aircraft assessed to have a high
probability of failure.

• Soldiers from the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division at Ft.
Stewart, GA implemented digitized maintenance processes to conduct maintenance
tasks and fault verification across several of their ground platforms.

21
 • The Army’s Artificial Intelligence Integration Center developed a tool to improve
analytics for Army Aviation units. A fault and failure forecasting model uses historic
records on part replacements to predict the probability of serialized component
replacements on aircraft. Beyond predicting part failure, the tool also aids unit
leaders with prioritizing aircraft daily maintenance actions, tracks parts on order, and
projects anticipated aircraft usage based on flight records.

2.2.2 Navy

• The Fleet Maintenance Effective Review (FLEETMER) and Classic RCM Workshops
incorporate a Naval Sea System Command continuous improvement process that
applies reliability-centered maintenance to current maintenance practices and validates
ship maintenance requirements.

• The Enterprise Resource Monitoring (eRM) is an online automated machinery

condition monitoring and assessment program consisting of shipboard and integrated
shore-based systems currently installed on multiple ship classes.

• The Integrated Logistics Assessment (ILA) process at NAVSEA is used to audit

acquisition programs Maintenance Planning & Management processes. The ILAs
ensure that CBM+ and RCM are integrated into the maintenance planning process for all
weapon systems under development.

2.2.3 Air Force

• The USAF developed and designated Predictive Analytics and Decision Assistant
(PANDA) to be the enterprise system of record for predictive maintenance. This tool
integrates proven data aggregation, data analytics, long range supply forecasting,
predictive failures (eRCM), degradation detection (Sensor Based Algorithms), notifying
and actioning maintenance and predictive fleet health all in one concise software
solution.

• Sensor Based Algorithms (SBAs) are currently deployed across three MDS’s with an
additional five MDSs planned in FY25. Currently, SBAs monitor 5,800+ LRUs for
degradation across 475+ aircraft and are responsible mitigating ~150 unscheduled
maintenance events over the last six months.

• The USAF is collaborating with USSOCOM and AFSOC to augment and enhance data
capture capabilities, developing and delivering Advanced Maintenance and
Troubleshooting System (AMATS) for numerous aircraft variants across the enterprise.

22
2.2.4 Marine Corps

• The USMC has implemented data logging technology into nearly 900 vehicles withing
the JLTV, MTVR, and LVSR families. In FY25, the Corps plans to further expand this
capability adding the loggers to the TRAM, MCT, and HYEX families of vehicles.

• Data from 16 units spanning 3 MEFs is collected into management information systems.
This data is then aggregated and used to construct Enterprise Level Dashboards to track
fleet health and performance.

2.2.5 Program Updates

The occasion and feasibility to apply or insert CBM+ technologies and processes varies
with the maturity and complexity of the weapon system and equipment, the resources available
to accomplish individual initiatives, and the operational performance experienced in the field.
Service CBM+ projects are continually being revised and updated. New pilots are continuously
initiated to evaluate new technologies and capabilities.
1.1.1. Our office works to ensure that information on CBM+ programs, pilots, lessons
learned, and best practices are shared across the Department. Updated
information can often be found on the individual Service websites, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense CBM+ website, or within the Community of Practice for
Sustainment (COP4ST) suite all of which are included in the reference section of
this document.

23
This page intentionally left blank.

24
3. Essential Elements of CBM+

Implementation and execution of CBM+ in DoD activities requires a

comprehensive understanding of the numerous elements and a realization that successful
execution must be accomplished in an integrated fashion, incorporating all, or at least most, of
the key components of the total strategy. This section describes the basic elements of CBM+ in
a structured way and attempts to convey the relationships and interactions among these
elements.
CBM+ elements can be categorized into two primary categories – business/management
and technical, and six subgroups within these two categories. All the CBM+ elements
contribute to the development of the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan of the weapon system or
equipment. The six subgroups are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 - CBM+ Primary Categories and Sub-Groups

25
 Table 3 further summarizes the basic requirements of a comprehensive CBM+ strategy.

1. Understand that CBM+ elements are categorized into two primary groups:
Business/Management and Technical

2. Recognize and understand the primary groups are divided into six subcategories:

Business Management Technical

Policy and doctrine Hardware & Software Infrastructure / Tools
Business strategy DoD architectural framework for CBM+
RCM Relationship Open systems and data strategy

3. Policy and doctrine: Recognize the guidance from senior DoD and Service leadership
covering the requirement to implement and execute CBM+ strategy, the objectives, and
benefits of the effort, who is responsible, and the target end state.

4. Business strategy: Identify the business needs and processes needed to implement
CBM+ objective of improving maintenance effectiveness, and the approach to
accomplishing the CBM+ business case.

5. RCM Relationship: Implement and execute the interactive relationship between RCM, as
the defining process for determining the most effective maintenance strategies, and
CBM+, as the source of methods and technologies to execute the selected maintenance
approaches.

6. Hardware & Software Infrastructure / Tools: Acquire the hardware, software, and human
interface components of the CBM+ strategy. The infrastructure is the physical building
block that must be available to CBM+ practitioners to implement and execute CBM+.

7. DoD Architectural Framework for CBM+: Use the DoD standard methodology for building
and using a structured design for describing the components and interfaces of the overall
CBM+ strategy. The architecture provides a holistic tool for constructing a comprehensive
picture of the entire CBM+ ecosystem.

8. Open systems and data strategy: Acquire technical capabilities and procedures available
to CBM+ practitioners to accomplish the most effective integration of hardware, software,
and data management components. These involve the use of existing commercial and
government standards to facilitate interfaces among hardware data collection and storage
devices, analytical and communications software, and condition monitoring data
repositories.
Table 3 - CBM+ Basic Requirements

26
3.1. Business/Management Elements

Business/Management includes areas that govern or guide the activities needed to

implement and operate a CBM+ strategy in support of a DoD maintenance program. These
areas include policy and doctrine, business strategy, and the RCM relationship.

3.1.1. Policy and Doctrine

As a DoD strategy, CBM+ empowers the Services and
their program managers to pursue and incorporate
maintenance technologies and processes to support the
warfighter more effectively. CBM+ improves system
supportability, leads to more efficient business processes,
and transforms the maintenance environment for both new
and legacy systems.

3.1.1.1. Initial CBM+ Policy Memorandum

The CBM+ strategy was originally promulgated as DoD policy in a memorandum signed
by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness) in November of
2002. This memorandum directed that CBM+ be “implemented to improve maintenance agility
and responsiveness, increase operational availability, and reduce life cycle total ownership
costs.” The policy required the Services and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to “pursue the
examination, evaluation, development and implementation of CBM+ enabling technologies and
process improvements.” Furthermore, “CBM+ technologies and concepts will be incorporated in
organic (DoD in-house) maintenance capabilities and operations as well is in commercially
supported systems/programs.” 9

3.1.1.2. DoD Acquisition Policy

During the initial acquisition process, significantly greater emphasis is being placed on
the responsibility of DoD program managers for providing sustainment support over the total life
cycle. This requires the PMs to take a responsibility for CBM+ implementation and translate
activities into specific requirements that should be included in key performance parameters
(KPPs) that document the implementation throughout a system’s life cycle.
The PM is responsible for approving life-cycle trades throughout the acquisition process.
Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Condition-Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+), see
DoD Manual 4151.25 and DoD Instruction 4151.22, are important initiatives to enable the
performance of maintenance based on evidence of need as provided by RCM analysis and
9
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness), Memorandum for the
Secretaries of the Military Departments, “Condition Based Maintenance Plus,” November 25, 2002.

27
other enabling processes and technologies. Additional guidance for PMs for the full range of
acquisition life-cycle activities, including development of CBM+ capabilities, is contained in the
Acquisition Guidebooks and References. These focused guidebooks can be located at
https://aaf.dau.edu/guidebooks/.
The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Manual provides
information on Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and their
development. The JCIDS Manual can be downloaded (CAC required) at:
https://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/isg/downloads/Manual-JCIDS_30Oct2021.pdf

3.1.1.3. DoD Maintenance Policy Directive

DoD maintenance policy (DoD Directive 4151.18, “Maintenance of Military Materiel”)

requires minimizing maintenance requirements for support equipment, including test,
measurement, and diagnostic equipment. Maintenance programs for military materiel must
utilize diagnostics, prognostics, and health management techniques in embedded and off-
equipment applications when feasible and cost effective. Maintenance programs must provide
the organic maintenance workforce with the range of technological tools necessary to enhance
capabilities (e.g., interactive technical manuals, portable maintenance aids, access to technical
information, and serial item management), to properly equip the workforce, and to provide
adequate technical and managerial training.

3.1.1.4. DoD Policy Instruction

The DoD published the first instruction for CBM+ in December of 2007. The initial policy
remained in place until it was revised in October of 2012. The publication is on its second
revision and was updated in August of 2020. Under DoD Instruction 4151.22 policy, CBM+ is a
strategy to apply and integrate appropriate processes, technologies, and knowledge-based
capabilities to increase operational availability and reduce total life-cycle costs by improving
maintenance effectiveness and responsiveness. CBM+ is based on performing maintenance
only when there is evidence of need obtained from real-time assessments, embedded sensors,
or external measurements. CBM+ uses a system engineering approach to collect data and feed
the decision-making process for operation and weapon system acquisition and sustainment.
DoD activities should establish a CBM+ environment for the maintenance and support of
weapon systems by establishing appropriate processes, procedures, technological capabilities,
information systems, and logistics concepts. For example, this environment will include the
following:

• System health monitoring using applicable and effective embedded sensors, on- and off-
system decision support systems, and analysis tools.

• Condition-driven maintenance actions at the maintainer level directed by decision

support capabilities based on timely and accurate information flow.

28
 • RCM analysis to determine maintenance requirements which drive CBM+.

• Reliability Analysis and Statistical analysis.

• Automatic entry and retrieval of highly accurate maintenance data.

• Integrated maintenance and logistics/supply chain, configuration management, and

financial information systems.

• Configuration management and asset visibility.

• In-service history-based maintenance planning, equipment scheduling, and life usage

tracking (trend analysis).

• Remote diagnostics, subject matter experts, and mentorship arrangements.

• Low ambiguity fault detection, isolation, and prediction.

• Interactive electronic technical manuals (IETMS).

• Open architecture, data-based interactive training, and technical assistance capability.

• Widespread use of electronic portable or point-of-maintenance aids.

• Information feedback among field personnel, weapon system and combat support
developers and materiel support developers.

3.1.1.5. Military Service Policies

To find current policy, please refer to the individual Service website, the DoD
Publications Portal, the JCS Library, the OSD CBM+ website, or the COP4ST application suite.
DoD
DoD Instruction 4151.19, “Serialized Item Management for Life-Cycle Management of
Materiel,” August 31, 2018
DoD Instruction 4151.22, “Condition-Based Plus Maintenance for Materiel Maintenance,”
August 14, 2020
DoD Manual 4151.25, “Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM),” February 16, 2024

Army
Army Regulation 750-1, “Army Materiel Maintenance Policy,” 2 March 2023

Navy
Operations (OPNAV) Instruction 4790.16B “Condition-Based Maintenance and
Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Policy,” 1 October 2015

29
Air Force
AFMC Instruction 21-103, “Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Programs,” 29 July
2021
DAF Instruction 63-101/20-101, “Integrated Life Cycle Management,” 16 February 2024
DAF Instruction 21-101, “Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management,” 8
November 2022
CBM+ Strategic Implementation Plan (CBM+ SIP), May 2023
2030 USAF CBM+ Vision

Marine Corps
Marine Corps Order 4151.22, “Condition-Based Maintenance Plus,” 17 January 2020

30
3.1.2. Business Strategy

The implementation of the CBM+ strategy in DoD

maintenance organizations should not be construed as primarily the
application of new methods and technologies. The basis for CBM+
is more precisely a focus on improving the business process of
maintenance with the principal objective being improved operational
performance through increased maintenance effectiveness in terms
of greater productivity, shorter maintenance cycles, increased quality
of the process, and better utilization of resources. In support of this
requirement, the Product Support Strategy (PSS) concept should be
used as a vehicle for ensuing the elements of CBM+ are fully
considered as early as possible in the acquisition life cycle of a
weapon system or equipment. CBM+ should be viewed as an
element of the PSS, emphasizing an early focus on sustainment with
the system life cycle and part of a comprehensive view of all logistics activities associated with
the fielding, sustainment, and disposal of a DoD weapon system or equipment across its life
cycle.

3.1.2.1. CBM+ as part of the PSS Concept

Life -cycle logistics managers should incorporate the elements of CBM+ in the planning
efforts, beginning as early as possible in the acquisition process. The following are examples of
insertion of CBM+ considerations under PSS at life-cycle milestones.

• Including CBM+ requirements as part of the overall systems engineering strategy.

• Describing CBM+ initiatives in the Product Support Plan documented in the acquisition
strategy.

• Describing CBM+ logistics metrics, criteria, and funding requirements in the Acquisition
Program Baseline.

• Including CBM+ logistics considerations and test points in the Test and Evaluation
Master Plan and continuing testing during the life cycle to leverage future emerging
CBM+ capabilities.

• Including CBM+ initiatives in acquisition documentation such as the Initial Capabilities

Document and the Capabilities Production Document.

• Incorporating the CBM+ strategy in PBL agreements.

• Including CBM+ requirements in productions and sustainment program funding.

• Assessing CBM+ progress in Pre- and Post-Initial Operational Capability Reviews.

31
 • Including CBM+ performance factor in design reviews.

• Including CBM+ evaluation factors in source selection evaluation of new acquisitions.

PSS is discussed further in Sections 5 and 6.

3.1.2.2. CBM+ Business Needs

A principal objective of the CBM+ strategy is to optimize the operational availability of

DoD weapon systems and equipment. This requires a more effective matching of maintenance
capabilities to dynamic mission needs. Attaining the CBM+ objective means a transition from a
reactive or even a time-based maintenance, preventive, approach to a proactive, predictive-
based philosophy. This will require some significant changes in the procedural and systemic
business rules regarding the amount and timing of maintenance actions in the future. To
achieve this objective, maintenance managers must recognize a new business paradigm and
select maintenance actions based on different and, in some cases, more challenging criteria.
The criteria associated with a condition-based approach to maintenance differ significantly from
past business rules. Each Service must determine its own specific maintenance business
strategies based on operational need, mix of facilities, application of technologies, and
availability of skills, organizational structure, and resources.
Validated CBM+ business strategies and related business needs must be resources
through each Service’s Planning, Programming, and Budget Execution (PPBE). This requires
both a marketing effort to obtain stakeholder support and continuing oversight to shepherd the
CBM+ requirement through the resources management process.
Recognizing several fundamental business needs will assist in guiding the
implementation and execution of a CBM+ oriented business environment. The business needs
outlined below provide the foundation for the development of CBM+ organization-specific
business rules:
1. Need to predict equipment failures.
2. Need for a holistic view of equipment condition.
3. Need for greater accuracy in failure prediction.
4. Need to reduce the cost of ownership.
5. Need to improve address equipment and component reliability.
6. Need to reduce equipment mean down time (logistics responsiveness).
7. Need to optimize equipment performance (availability).

These rules should be developed by implementing activities to accommodate the

overarching business needs. The following paragraphs provide further elaboration.

32
3.1.2.2.1. Business Need 1 – Need to Predict Equipment Failures

Different maintenance approaches are focused on different objectives. When in the

reactive mode, the motivator for improvement is the need to respond quickly to equipment and
component failures. In terms of today’s condition monitoring, this means the ability to find,
assess, and fix failures as quickly as possible to return the end item to service. In the future,
however, the primary use of condition monitoring will be to predict (and therefore assist in
avoiding) unplanned equipment failures. Reliability analysis principles have taught us that a
primary aspect of a predictive condition monitoring task is determining the lead time from
detecting and assessing of a condition to the point of failure. Unfortunately, in practice the
ability to detect and assess this deterioration for sophisticated equipment and components is
highly variable. No existing condition monitoring method can give anything but an
approximation of the point of failure.

Application of CBM+ attempts to improve the accuracy and efficiency of failure detection
assessment and reaction to the prediction of a future fault or failure. Improving the ability to
predict failures not only improves maintenance planning but the benefits carry over into related
areas, such as supply support, use of facilities and test equipment, skills management, and
other logistics support elements. Ultimately, this improves warfighter support, including the
ability to convey platform health management status to commanders and staffs for resource
planning, force planning, and situational assessments. Business rules should require maximum
use of predictive maintenance strategies and implementation of CBM+ enablers to improve
failure prediction capabilities.

3.1.2.2.2. Business Need 2 - Need for a Holistic View of Equipment Condition

Opportunities should be identified to minimize total equipment downtime by taking a

holistic view of equipment condition and combining planned maintenance tasks, whenever
possible, into a single availability. For example, if vibration analysis indicates a bearing failure
on a particular pump was imminent, it would be preferable to assess the condition of all the
other components of the pump (such as impeller, seals, and back plate) to determine whether
any of these items should be replaced or refurbished at the same time as the bearings based on
limited remaining life. Overall cost of maintenance should be considered, including availability
and cost of replacement parts, downtime, and labor costs to inspect and refurbish internal
components, and post-repair testing.

A holistic view of equipment condition monitoring requires the integration of:

• Automated condition monitoring inspection results (coverall all condition

monitoring techniques used, such as vibration analysis, oil analysis, and
thermography).

• visual inspection results.

• fixed interval “preventive”.

• opportunistic maintenance.

33
 • equipment performance monitoring; and

• data analytics enhanced with artificial intelligence and machine learning.

This integration is made more difficult because the data in each of these areas
traditionally has been kept in different information systems. Implementation of the CBM+ data
warehouse concept (see discussion on page 52) may help alleviate this issue. Business rules
should require the full range of monitoring capabilities to ensure full accuracy and timeliness of
condition monitoring results.

3.1.2.2.3. Business Need 3 – Need for Greater Accuracy in Failure Prediction

Even if a completely holistic approach to equipment condition is not taken, there are still
significant benefits from integrating process operating data with condition monitoring analysis.
The need is to incorporate operation environment and mission factors into customized failure
predictions for individual systems. For example, certain electric motors will display higher
vibration when operating under low loads that when they are operating under high loads. Yet, in
the traditional methods of vibration analysis, and using periodically collected data from a hand-
held data collector, these variations are not effectively considered, except perhaps in a
qualitative manner. If quantitative data can be collected regarding the “process conditions” that
existed at the time the vibration data was collected, and correct the vibration data for those
conditions, then the diagnostic capability would become far more accurate and sensitive. The
sophistication of maintenance models has increased with the growth in the complexity of
modern systems, which in turn has increased the complexity and capability of the analysis and
solution generation procedures. This means that as the ability improves to collect and store
greater amounts of more accurate condition data, the analytical software algorithms can deliver
increasingly more accurate predictions of failure and related information.

To achieve greater integration, CBM+ suggests tying together various data sources, or
at the very least, interfacing data sources and analytical systems using common standard
protocols. Modern CBM+ analytic software should offer integrated condition monitoring and
analysis capability, which permits the effective integration of different forms of analysis and
other condition data into combined management information reports. Statistical analysis tools
and CPI should be considered.

Moore’s Law 10 applies here. The good news is that the costs of increased “on-system”
signal processing power are decreasing dramatically. When fully implemented, smart sensor
technology will greatly reduce the complexity of linking the outputs of these sensors to process
control and analysis systems. More and more equipment will be able to be monitored
continuously, on-line, and operators will be able to assess, quickly and easily, the current, and
perhaps the future condition of components of equipment. Business rules should require
prudent investment in sensor, data collection, and analytic capabilities to minimize condition
monitoring and failure analysis errors.

10
The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per
square inch on integrated circuits has doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. More
predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future.

34
3.1.2.2.4. Business Need 4 – Need to Reduce the Cost of Ownership

For CBM+ to be successful, the algorithms that are used both on and off systems to
process condition data must be accurate, reliable, and cost effective in assessing equipment
condition and predicting equipment failure. In the early days of sensor analysis, accurate
diagnosis of equipment failure was largely dependent on the skill and experience of individual
human analysts. However, with the development of more effective analysis software, the full
reliance on a highly skilled analyst has been reduced. While individual skill is still important –
particularly for more complex analysis – the capability of analysis software to generate trends,
as well as various forms of user-set alarm levels, has made the “first-pass” assessment of
failure problem easier which offers the potential to reduce the cost of ownership.

Some vendors also offer so-called “expert” systems for fault diagnosis. At present,
these expert systems are still essentially rule-based systems, and like all rule-based systems,
the results are only as good as the rule that have been established within the system.
Nevertheless, if smart sensor technology is to work, and if widespread on-line condition
monitoring is to proliferate, the develop and application of better and more accurate “expert”
software is essential.

The impact of these improvements in failure diagnosis software will be two-fold. First, it
will improve the consistency and accuracy of failure diagnosis. Second, it will reduce the labor
required to assess equipment condition. Some organizations already use a rudimentary “first-
pass” vibration or oil analyses that are conducted by equipment operators to determine whether
a particular item of equipment has a problem. Only after a problem is identified, does the
condition-monitoring technician become involved in conducting a more detailed analysis and
diagnosis.

With the advent of more sophisticated condition assessment software and more efficient
storage and communication capabilities, the costs of CBM+ relative to benefits should
decrease. This is particularly true when the broader implications of CBM+ cost-reduction
opportunities are considered. For example, accurate failure prediction would streamline supply
chain operations by reducing administrative downtime associated with acquiring spares and
repair parts. CBM+ will support “root cause” analyses to identify the underlying causes of
equipment failure and assist in designing “fixes” to significantly reduce or eliminate related
failures. Business rules should require development of a reasonable business case and
application of the results of such analyses to ensure the most efficient return on investment from
a CBM+ initiative.

3.1.2.2.5. Business Need 5 – Need to Improve Equipment and Component Reliability

Once an effective condition-based set of maintenance tasks has been established within
an organization, several opportunities for improvement exist:

• Progressive monitoring and increased intervals between repetitive inspection type

maintenance tasks.

35
 • Examination of “shop findings” from equipment repair tasks to adjust maintenance
standards and tolerances or by improving the precision (frequency and quality) with
which maintenance is performed, thereby taking advantage of the equipment or
component’s inherent level of reliability.
• Identification of opportunities for equipment modifications or component replacement
with more reliable items or with redundant capabilities that will significantly improve
operating reliability, maintainability, and supportability.
CBM+ can enhance these opportunities in several ways, including designing in sensor
capabilities, built-in-tests, and built-in-self-test mechanisms to support identification of failure
patterns, rigorous condition assessments, and provision of performance data that can assist in
justifying investments in equipment or component reliability.

Traditionally, condition analysis has consisted of assessing the causes of failure and
then comparing these with some (often arbitrarily determined) warning or alarm levels, above
which some preventive or corrective action is required. Because there is a strong correlation
between out-of-tolerance condition and equipment or component life, a more rigorous method of
determining condition alarm levels will help decision makers trade-off investment in increased
reliability and investment in additional maintenance. This assessment will require consideration
of such factors as

• criteria for changes to design and capability.

• the consequences of failure (in terms of increased costs, lost productivity, safety, or
environmental impact).

• the cost trade-offs between more frequent, and more rigorous condition monitoring, and
improved component or equipment design to increase reliability; and

• underlying maintenance and operating conditions.

By applying CBM+ to implement an additional level of sophistication above what is currently

applied by condition-monitoring practitioners, decisions regarding improving reliability or revising
maintenance approaches will facilitate a more effective equipment management process.
Business rules should require full availability and consideration of condition-monitoring analysis
information as part of the justification to significantly invest in reliability improvements or to make
major changes in equipment maintenance approaches.

3.1.2.2.6. Business Need 6 – Need to Reduce System Mean Down Time (Logistics
Responsiveness)

The increased efficiency of the maintenance process attainable through implementation

and execution of CBM+ should be evidenced by significant reduction in overall mean down
times for those systems and component where CBM+ capabilities are instantiated. DoD policy
defines mean down time as “the average time a system is unavailable for use due to either
corrective or preventive maintenance; time includes actual repair time and all delay times.”
Application of the mean down time metric to assess the impact of the CBM+ initiative is

36
particularly appropriate because this metric establishes a direct relationship between the
selection of alternative maintenance strategies and the attainment of desired levels of logistics
responsiveness, overall maintenance costs are optimized, and systems availability is increased.
Meeting these business needs ultimately results in greater customer satisfaction. Specific
business rules should be developed to track the reduction of system and component mean
down time.

3.1.2.2.7. Business Need 7 – Need to Optimize Equipment Availability

Improved condition monitoring goes hand-in-hand with improved performance

management. In many instances the same factors measured in determining equipment and
component condition are also assessed in determining the levels of performance (e.g., speed,
operating times, endurance, and lift capability) that can be attained by a given weapon system
or equipment. For example, steam turbines measure performance based on temperature,
pressure, power output, and others. These are some of the same measures used to determine
turbine condition and the specific faults that may require attention. This type of monitoring is
becoming more widespread on large equipment like DoD weapon systems.

As automated condition monitoring is made more cost-effective through CBM+, the

interaction between condition analysis and operational performance (i.e., system availability) will
become more obvious to both operators and maintainers. Improved condition-monitoring
capabilities such as the use of digital twins and modeling and simulation tools may also impact
equipment design by reducing the need for some component redundancies and improving
maintenance strategies and approaches.

Exploiting the relationship of the CBM+ strategy implementation to assess both logistics
responsiveness and system availability (Business Needs 6 and 7) becomes another key
element of the CBM+ business strategy. Business rules should require development and use of
metrics driven by condition-based information as part of the responsiveness and performance
components of a balanced assessment program.

3.1.2.3. Making a CBM+ Business Case

The business needs outlined above will help maintainers formulate business rules for
day-to-day application of CBM+ capabilities; however, they still need to recognize that
implementing new processes, practices, and technologies also brings an inherent requirement
for additional resources. CBM+ initiatives must be cost-effective because it is conceivable that
a particular application or supporting process could be more expensive to install that the
projected benefits for the application. Therefore, CBM+ implementation requires a management
decision to invest in the elements that are needed to facilitate the transition to a predictive,
condition-based environment as described in this guidebook. The decision-maker needs timely,
consistent, complete, and accurate information. The business case facilitates decisions that are
consistent with the organization’s goals and mission objectives. It provides a formal yet flexible
system to manage individual initiatives more efficiently and align them with other competing
resource requirements. The business case analysis is useful whether deciding to invest in

37
CBM+ practices or technologies for a given weapon system or equipment, or deciding, through
reliability analysis, to apply a CBM approach or some other maintenance strategy.

A decision to move ahead with CBM+ should rest, at least in part, on preparation of a
credible business case analysis (BCA). While the idea of creating a business case sounds
ominous, the basic concept of such analysis is relatively straightforward. A business case in its
simplest form is a verifiable statement – regarding an alternative capability or action – of
whether the long-term return on investment is greater than the cost of implementation. This
comparative analysis is generally expressed in the form of a description of several alternatives
to achieve the desired objectives or changes with corresponding costs and benefits. The
components of alternative approaches within a basic business case are shown in Figure 10.

Alternatives
Functional Technical
Cost
process architecture
projections
descriptions descriptions

Measures
Action Risk
of
plans assessment
performance

Figure 10 - Alternatives within a Business Case Analysis

It is important to realize that the return on investment and costs may not be the only or
even the most important factors in a BCA. Although the business case must consider the cost
of the initiatives it must also identify the overall value to attaining the organizations’ s mission
objectives. A defensible business case, particularly in DoD, may include benefits and mission
capabilities to the operator that may be as important as the resource business case in justifying
implementation. A good business case states the cost of implementation, but expresses return
or benefits in both tangible (dollars, personnel, and facilities) and intangible (improved
performance, safety or time saved) terms. The BCA should reflect the cost of process
improvement or technology insertion over the life of the weapon system or until the system is
scheduled for replacement in a modernization program, whichever is less. The decisions to
include or exclude a CBM+ technology should be based on a BCA. If the technology is
removed or replaced for some reason later in the acquisition process, a new BCA should be
completed to reflect the change in life-cycle costs.

Regardless of where an organization is in its efforts to implement CBM+, early in the

acquisition of a new weapon system or well into the sustainment phase of a weapon system or
equipment, the BCA is a valuable management tool. A well-constructed business case presents
management with decision-making information in a consistent framework that will allow the
comparison, evaluation, and prioritization of competing and overlapping process change
initiatives.

Additional information on BCAs is available at https://www.dau.edu/tools/product-

support-business-case-analysis-bca-guidebook.

38
 DAU also offers learning opportunities through their catalog located at
https://www.dau.edu/search?search=BCA&f%5B0%5D=content_type%3Acourses.

Once the CBM+ business case is developed, it becomes an essential tool for validating
and supporting the CBM+ requirement to appropriate functional and resource managers. The
results of the BCA should be incorporated into applicable requirements, programming, and
budgeting justification documents.

3.1.3. RCM Relationship

There is a close relationship between CBM+ and

RCM. The RCM process provides the basis for
determining initial maintenance requirements based on the
analysis of equipment failures relative to the likelihood and
severity of expected equipment failures. RCM analyzes
possible impacts on personnel and regulatory
requirements, ability of the organization to accomplish
assigned mission, and cost impacts of failure mitigation
versus planned reaction against the likelihood and severity
of the definable failure mechanism apparent in the current
implementation of the design. Therefore, RCM provides
the minimum rules for determining evidence of need for a CBM program and the starting point
for escalation to a program that further incorporates the expectations for CBM+. With advances
in technology, such as sensor hardware, modeling and simulation, and ability to transmit data
using equipment health monitoring systems, machine-to-machine communications, and internet
of things (IOT), the RCM process can be used to develop an expanded system to take
advantage of the achieved efficiencies in the maintenance process. When implemented
effectively in an integrated fashion, CBM+ capabilities can improve maintenance performance
and reduce funding and personnel requirements.
RCM is a logical, structured process for determining the optimal failure management
strategies for any system, based upon system reliability characteristics and the intended
operating context. RCM defines what must be done for a system to achieve the desired levels
of safety, environmental soundness, and operational readiness at best cost. Specifically, RCM
identifies the concepts and methods needed to select technically appropriate maintenance
actions. Appropriate may include predictive and preventive tasks that will prevent or identify
failures (failure-finding tasks), proactive management of run-to-failure components, identification
of engineering redesigns, and changes to operating procedures.
“If maintenance is ensuring that physical assets continue to do what their users want
them to do; then RCM is a way to determine what must be done to ensure that any asset
continues to do what its users want it to do in its present operating context.” 11 For example, the
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) defines RCM as an “analytical process to determine
the appropriate failure management strategies to ensure safe operations and cost-wise

11
John Moubray, Reliability-Centered Maintenance II, Industrial Press, New York, 1997, p. 7.

39
readiness.” 12 RCM analysis considers the failure process and related reliabilities of equipment,
the severity of the related consequences of the failures, and the cost effectiveness of various
options to deal with failure.
In the context of RCM there are essentially two types of maintenance: proactive and
reactive. These have been presented using different terminology over the years. Essentially,
proactive maintenance actions are taken to preserve functionality (often protecting safety or
reducing the cost of repair) and reduce unplanned downtime or impacts to mission performance.
It should be noted that proactive actions by their nature require some level of investment (such
as to analyze, inspect, refurbish, and replace) above just the correction of the failures. The
RCM process evaluates the trade-off between this investment and the overall cost. Reactive
maintenance, on the other hand, responds to failures after they occur. This may be the most
effective approach for many types of equipment when the consequences of failures are
acceptable or unpredictable. In a “failure management strategy,” RCM determines the proper
balance between these planned and unplanned activities.
The current approaches for maintenance on DoD equipment, using reactive and time-
driven (preventive) strategies, have become both cost prohibitive and less than optimal in
meeting today’s operational availability needs. RCM identifies actions that, when taken, will
reduce the probability of failure and are the most cost effective. One option of RCM is to
choose to execute condition-based maintenance (CBM) actions; actions based on evidence of
need. Once a possibility of failure is identified, it can be analyzed to determine if a CBM
approach is technically appropriate and effective. Figure 11 depicts what is called a classic “P-
to-F” curve.

Point where failure

starts to occur
(not necessarily
related to age)

 P: Potential failure condition detectable


Condition

 F: Failure
Time
(point at which a
P-F Interval component fails to
perform its function or
acceptable criteria is
exceeded)

Figure 11 - Classic P-to-F Curve

12
NAVAIR Manual 00-25-403, “Naval Aviation Reliability-Centered Maintenance Process,” September 01,
2023.

40
 The P-F curve illustrates that many types of equipment will show detectable signs of
impending failure before the equipment fails. The point at which deterioration is first detectable
is the point “P.” If an inspection of some kind can discover the deterioration between the time it
is first detectable and the time when functional failure occurs (point “F”), then there is an
opportunity to avoid the failure. The time interval from when “P” can be detected, and “F”
occurs is called the P-F interval. The P-F interval governs how often a CBM task is performed
and when action must be taken to correct the impending failure.
Incorporating CBM+ technologies to a condition-based approach will better enable
system operators and their maintenance support teams to be made aware of pending failures in
advance. This will provide the opportunity to accomplish appropriate actions, at the best
opportunity, to prevent the loss of use and cost related to experiencing the actual equipment
failure.
Successful, long-term reliance on the CBM strategy is greatly enhanced through
implementation of CBM+ initiatives for improving weapon system and equipment maintenance.
If CBM+ is implemented, there must be a high degree of confidence on the part of users and
customers that this effort will reliably produce maximum equipment availability at a reduced
cost. This means the predictive capabilities instituted under CBM+ must consistently and
accurately result in fewer unplanned failures, generate fewer unnecessary maintenance actions,
and reduce overall costs as compared to the more traditional strategies.
As weapon systems and equipment have become more complex, the patterns of failure
and the difficulty in predicting failures have also become more complex. The need to prevent or
predict failures, particularly when human safety is involved, has prompted maintenance and
operational managers to look for new types of failure management, particularly around
predictive assessment. In some cases, it is possible to identify the potential failure condition
and associated P-F interval relatively easily when subject matter experts are asked the right
questions. The focus on predicting rather than waiting for failure is based on the idea that many
failures five some type of warning or show some detectable characteristic prior to the actual
failure event. On-condition maintenance and the related term, CBM, are used to address the
capability to detect or predict deterioration or failure in advance of the actual event and to take
appropriate action once there is reasonable certainty that the degradation is likely to occur in a
particular time frame. RCM provides a structured and easily understandable process for
determining which (if any) maintenance actions should be undertaken and when such actions
are technically appropriate.
The RCM analytical approach helps the maintenance manager in identifying potential
failures and supporting the selection of viable courses-of-action. RCM analysis provides the
maintenance requirement baseline necessary to construct a business case for implementation
of CBM+ technologies. CBM+ builds on the foundation of RCM but complements and expands
on RCM by applying a broad spectrum of procedures, capabilities, and tools to improve
execution on the maintenance analysis process. Table 4 relates the RCM process steps with
representative capabilities of CBM+.

41
 RCM Process Steps CBM+ Enabling Capabilities
Provides analysis and decision support to help
determine the life-cycle maintenance strategy to
Functions: The desired capability of the ensure achievement of required system
system, how well it is to perform, and under performance.
what circumstances. Provides technical data for a business case to
determine optimal application of resources to
perform selected maintenance tasks.
Functional Failures: The failed state of the
system.
Provides diagnostic tools to assess degree of
When the system falls below the desired system component degradation. Track health
performance standards. and status of installed components.

Uses sensor and data analysis technology to

Failure Modes: The specific condition causing identify failure causes; collects, stores, and
a functional failure. communicates system condition and failure
data.
Uses automated tools and data manipulation
software to produce diagnostic information on
detected failures.
Failure Effects: The description of what
happens when each failure mode occurs, Identifies and analyzes failure effects at the
detailed enough to correctly evaluate the local, subsystem, and effect – platform/mission.
consequences of the failure.
Applies information from Interactive Electronics
Technical Manuals to report, troubleshoot, test,
and support documentation of failures.
Maintains platform hardware and software
configuration. Provides data warehouse
Failure Consequences: The description of how
capability as a comprehensive database that
the loss of function matters (e.g., safety,
includes condition trends, history, and
environmental, mission, or economics),
transaction records from business processes.
Available to full range of users.
Incorporates prognostic capabilities to help
Maintenance Tasks and Intervals: The predict failures causes and timing. Embedded
description of the applicable and effective health management systems on each platform
tasks, if any, performed to predict or prevent predict the remaining useful life of equipment /
failures. components based on failure predictors derived
from composite condition analysis.
Default Actions: Including but not limited to Supports standard graphics and trending
failure-finding tasks, run-to-failure, engineering displays, user alerts, data mining and analysis,
redesigns, and changes/additions to operating simulation and modeling, enterprise decision-
procedures or technical manuals. support systems, and advisory generation.

Table 4 - CBM+ Capabilities Relative to RCM Process Steps

42
 CBM+ is not a process; it is a comprehensive strategy to select, integrate, and focus
process improvement capabilities, thereby enabling maintenance managers and their customers
to attain the desired levels of system and equipment readiness in the most cost-effective
manner. As shown above, the CBM+ strategy includes numerous capabilities and initiatives,
some procedural and some technical, that can enhance the basic RCM tasks. In this way,
CBM+ enables a more effective RCM program.
If the RCM analysis suggests revision of maintenance tasks, then the maintenance
manager should accomplish an assessment of how CBM+ capabilities may be applied to
support the revised maintenance task procedures. Often, the revised tasks require fundamental
changes to the maintenance strategy such as transition from time cycle repair intervals to CBM.
In other cases, application of sensor capability or diagnostic software may be in order. If the
proposed revisions are significant in terms of procedural changes or cost, a formal BCA may be
necessary to justify the increased resource or time investment. CBM solutions are selected
based on the frequency and impact of the failure modes; the ability to employ some form of
automated status sensors or other CBM+ technologies; and the expected performance, safety,
or cost benefit of investing in the capability. Using CBM+, maintainers can identify and respond
to deteriorating equipment conditions more effectively, without having to wait for a failure.
CBM+ not only emphasizes a different approach, but it also allows a net reduction in the amount
of maintenance performed, which affects all the associated logistics elements, including parts
and other footprint factors.
Clearly the RCM and CBM+ have a mutually beneficial relationship. From a weapon
system or equipment perspective, health management with RCM analysis becomes technology
insertion without a justified functionality. Conversely, collection of aggregated or platform-
centric heal data, without an understanding of which failure modes are consequential, and which
ones are not, and the most effective course-of-action, can lead to wasted effort and
unnecessary expenditure of resources.

43
3.2 Technical

Technical elements include the range of hardware, software, and related tools that are
available for full and effective implementation of a CBM+ strategy. Specific areas include
hardware and software infrastructure tools, DoD architecture for CBM+, and open systems and
data strategy.

3.2.1. Hardware & Software Infrastructure / Tools

When measuring equipment condition, the ideal

operational health of specific components or a complex
system is determined based on inputs from sensors or
a sensing system, both on- and off-board. This
information then is used within an infrastructure of
hardware, software, and related tools to make
maintenance or operational usage decisions. Accurate
and reliable predictors of equipment health and the
remaining useful life of equipment may be used to
determine operating risk for the next operations or in
setting maintenance cycles, the most efficient scheduling of maintenance actions or inspections,
or indicating usage modifications to delay failure or repair. Achieving the full benefit of CBM+
requires putting in place an integrated CBM+ infrastructure. This infrastructure consists of
hardware elements that work together to provide the capabilities inherent in the CBM+ strategy.
Typically, CBM+ implementers will utilize a variety of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware
and software products (using a combination of proprietary and open standards). In practice, a
CBM+ implementation will consist of hybrid approached including fragmented approaches
(individual components implementing individual functions) and integrated approaches (individual
components integrated across CBM+ functions).
The infrastructure for CBM+ is divided into the eight main areas shown in Figure 12.
The infrastructure construct is often described in other ways such as on-platform and off-
platform or as different hardware and software components. However, this guidebook presents
the eight areas as a comprehensive depiction of total infrastructure framework of a CBM+-
focused environment.

44
 Data management

Analytics Communications

The
Health
Decision support CBM+
assessment
Infrastructure

Condition
Human interfaces
monitoring

Sensors

Figure 12 - CBM+ Infrastructure Areas

Proponents of CBM+ should consider all eight infrastructure areas as the building blocks
of an overall implementation strategy. Each area complements and supports other parts of the
overall CBM+ strategy and each provides an indispensable contribution to a total CBM+
capability.

3.2.1.1. Sensors

Sensors are physical devices that monitor, record, or transmit equipment or component
operating parameters or conditions. Then can be permanently embedded on equipment,
temporarily connected to equipment, or electronically connected in a wired or wireless mode.
Sensors may range from relatively simple single-function units to multipurpose testing
equipment with embedded analytic capability. Sensors are often positioned on or near the
equipment being monitored.

3.2.1.2. Condition Monitoring

Condition monitoring is a maintenance process in which the condition of the equipment’s

physical characteristics is monitored for signs of impending failure. Equipment can be
monitored using sophisticated instrumentation, such as vibration analysis equipment, or using
the human senses. When instrumentation is used, parameters can be imposed to trigger
maintenance response. Condition monitoring converts an output from the sensor to digital

45
parameter representing a quantifiable physical condition and related information (such as the
time calibration, data quality, data collector utilized, or,
sensor configuration). Condition monitoring provides the link between the sensor device and
the health assessment capability. Condition monitoring includes technologies such as

• vibration measurement and analysis,

• infrared thermography,

• oil analysis and tribology (friction/wear analysis)

• ultrasonics, and

• motor current analysis.

3.2.1.3. Health Assessment

Health assessment is the capability to use the inputs from condition monitoring of
system behavior (machine condition) and to provide to the operator and support management
an assessment of the equipment’s operation condition (i.e., assessment based upon current
measurements and related data.
Health assessments based on condition-monitoring are accomplished on the platform or
operating equipment in real-time. An “on-system” health assessment includes sensor signal
analysis, produces meaningful condition descriptors, and derives useable data from the raw
sensor measurements (i.e., model-based reasoning combined with on-system real-time analysis
of correlated sensor outputs). Health assessment facilitates the creation of maintenance of
normal baseline “profiles” and identifies abnormalities when new data are acquired, and
determines in which assessment category, if any, the data belong (e.g., “alert” or “alarm”).
Health assessment software diagnoses component faults and rates the current health of the
equipment or process, considering such inputs as sensor output information, technical
specifications, configuration data, operating history, and historical condition data. At the
operational or tactical level, on-system health assessment helps operational commanders
gauge the operating capabilities of weapons and equipment under their control. It also assists
in maintenance decision making regarding appropriate repair actions and future equipment
availability.
Equipment health assessment may also be conducted in proximity to the system – “at-
system” assessments using a portable maintenance aid (PMA) that interfaces to the equipment
indirectly through an equipment access panel or directly to line replaceable units. The PMA is
then used to update “off-system” databases for real-time or future health assessment. At-
systems information from inspections and non-destructive evaluations (NDE) are also important
sources of equipment health assessments.
The long-term health assessment goal is to provide managers with predictions about the
remaining useful life of the machine before maintenance is required. There are two
fundamental aspects to employing CBM+ health assessment capabilities. The first relates to
on-system processing and predictive maintenance (to the extent a platform is enabled with

46
those capabilities). Generally, on-system assessment data processing is automated, and
analysis is performed using embedded processors. The second aspect of health assessment is
the off-system processing of collected sensor data from storage and data management. Off-
system analysis uses communications networks, databases, and health analysis software
applications that make up the enterprise-level capability for CBM+ data collection and analysis.
Off-system processing is discussed below under Analytics.

3.2.1.4. Communications

Communication of condition-related data, other technical information (such as

configuration data), technical descriptive data, maintenance procedures, and management
information is critical to an effective CBM+ implementation. The sharing of maintenance
information and other data among all elements of a CBM+ environment should be possible,
regardless of the data storage location. An open architecture, commercial or DoD-recognized,
data standard should be used to facilitate the sharing of data outside a single system and to
provide for future updates and upgrades. On-system data should be accessible to other on-
system components using hardware data buses or collected data repositories. Similarly, at- and
off-system applications may require connectivity to required data sources using database
access or interchange of transactions. Digital logbooks, message management software, and
database management software should be implemented to ensure needed communications
capabilities. As the CBM+ environment becomes more complex and extensive, the expanded
use of multiple communications mechanisms will occur. The CBM+ implementer should plan for
the maximum application of data communication standards (as described earlier) to facilitate the
various data exchange requirements. Examples of some available technical approaches are
described in Section 2 of this guidebook, the CBM+ website and the COP4ST application suite.

3.2.1.5. Data Management

Data management is central to implementation of CBM+. Data management consists of

acquiring data (e.g., through sensors or acquisition techniques), manipulating data into
meaningful for (e.g., converting analog to digital), storing data (electronically in digital form),
transmitting data (through electronic means), access data as a basis for analysis, and providing
data (information) to decision makers.
In support of CBM+, data are held in two ways: on-system in small amounts to support
embedded health assessment and reporting , or off-system in a larger electronic storage media
sometimes referred to as a data warehouse. A data warehouse is a computer database the
collects, integrates, and stores an organizations’ computer data with the aim of maintaining and
providing accurate and timely management information and supporting data analysis. The
data may be distributed; that is, located at multiple organizations and locations. One issue
relating to the CBM+ database concerns data access and sharing. For example, if the CBM+
database comprises the single repository for condition, performance, trending history, and other
data categories, then each database user including government and contract activities will
require access to the pertinent portions of the database. Any effective CBM+ database should

47
have will-established procedures for granting access to qualified users and should apply
available data format standards and definitions to ensure viable information exchange and a
consistent data product for each using function. Collection and aggregation of CBM+ data is a
common concept and a good model for the composite or “virtual” database structure. Figure 13
shows a notional database with a hierarchical structure representing multiple segments of the
total CBM+ data environment. CBM+ implementers may tailor this structure based on
organization or process requirements and the availability of an effective communications
capability.

Data Management Environments

Enterprise Aggregate
Strategic Health
Data

Theater
Aggregate
Health
Data
Operational
Operational
Commander

System
Tactical System
Health
Data

Figure 13 - CBM+ Notional Data Environment

3.2.1.6. Analytics

Analytic software is one of the most essential parts of a CBM+ strategy. For this
guidebook, analytics is defined as the off-system aspect of condition-based health assessment.
Depending on the architectural approach used for CBM+ implementation, the analytic capability
will need to acquire data from all sources within the architecture using different techniques ,
such as data mining.
The primary function of the analytic element is to determine the current health state of
equipment and project this assessment into the future, considering estimates of future usage
profiles. Root-cause analysis and tailored analytic algorithms support this function,
Health management analysis software, which is available commercially, can identify a
system or component that is affecting availability. It comes in many forms:

48
 • The most basic form is condition monitoring using single sensor monitoring with
specified signal outputs used to identify condition thresholds for alarms and alerts.

• Diagnostic assessment identifies fault conditions and compares the current health of the
equipment or process against “normal” parameters, considering available historic or
technical information.

• Predictive assessment predicts future health states by extrapolation and correlation of

archived sensor data.

• Trend analysis is a form of predictive assessment derived from data obtained from
equipment sensors that primarily perform operation or diagnostic measurements. Trend
analysis will not precisely forecast remaining equipment life, but it can signify a problem
when added knowledge of equipment performance requirements identifies the upper and
lower boundaries of component failure rates.

• Prognostics assessment is the capability to perform a reliable in sufficiently accurate

prediction of the remaining useful life of equipment. This allows the condition monitoring
system to do more than just react to threshold crossings and diagnostic alerts.

Depending on the organization’s requirements for CBM+ capabilities, data collection and
health management analysis may be used for a range of purposes, from a single condition
assessment for a single component to a full condition assessment with projections of useful life
expectancies across a fleet of equipment. Figure 14 shows generic possible inputs and output
results from a reasonably comprehensive prognostic software model.

Prognostic Model

Figure 14 - Generalized Inputs and Outputs from a Prognostic Model

A prognostic model must be flexible enough to accept many difference sources of

information to predict the remaining useful life adequately and accurately. By predicting the
remaining useful life, the prognostic capability assists the operators and managers in actively
managing their maintenance resources and determining maintenance actions. Effective use of
prognostic assessment or “prognostics” is the goal of predictive maintenance.

49
3.2.1.7. Decision Support

Regardless of its sophistication, a complete CBM+ capability includes the ability to make
maintenance and related support decisions based upon the available condition data. This
involves using decision-support software to assess equipment operating reliability and
availability, identify needed changes in planned maintenance requirements and equipment
modifications, and track equipment operating performance (for individual components,
equipment, or groupings of equipment). The objective is to predict problems or failures in time
to take remedial action. Decision support includes analytic and decision-support tools to help
managers at all levels identify adverse trends and assist in maintenance planning. It may also
include the use of data by other sustainment providers is cush areas as supply, transportation,
or engineering to ensure required support is available where and when it is needed by the
operating forces.
The decision-support capability acquires data from the diagnostic and prognostics
analytical elements. The primary function of the decision support is to recommend maintenance
or engineering actions and alternatives and to understand the implications of each
recommended action. Recommendations includes establishing maintenance action schedules,
modifying the operational configuration of equipment to accomplish mission objectives, or
modifying mission profiles to allow mission completion. The decision logic needs to consider
such factors as operation history (including usage and maintenance), current and future mission
profiles, high-level unit objectives, and resource constraints. An accurate forecast of an asset’s
future use needs to match the other systems planning horizon to be effective. Output from the
decision-support capability should be in the form of automated notices, computer-to-computer
transactions, alerts and alarms, or other advisory generations, including health and prognostic
assessments.

3.2.1.8 Human Interfaces

The human interface layer may access data from any of the other layers within the
architecture such as the decision-support component. Typically, status or recommendations
(health assessments, prognostic assessments, or decision recommendations) and alerts would
be produced and displayed to human users by the decision software, with the ability to drill
down when anomalies such as from inspections or NDE, to affect maintenance decisions. In
many cases, the human interface capability will have multiple layers of access to data from
across the CBM+ environment, depending on the information needs of the user. This capability
may also be implemented as an integrated multiple-user interface that accounts for the
information needs of users other than maintainers. The goal of the human interface is to
provide operators with actionable information regarding maintenance or operations that suggest
or support management or technical decisions.

50
3.2.2. DoD Architectural Framework for CBM+

An architecture is the fundamental organization of a system or

process embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and
to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution.
The Department of Defense Architectural Framework (DoDAF) defines a
common approach for architecture description development, presentation,
and integration for both DoD’s warfighting operations and for business
operations and processes. The framework is intended to ensure design
descriptions and interfaces can be compared and related throughout the
product or process life cycle across organization and functional
boundaries, including Joint and multinational boundaries.

A full discussion of the DoD AF is available at: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoD-

Architecture-Framework/

CBM+ concepts, policies, procedures, practices, systems, and technologies require

integration, connectivity, and a common purpose across functional, organizational, and physical
boundaries. The complexity and diversity of the components of CBM+ mandate a structured
plan to ensure complete and effective implementation of all required elements in a reasonable
timeframe. Therefore, it is imperative that individuals and organizations charged with
implementing CBM+ and overseeing such an effort have a comprehensive and understandable
picture of their strategy. Services and programs are provided the flexibility to develop and
design CBM+ related architecture. For CBM+, an architectural representation can provide a
holistic view and a mechanism for enabling the execution of the design and development as well
as for communicating the initiative goals to managers, customers, and stakeholders.

Development of an integrated CBM+ architecture early in the implementation process is

useful for several reasons:

• Validating the need for the several components of the overall CBM+ design.

• Identifying capability gaps in the initiative design.

• Showing the elements and connectivity of system-generated information to the off-

system logistics and operational systems, thereby establishing the bases for
information exchange and health assessment capabilities.

• Identifying the redundancies or unneeded elements of the overall design.

• Determining the positioning of data collectors, information processing capabilities,

and analysis processors at strategic locations in the CBM+ architecture.

• Identifying information exchange pathways and storage nodes.

• Ensuring interoperability and compatibility of process and system components

across the scope of the initiative.

• Documenting human interfaces requirements and locations.

51
 • Synchronizing the timing and resource expenditure for implementing the various
CBM+ elements.

• Supporting resource requirements to accomplish implementation.

From a program management point of view, a comprehensive and credible architecture

can be invaluable in supporting the CBM+ strategy during reviews that occur throughout the
systems life cycle as part of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)
requirements generation; the DoD Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE)
process; and the Defense Acquisition System process.

DoDAF organizes the DoDAF-described Models into the following viewpoints:

• The All Viewpoint describes the overarching aspects of architecture context that relate
to all viewpoints.
• The Capability Viewpoint articulates the capability requirements, the delivery timing,
and the deployed capability.
• The Data and Information Viewpoint articulates the data relationships and alignment
structures in the architecture content for the capability and operational requirements,
system engineering processes, and systems and services.
• The Operational Viewpoint includes the operational scenarios, activities, and
requirements that support capabilities.
• The Project Viewpoint describes the relationships between operational and capability
requirements and the various projects being implemented. The Project Viewpoint also
details dependencies among capability and operational requirements, system
engineering processes, systems design, and services design within the Defense
Acquisition System process.
• The Services Viewpoint is the design for solutions articulating the Performers,
Activities, Services, and their Exchanges, providing for or supporting operational and
capability functions.
• The Standards Viewpoint articulates the applicable operational, business, technical,
and industry policies, standards, guidance, constraints, and forecasts that apply to
capability and operational requirements, system engineering processes, and systems
and services.
• The Systems Viewpoint, for Legacy support, is the design for solutions articulating the
systems, their composition, interconnectivity, and context providing for or supporting
operational and capability functions.

A presentation of these viewpoints is portrayed in graphic format (Figure 15):

.

52
 Figure 15 - DoDAF Architecture Product Relationships

By developing these architectural products early in CBM+ implementation, maintenance

managers will have a significantly greater understanding of the CBM+ initiative from a functional
and technical perspective. They also will fully understand the cause-and-effect and dependency
relationships among operational tasks, supporting systems, and the technical standards used to
construct the overall CBM+ environment. This means, before hardware and software
technologies are acquired at considerable expense, the CBM+ manager will have worked out
the proper application and level of effectiveness of proposed technology enablers and
understand just how these technology tools will work to satisfy functional requirements and
improve performance against operational objectives. Equally important, the CBM+ implementer
may use the architectural products to clearly explain the systems, technology, and operational
relationships to both stakeholders and operational customers.

By both DoD mandate and good engineering practice, the DoDAF construct is based on
industry open-architecture specifications and widely accepted data models. CBM+
implementers should make use of the DoDAF conventions to effectively describe the full scope
of the CBM+ initiative. The complete set of DoDAF products includes 26 different views that
document the entire architecture, from requirements to implementation. For practical purposes,
however, organizations charged with CBM+ implementation may wish to develop a basic set of
documents that convey the essential aspects of their CBM+ strategy. In general, they could
include the following views:

53
 • OV-1, The Operational Concept Graphic, is a general picture that describes the problem
that the architecture addresses. This graphic is formatted as a high-level structured
cartoon. It orients the reader to the problem. Figure 16 is an example of one approach
to a CBM+ Operational Concept Graphic.

Architectural development often begins with the creation of the OV-1. This pictorial
representation provides the highest level and most comprehensive view of the CBM+ strategy.
It is useful for both describing the general structure and component pieces of a CBM+
implementation and for supporting approval and resource justification of the initiative. CBM+
implementers may use a variety of graphical approaches for the OV-1 depending on the nature
of the CBM+ effort and the target audience. After the OV-1 has been prepared and approved,
the other architectural views are derived from this basic picture as greater levels of detail are
determined.

CBM+ OV-1 Architecture Overview

On System At System Operational
Command & Control
Off System
Organizations

Platform
Portable Maint Aids Health
Current A Status

Voltage V
Embedded User Workstations
Health
Temperature
Management
Platform Program
Pressure
Low Speed DAQ Technical
Junction
box Data •IETMs
RPM
On- Board Repository •Configuration Data
Embedded Computer
Interface Manager

Sensors Junction Communications - Networks

(examples) box
Vibration High Speed DAQ
LAN/WAN

Vibration
Logistics
Wear
Master
Data

System
Health
Database Logistics
Enterprise
Systems
Electric Motor Data
Analysis History Status &
Data
Manager/ Analysis Advisories
Health
Vibration Analysis
Management Decision
Expert
System System Support
Engine performance

Predictive
Analysis
Oil Analysis

Figure 16 - CBM+ Generic Architecture Overview

• OV-5a and OV-5b, the Operation Activity Decomposition Treen and the Operational
Activity Model, describe the operational activities performed in association with the
architecture’s scope. It graphically describes an activity’s inputs and outputs along with
who (role or organization) performs the activity. It also describes, to some degree, a
sequence of events.

54
 • OV-2, the Operational Resource Flow Description purpose is to define capability
requirements within an operational context. The OV-2 may also be used to express a
capability boundary. The OV-2 can be used to show flows of funding, personnel, and
materiel in addition to information. A specific application of the OV-2 is to describe a logical
pattern of resource (information, funding, personnel, or materiel) flows.

• OV-3, the Operational Resource Flow Matrix, provides further detail of the interoperability
requirements associated with the operational capability of interest. The focus is on Resource
Flows that cross the capability boundary.

• SvcV-3a and SvcV-3b, the Systems-Services Matrix and the Services-System Matrix
describes relationships among or between systems and services in a given Architectural
Description. It can be designed to show relationships of interest, (e.g., service-type
interfaces, planned vs. existing interfaces).

• StdV-1 and StdV-2, the Standards Profile and the Standards Forecast, lists all the
standards that apply to solution elements. The StdV-2 can also provide descriptions of
emerging standards and potential impact on current solution elements, within a set of
timeframes.
Descriptions and examples of these documents , including their formats, are available on
the DoD Chief Information Officer website https://dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoD-Architecture-
Framework/.
The Joint Assessments and Standards Management provides developers with access to the
technical standards necessary for development of system architectures and implementation of
systems. Access to the Joint Assessments and Standards Management(JSAM) is available
online at https://jasm.apps.mil/my.policy with a DoD Common Access Card (CAC) and
registration.
The JSAM includes:

• Information for program managers with the capability to build system viewpoints; and

• a minimal set of primarily commercial IT standards and guidelines for use in the
management, development, or acquisition of new or improved systems within the DoD.
JSAM standards are used with the DoD as the “building codes” for all new systems. The
standards are intended to facilitate interoperability and integration of systems within the Global
Information Grid (GIG). JSAM also provides the ability to specify profiles of standards that
programs will use to deliver net-centric capabilities.

3.2.2.1. Putting the Pieces Together – A CBM+ Architecture Approach

There are many hardware and software components, that together, comprise the totality
of a CBM+ implementation of an improved maintenance capability. Developing a credible and
comprehensive architectural depiction of the end-to-end condition monitoring and health

55
management process greatly enhances the probability of achieving maximum effectiveness and
interoperability of the component pieces of the overall process.
The architectural views should be created and validated as early as possible and used
as part of the effort to construct the total capability. As the initiative progresses and each
successive detailed view is developed, the architecture becomes more useful, ensuring all
component pieces are planned or in place, and the human interactions and information
exchange requirements can be tested to ensure proper functionality, timeliness, and accuracy.
The architectural view also may be used to support management decisions to prioritize the
development of different pieces of the total process, including the allocation of program
resources.
The CBM+ architecture may be implemented in several ways. The architecture may be
developed independently or part of a larger system-of-systems effort. The implementing
organization will decide whether to integrate the CBM+ architecture into a larger system’s
architecture; but ultimately, separate but interacting architectures must be compatible to achieve
effective implementation.

3.2.2.2. Validation and Verification

As part of the CBM+ development strategy, a validation and verification (V&V) strategy
should be executed. V&V of CBM+ functionality is tied to the architecture products and is
performed as an integrated review that validates the information exchange, process, and output
requirements based on the operation and systems views that govern the manual processes and
automated systems that accomplish data collections, exchange, and analysis in conformance
with the technical capabilities and standards as described by the architecture.
Initially, V&V is a matter of developing the modes of the processes and then the modules
themselves. V&V is first a simulation and modeling exercise of transmitting CBM+ data
between models, accomplished in a systems integration laboratory setting. As the validation
proceeds and the applications for software exchange are developed, V&V may then be
accomplished between the platform and data storage or analysis sites by live demonstration.
V&V will accomplish the following:

• Verification of fidelity of design to performance specifications

• Validation that the products and capabilities work as intended:

• Data exchange between the platform and the enterprise is in conformance to open
standards and data protocols.

• The CBM+ data strategy transmits the appropriate data.

• The data strategy facilitates interoperability with third-party software applications that
also conform to the key open standards and data protocols.

• Selected analytical capabilities provide effective human interfaces and credible results.

56
3.2.3. Open Systems and Data Strategy

The term “open systems’ refers to the design of

hardware, software, and business processes based on
industry and government standards that are vendor – and
equipment – independent. Open systems allow for
interoperability, portability, and scalability. An open systems
approach facilitates the use of widely accepted standard
products from multiple suppliers. In addition, if the open
system is defined by specifications, standards, and common
processes used in the private sector, DoD can be one of many customers and leverage the
benefits of the commercial marketplace; production and technical capabilities can then be
competitively selected from multiple suppliers.
The system design flexibility inherent in the open-system approach, and the increasing
availability of conforming commercial products, mitigates potential interface problems
associated with DoD’s legacy or proprietary systems. Finally, life-cycle costs are reduced by a
standards-based architecture that facilitates upgrades by incremental technology insertion,
rather than by large-scale system redesign.
A viable strategy for data management, storage, and exchange is another key technical
component of a CBM+ implementation. DoD’s overall data management strategy is “to move
from individually owned and stored data in disparate networks and within legacy
systems/applications to an enterprise information environment where authorized know and
authorized unanticipated uses can access any information and can post their contributions for
enterprise-wide access.” 13 This means data are visible, accessible, and understandable.
Shared data supports planned and unplanned consumers and shared meaning of the data
enables understanding by all users.

3.2.3.1. Open Systems

The open-systems approach in an integrated technical and business strategy that

defines key interfaces for a system (or piece of equipment) being developed or maintained.
Specifications and standard interfaces generally are best defined by forma consensus (adopted
by recognized industry standards bodies); however, commonly accepted (de facto)
specifications and standards (both proprietary and non-proprietary) are also acceptable if they
facilitate the use of hardware and software from multiple suppliers.
Open systems enhance the interoperability of a systems within a family or system-of-
systems concept, such as is typified in a CBM+ implementation. An open-system standard is
concerned primarily with interface compatibility to promote interoperability between multiple
vendors, equipment, software, and databases. An effective open-systems approach, one that is
applicable to most DoD CBM+ applications, must apply open standards for all critical interfaces

13
Todd, Michael, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Networks and Information Integration, “DoD Strategy
Briefing,” October 20, 2005

57
in the end-to-end system. These critical interfaces control the effectiveness and interoperability
of system elements. Use of open standards also gives the CBM+ implementer greater latitude
in selecting health assessment software, including increasing the option to link or “bolt-on”
multiple applications to support a variety of health assessment and predictive tasks. Open-
system interfaces are often more cost effective (i.e., address cost drivers), and accommodate
rapidly evolving technology and evolutionary requirements. Additionally, this approach reduces
the amount of resources needed for subsequent modifications, which makes system upgrades
quicker and more cost effective.
The open-systems concept is an essential element of CBM+ because a comprehensive
CBM+ implementation often will be executed in an environment that includes different sensor
technologies, multiple information systems, different data models, collection mechanisms across
organizational boundaries, and different enterprise systems environments. To help integrate his
disparate set of components, commercial standards relating to CBM+ information flows and
related process elements have been established by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and other standards management organizations, such as the Institute of
Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The Machinery Information Management Open Systems Alliance (MIMOSA) 14 also
established specifications and data models in support of condition monitoring. These
specifications can be applied as the basis for a supporting data strategy for a common CBM+
operating environment. Form a data management viewpoint, it is highly desirable that CBM+
data exchanges and storage conform to Open Systems Architecture for Enterprise Application
Integration (OSA_EAI), the data flow hierarchy that is based on the open architecture standard
published by MIMOSA.

Table 5 lists examples of standards available to CBM+ implementers.

14
MIMOSA is a not-for-profit trade association dedicated to developing and encouraging the adoption of
open information standards for operations and maintenance in manufacturing, fleet, and facility
environments.

58
 Standards
Area of Application Standard
Organization
Sets out guidelines for the general procedures to be
considered when creating a condition monitoring program for
17359.0:2003 ISO
machines and includes references to associated standards
required in this process. It is applicable to all machines.
Specifies definitions of terms used in condition monitoring
13372:2012 ISO
and diagnostics of machines
Establishes guidelines for software specifications related to 13374
data processing, communication, and presentation of ISO
machine condition monitoring and diagnostic information. (Volumes 1 -4)

Gives guidance for data interpretation and diagnostics of

machines. Allow users and manufacturers of condition
13379:2012 ISO
monitoring and diagnostics systems to share common
concepts in the fields of machine diagnostics
Industrial automation systems and integration – Product data
10303 (Family) ISO
representation and exchange.
Establishes the requirements for a data communication
network interface applicable to all on- and off-road land- J1850 SAE
based vehicles.
Recommended practices for light, medium, and heavy-duty
vehicles used on or off road as well as appropriate stationary
J1939 (Family) SAE
applications which use vehicle derived components (e.g.,
generator sets).
Standard for Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Centered
JA1011 SAE
Maintenance (RCM) Process
A Guide to the Reliability-Centered Maintenance Standard. JA1012 SAE
Standard for a Smart Transducer Interface for Sensor and
1451 IEEE
Actuators – Digital Communication
Access control and physical characteristics for wireless local
802.11 IEEE
area networks
Open Systems Architecture for Enterprise Application
OSA-EAI MIMOSA
Integration
Open Systems Architecture for Condition-Based
OSA-CBM MIMOSA
Maintenance
Defines the mechanical, electrical and function
Military Standard
characteristics of a serial data bus originally designed for use 1553
(MILSTD)
with military avionics
A specification for creating technical publications using a Air Transport
Common Source Data Base (CSDB). Information is stored in Association, Aerospace
the CSDB in small chunks called data modules. The purpose and Defense Industries
S1000 D
of storing discrete chucks of information in the database is to Association of Europe
promote reuse of the information in as many different of Aerospace Industries
technical documents as possible. Association
Table 5 - Examples of Standards Available to CBM+ Implementers

59
 Additional information on standards and their applications as well as copies of specific
standards can be obtained from the following:

• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) at

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage

• Society of Automotive Engineers International at http://www.sae.org

• Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers at http://www.ieee.org

• Machinery Information Management Open Systems Alliance at http://www.mimosa.org

CBM+ implementers should use the sites of these standards organizations as a resource
for obtaining information and copies of standards documents, often for a charge. Another useful
source of standards and specification information is the Acquisition and Streamlining
Standardization System Online (ASSIST-Online) site. ASSIST, the official source of DoD
specifications and standards, provides access to current information about military and federal
specifications and standards under the management of the Defense Standardization Program.
ASSIST-Online provides access to standardization documents over the internet and includes
powerful reporting features, an exhaustive collection of digital and warehouse documents, and
provides direct access to more than 104,000 digital documents in Adobe Portable Document
Format. All ASSIST documents are available to users free of charge and can be downloaded
on the DoD Assist Quick Search site: https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx

The Joint Assessments and Standards Management (JSAM) is an online repository of

Information Technology (IT) standards. JSAM online supports the continuing evolution of the
JSAM and the automation of all its processes and is the repository for information related to
DOD IT and National Security Systems (NSS) standards. JSAM should be used by anyone
involved in the management, development, or acquisition of new or improved systems within
DoD. The JSAM is the single, unifying DoD registry for approved IT and NSS standards and
standards profiles that are managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). The
JSAM baseline lists IT standards that are mandated for use in the DoD acquisition process.
The DISR is the standards data source that is used to populate and develop Standards
Viewpoints (StdV-1 and StdV-2) that are required artifacts in information support plans (ISP).
The complete DISR can be accessed at https://jasm.apps.mil/my.policy. with a DoD Common
Access Card (CAC) and registration.
CBM+ implementers should be familiar with the ISO, SAE, IEEE, NSS, MIMOSA, and
other related standards, as these represent considerable prior effort to structure a
comprehensive and efficient approach to the accessibility and exchange of data across the
component elements of a CBM+ environment.

60
3.2.3.2. Data Strategy

It is essential that data strategies include the sharing of CBM+ data across
organizational boundaries and at all levels: tactical, operational, and strategic. Because of the
variety of possible CBM+ application in DoD, there are a multitude of possible approaches to
the data storage and interchange. For most weapon systems or equipment, health
management and related data will be stored on-board individual platforms or in data storage
hardware at or near the sensor or input point. Aggregation of data may occur across the system
or organization hierarchy from the component to the platform to a CBM+ data warehouse acting
as an off-board data aggregation process performed at any level above the platform (e.g.,
tactical, operational, or national-strategic echelons).
The higher the level of the CBM+ data warehouse, the more extensive the information it
contains. For example, a tactical level CBM+ data warehouse may collect failure data from the
entire set of similar vehicles in an organizational unit. A CBM+ data warehouse at the strategic
level can provide data for assessing and predicting failures for different geographical regions,
different climate and weather patterns, different areas of operation, or common systems. This
multitude of applications and configurations emphasizes the need for careful attention to data
standards and interoperable approaches to data storage, access, and communications. In the
long term, adoption of the commercial and government data and process standards will facilitate
availability and use of more standardized data for processing and analysis. The Services’
implementation of more standard information systems, such as Enterprise Resource Planning
applications, will also help standardize CBM+ analytical activities across DoD.
In general, the degree of data management sophistication at each level of the system
hierarchy will depend on the amount of health assessment and predictive activity required at
that level. If an on-platform health assessment is required, data storage and access to support
on-board assessment software will be needed. If such assessment is to be done off-platform at
the tactical or even national level, then the data strategy will be less complex, perhaps including
only real-time or even periodic data transmissions with little permanent storage or analysis.

3.3 CBM+ Essential Elements Summary

The CBM+ implementation strategy, usually for reasons of resource availability or

competing priorities, will be incrementally adopted across different organizational echelons. In
some instances, however, “bridge” or “placeholder” capabilities must be put in place to
compensate for missing or less-than-full availability of key capabilities. Organizations will need
to evaluate existing capabilities and limitations such as storage, bandwidth, and cybersecurity.
Although this is to be expected, the CBM+ implementer must recognize and convey to
managers and customers that attaining the full benefits of the CBM+ approach heavily depends
on substantial implementation of the full range of CBM+ capabilities.
All the essential elements of a CBM+ strategy should come together under an operating
concept in which weapon systems and equipment platforms are equipped with sensors and
embedded health management systems. These systems monitor the current health of the
platform or equipment; predict future changes in platform health; and report status and problems

61
to the crew, tactical chain of command, operational commanders, and logistics providers (by
way of the command and control and supporting logistics networks).
The embedded health management system uses information from on-system sensors
and software to capture and store a detailed operating and maintenance history of the platform.
It also uses a variety of automatic identification technologies on major components and other
tools to maintain a system of hardware and software configuration.
Operating history and configuration data are available from each system. This data
transfer is automated and may utilize networks or wireless connections. The data exchange
occurs either directly through a wireless capability on the system or indirectly using a wireless
capability to a networked maintenance support computer used at or near the system. This
target compute has server capabilities for data storage. It stores data that may be useful at the
organizational level, and it can forward the complete data set to an enterprise-level CBM+ data
warehouse.
The data warehouse is a comprehensive database that includes transaction, descriptive,
technical, and historical records from various sources and is available to a wide range of users.
Life-cycle managers may use the data to develop CBM plans, issue service advisories to
maintenance personnel in the field, update prognostic algorithms, and identify the root causes of
failures, cost and readiness drivers, and similar management-related activities. Equipment
designers may use the data to plan product improvements. Deport repair activities use the data
to tailor maintenance actions based on the condition and usage history of each component.
Maintenance officers in field activities may access the data to plan maintenance for their
assigned platforms.
Maintenance is performed to maximize operational availability and combat capability of
operational units. Rather than being run to failure, components can often be replaced based on
equipment condition and mission requirements. An embedded health management system on
each system predicts the remaining useful life of components based on failure predictors
derived from composite analysis across the range of deployed systems and the actual usage
and stress history of individual or groups of components. Routine maintenance, such as the
replacement of lubricants, coolants, and other fluids may be based on the condition of the fluid
rather than gross indicators, such as operating hours or calendar time.

62
4. CBM+ and the Total System Life Cycle

This section discusses the planning and implementation of CBM+ under the principles of
Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) 15. Later, under the heading of operations, it expands
on approaches to managing an existing CBM+ initiative that has already been incorporated into
a new acquisition or implemented into a legacy system.
Through the application of CPI principles, it is envisioned that the elements of CBM+
should be revisited as the life cycle progresses, conditions change, and technologies advance.
Another user reference, “Designing and Assessing Supportability in DoD Weapon Systems: A
Guide to Increased Reliability and Reduced Logistics Footprint” stresses the recurring life-cycle
role of the PM in translating and refining the users’ desired capabilities into actionable,
contractible, and measurable system performance and supportability requirements.
Table 6 summarizes the basic steps for planning, implementing, and operating a CBM+
initiative or project.

1. Understanding that CBM+ is a continuous improvement initiative over the life cycle of
a weapon system or equipment.
2. Ensuring a full understanding of the planning, implementation, and operations phases
of CBM+ by the implementation team, functional managers, stakeholders, and
customers.
3. Initiating the CBM+ planning phase and completing the processes needed to develop
a CBM+ strategy and to begin the selection of applicable technologies.
4. Managing the CBM+ implementation phase as a time-phased execution of process
changes, technology insertion, organizational realignments, and equipment changes.
5. In the operations phase, incrementally deploying CBM+ capabilities to operational
user locations and continue through full execution of required CBM+ capabilities.
6. Continuously assessing CBM+ progress and overcoming barriers to successful
execution as they occur.
7. Discontinuing or modifying CBM+ capabilities for specific weapon systems and
equipment as requirements evolve with the cessation of use of replacement of those
capabilities.
Table 6 - Managing CBM+ across the Life Cycle

15
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness,), Continuous Process
Improvement Transformation Guidebook, May, 2006

63
4.1. Creating the CBM+ Environment

Successful implementation of CBM+ is more than going through a series of predefined

steps. As with most significant change efforts, CBM+ implementers should take a holistic view
of their initiative. This means creating an environment that is conducive to change, and
consistently dealing with a multitude of issues that are certain to occur in the implementation
process.
The various implementation actions proposed in this guidebook have been chosen within
the context of a change management approach. The underlying elements of this approach are
as follows:

• Institutionalizing the initiative. Accomplish actions that create the overarching framework
and structure for CBM+, including compliance with DoD policy and guidance.

• Changing the environment. Implement actions that focus on changing the technological
capabilities and business processes within the maintenance environment, encouraging
CBM+ planning, advancing technology improvements, and analyzing the probability that
planned actions will achieve CBM+ objectives.

• Synchronizing initiatives. Execute actions to effect coordination among CBM+ and other
related initiatives, adopting established initiatives that display CBM+ attributes, sharing
lessons learned, encouraging team efforts to effectively advance CBM+ and building on
information systems integration solutions. Actions should look at how to bridge cross-
service and utilize integrated IT systems, especially in situations with common platforms,
systems, and components.

• Investment justification. Accomplish actions that improve the understanding and support
of the investment required to achieve the goals of CBM+, compelling business case and
readiness analyses for justification support in the PPBE process.

• Managing for success. Consistently and continuously promote actions that help achieve
progress toward CBM+ goals and objectives.
When pursuing CBM+ implementation, PMs should keep these overall change management
precepts in mind as they execute their plans.

4.2. CBM+ and the Acquisition Life Cycle

The most effective and efficient maintenance plans are developed using the RCM
analysis process as early as possible during the acquisition design phase of a weapon system
or equipment and incorporate the correct processes and technologies up front. Because the
pace of weapon system and equipment acquisition is slow, this guidebook also needs to
address the application of CBM+ to the legacy environments of today. Equipment will not
always be used as designed, so it may eventually fail in an unexpected manner and in
unplanned time frames. Therefore, PMs should take advantage of CBM+ opportunities to
modify maintenance plans when possible and cost beneficial, regardless of where the particular

64
weapon system or equipment is in its life cycle. It is desirable that CBM+ implementations be
executed in the context of larger perspectives, such as a common architecture or a system-of-
systems environment. In this way, the CBM+ strategy will be consistent with broader efforts,
like the introduction of new weapon systems or equipment, process improvement initiatives,
technology upgrades, or information system modernization.

CBM+ implementation can be divided into three phases the complement DoD’s total
system life-cycle acquisition strategy: the planning please, the implementation phase, and the
operations phase. The technology aspects of this phased approach are discussed in Appendix
A. The actions described in the remaining sections and subsections are not necessarily listed in
a required sequence. As the life cycle progresses, some actions may be accomplished in a
different order, concurrently, or not at all. Figure 17 shows the relationships among the
planning, implementation, and operations phases.

Figure 17 - CBM+ and the Total System Life Cycle

65
4.3. CBM+ Planning / Technology Selection Phase

Planning actions generally apply when a CBM+ initiative is first started within a particular
organization. The initial efforts focus on familiarization with the CBM+ concept, ensuring
managers and employees at all levels understand and are supportive of CBM+ objectives,
understanding the planning requirements, and developing the basic steps required to initiate the
effort.

4.3.1. Obtain Management Support

One of the first important actions is to ensure full management support for the initiative.
According to DoD policy, military components must include the CBM+ strategy in appropriate
requirement documents and ensure that defense acquisition programs exploit CBM+
opportunities as systems performance requirements during system design and development,
and throughout the system’s life cycle.
In today’s DoD logistics community, knowledge about CBM+ the CBM+ initiative is
widespread, training programs exist at different levels, and the DoD is linked together with
industry on CBM+ activities. Although logistic managers accept CBM+ (to varying degrees) for
potential application in DoD maintenance activities, they are often unfamiliar with the specifics of
the changes required and have not progressed beyond endorsing the principle in concept.
CBM+ proponents must work to market the concept; ensuring maintenance managers receive
sufficient training and briefings on the CBM+ strategy and its application to their organization.
This is particularly important to maintain management’s support for sufficient personnel and
funding as the initiative progresses. At the same time, the customers of the planned CBM+
initiative (e.g., the operators and warfighters) should be made aware of the potential effects and
benefits of the planned changes.

4.3.2. Perform RCM and Reliability Analysis

A cost-effective implementation to CBM+ must begin with an RCM analysis to determine

the applicable and effective maintenance tasks required for the system or equipment. These
baseline tasks can then be evaluated to determine whether a CBM+ technology is available to
augment or replace the task or tasks. However, the more sophisticated the technology, the
more expensive it may be. The increase in sophistication can also result in unforeseen reliability
issues. Consequently, a BCA should be performed to validate any CBM+ technology
implementation.
A reliable system performs as designed in an operational environment over time without
failure. Reliability is a primary focus during system design and architecture development.
Reliability analysis considers tradeoffs among time to failure, system performance, and system
life-cycle cost. This analysis is necessary to ensure the correct balance of these factors and

66
maximize system technical effectiveness and, ultimately, affordable operational effectiveness.
Options that must be considered and implemented to enhance system reliability include
“derating” (defined as purposeful over-design to allow a safety margin), redundancy, and ease
of reconfiguration.
The primary objective of reliability analysis is to minimize risk of failure within the defined
availability, cost, schedule, weight, power, and volume constraints. While conducting such
analyses, tradeoffs must be considered and dependencies must be explored for system
maintainability and supportability strategies, including CBM+.
Types or reliability analyses include:

• failure modes and effects criticality analysis, which identifies the ways systems
can fail, performance consequences, and the support remedies for system
failures,

• fault tree analysis, which assess the critical safety functions within the system’s
architecture and design, and

• reliability block diagram is a modeling tool that supports the reliability and
availability analyses on systems. It is used to compute how component reliability
affects overall system failure rates and availability.
Such analytical approaches significantly minimize the necessary logistics footprint and
maximize system survivability and availability. The results of the initial reliability analysis and
RCM analysis will help designers, engineers, and logistics managers determine the applicability
of implementing CBM+ capabilities for specific weapon system or equipment programs.

4.3.3. Form CBM+ Team

Today, few organizations have sufficient resident expertise with the skills required to
implement a major process improvement initiative from inception to full deployment. For this
reason, a team approach is generally recommended when executing something as broad as
CBM+.
Throughout DoD and in related parts of the commercial sector, the integrated product or
process team (IPT) is an effective way of marshalling the personnel and skills needed to
accomplish many improvement initiatives. As CBM+ requires participants with a variety of
organizational, process, and technology skills, CBM+ is not a one-dimensional discipline.
Bringing in personnel that can focus on only one aspect of CBM+ such as sensor technology or
health assessment software will not provide the range of expertise needed for effective
implementation.

67
The CBM+ IPT could include personnel with expertise in the following areas:

• Weapons / equipment operations • Supply chain management

• Business case development • Communications and networking

• Systems engineering • Training and certification

• Reliability analysis • Performance metrics

• Safety • Maintenance management

• Data management • Process architecture development

• Health management systems • Sensors and AIT

• Maintenance organization • Budgeting and funding

• Contracting
As the CBM+ initiative progresses, some competencies may no longer be required while
other competencies may be required to support implementation.

4.3.4. Identify CBM+ Target Application

Implementation of CBM+ requires significant up-front resources from a DoD

maintenance organization. Clearly, sufficient resources may not be available initially to permit
near-term application of CBM+ across the entire scope of weapons and equipment in a
particular Service. This means CBM+ proponents should selectively focus, at least initially, on
equipment with an anticipated high payback in improved performance, increased system life,
more efficient maintenance capability, and overall reduction of life-cycle resource expenditures.
The Services have found the insertion of CBM+ enablers in new acquisition programs
represents a ‘”low-hanging fruit” opportunity. Embedding sensors and related technologies in
the design and production phase of acquisition is usually more feasible and acceptable than
retrofitting applications in fielded legacy equipment. Adoption of new methods and integration of
new technologies is generally more feasible earlier in the system. As an organization gains
experience from the adoption of CBM+ with newer programs, the lessons learned can be readily
applied to develop plans for implementing and integrating CBM+ technology on previously
fielded weapon systems and equipment.
The alternative to focusing on implementing CBM+ in new acquisitions is to build the
CBM+ capabilities as “add-on” installations to fielded systems. This is particularly true when
large numbers of weapons systems or equipment are already operational and will be in the DoD
inventory for extended periods. Other criteria for the application of the CBM+ strategy may
include focusing on systems with the greatest maintenance workload or identifying components
that could prevent the weapon system form performing its designed mission if they failed. Yet
another approach could be to identify the items that exhibit a decrease in the mean time
between repair actions.

68
 Legacy systems pose substantial challenges to the post-production implementation of
CBM+. Three problems that commonly are encountered are:

• Installation of on-board sensors often require substantial and costly

modifications.

• Inadequate existing communications and data repository capabilities can

frustrate data collection and condition analysis.

• Off-board capabilities may not be as comprehensive as required and could

burden an already overworked workforce.
When adding CBM+ to existing capabilities, implementers should concentrate on
standardizing communications and data management technologies by maximizing the use on
open-system standards, application of common health management software, and standardized
training. This permits a structured and orderly deployment of CBM+ capabilities across multiple
legacy weapon systems and equipment types across multiple organizations and Services.

4.3.5. Accomplish Proof-of-Principle

Considering the time and funding resources required for CBM+ implementation, it is
highly advisable for implementers to accomplish small-scale demonstrations of CBM+ methods
and technologies before full-scale implementation. A short-term pilot test that uses equipment
likely to be used for later implementation can be a low-risk approach to ensuring the feasibility
and benefits of the desired capabilities. Demonstration of CBM+ planned methods and
technologies gives managers a higher degree of confidence in the likelihood of future success.
Implementers should conduct the test in the planned future environment using operational
personnel whenever possible. Full documentation of test results will provide real-world
information to support future implementation planning.
One of the common pitfalls observed is a consistent pattern of small-scale
demonstration without advancement to full-scale implementation. Organizations that conduct
the small-scale tests must continuously evaluate how the test is performing, what results are
being achieved, what results aren’t being achieved, and what modifications can be made to
improve the results. Without conducting the analysis as the pilot evolves and making
adjustments, it is easy to get stuck in a never-ending loop of pilot initiatives and fail to realize the
desired impacts of a full-scale implementation.

4.3.6. Prepare Implementation Plan

Implementation plans vary widely in scope, format, and level of detail. Implementers
should use the format that best meets their needs, but bear in mind the requirement for
credibility and ease of understanding by all potential readers. The following may be a good
starting format for a CBM+ plan:

69
 • A comprehensive statement that covers planned scope of the CBM+ application,
including equipment, organizations, and functions.

• General supportability objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives, for

major maintenance activities to be covered.

• A description of how initiative goals and objectives – and the personnel, capital,
information management, and funding resources required to meet those goals and
objectives – are to be achieved, including a general description of the analysis of
alternatives that leads to required operational and analytic processes, skills, and
technologies.

• Requirements statements and planned design approaches for each of the six CBM+
essential elements are described in Section 3 of this guidebook.

• Identification of key factors external to the organization and beyond the organization’s
control that could significantly affect achievement of general goals and objectives.

• A description of the program evaluation process, including planned metrics, to be used

in managing and evaluating progress toward achieving the desired levels of readiness
and supportability within budget.

• A plan of action and milestones which may be developed in greater detail over time.

CBM+ implementation plans may differ from the suggested format above however, a formal
implementation plan must be prepared, fully staffed, and approved by the appropriate levels of
management before initiating further implementation actions. After management approval, the
plan should be “sold” to major process customers and stakeholders. After initial approval, the
plan will be expanded into greater levels of detail and may include contracting approaches,
particularly when the CBM+ architectural documentation is completed.

4.3.7. Examine New Technologies

The most difficult task for the CBM+ implementation team may be to correctly match
available hardware, software, and supporting technology solutions to the requirements of the
future maintenance process. This task must begin with the documentation of functional
requirements. In the case of CBM+, the functional requirement can often be stated as the
objectives (see Section 1 of this guidebook) and business needs (see Section 3 of this
guidebook). Once these requirements are recognized and approved for a specific organization
or range of equipment, a comparative analysis will ensure the operational performance or
benefits of adopting CBM+ methods and technologies can be assessed effectively.
Of course, no combination of technology is likely to provide the “perfect” solution. The
team will need to make numerous compromises, trading off required capabilities against cost,
time, and implementation difficulty. The decision to adopt a particular technology solution
should never be based solely on the merits or appeal of the technology itself. Ultimately, the

70
advisability of acquiring a particular technical capability relies on the contribution that the
acquisition makes toward improving one or more performance metrics or reducing cost factors.
Decisions on technology selection should always be made in the context of meeting
functional requirements using the framework of business case alternatives.

4.3.8. Develop Data Strategy

One of the first areas to be considered by the CBM+ IPT should be the approach and
mechanism for managing the condition and related data required to accomplish condition-based
analysis whether on-, at-, or off-platform. Applying open systems or military standards will
facilitate the integration of the various CBM+ elements. It is advisable to complete the
architectural interface views for data management, storage, and exchange as soon as possible.
Acquiring software packages that are fully compatible with open data standards is also an
essential part of a good data strategy.
Equally important as part of a data strategy is developing a standardized format for the
data that is being collected. The use of a standard format will make analysis of the data at an
aggregate level easier. Standardized data elements and methods will also help to simplify and
streamline the transfer of data between the multitude of systems. Standardized data elements
will eliminate confusion as to the ‘meaning’ of a data element between systems and the need for
decoder rings to understand during compilation from multiple sources.

4.3.9. Develop Architecture

Once the CBM+ implementation plan has been approved, the IPT should begin
constructing the architectural views, descriptions, and profiles as described in the DoD
Architectural Framework. As discussed earlier, the CBM+ architecture becomes a key part of
the implementation plan particularly when defining interfaces between the components of a
comprehensive condition-based maintenance process. Astute managers rely on the
architectural representations to identify personnel training topics, assess progress for each
process component, reallocate developmental resources, integrate different process
components, and explain the details of the initiative to outside reviewers. When required, a
system’s acquisition documents should be revised to incorporate CBM+ functionality as it is
described in the architectural views. Finally, the architectural design is a validation tool that
ensures the final product is complete and satisfies the needs of the customer.

4.3.10. Set Life-Cycle Metrics

In creating the strategy for CBM+ implementation, it is essential to identify and remain
focused on strategic changes required to accomplish the transition to the desired CBM+
environment. Life cycle sustainment metrics provide the quantitative tools to track CBM+
implementation and operation. The minimum set of life cycle sustainment metrics (sustainment
KPPs and KSAs) address in Section 1 of this guidebook should form the starting point. As the

71
implementation effort progresses, additional high-level performance and cost metrics should be
developed as well as supporting or diagnostic metrics 16. Initially however, the CBM+
implementation team should identify which high-level metrics are required to monitor overall
maintenance performance, costs, and results.
The CBM+ implementation team should begin with metrics developed through recent
research that use the balanced scorecard approach. 17 A quantitative baseline that uses past
experience or estimated metric targets should be developed. The balanced scorecard approach
requires measures in the following areas:

• Meeting the strategic needs of the enterprise;

• Meeting the needs of the individual customers;

• Addressing internal business performance; and

• Addressing process improvement initiative results.

Implementation of CBM+ requires a structured approach to measuring both the progress
of implementation and performance and costs once the CBM+ process is operational. Section 6
of this guidebook provides a more detailed explanation of CBM+ life-cycle sustainment metrics.

4.3.11. Develop Deployment and Support Strategy

CBM+ deployment is a complex endeavor, especially when the user base is dispersed or
there is a wide range of process or organizational configurations. The deployment plan is a
critical element of the overall CBM+ implementation strategy.
Implementers should announce the projected deployment schedule, including the
expected training and installation dates. These announcements are important because
managers and maintainers want to know how and when the changes will affect them. Respect
the fact that deployment efforts are disruptive.
A well-documented yet flexible deployment plan is critical to success. Do not assume
users will readily accept the “goodness” of CBM+ changes. Implementers need to understand
to whom they are deploying new capabilities, their current work practices and policies, the
amount of change they are willing to tolerate, and how CBM+ will affect supportability once
deployed. Generally, the larger the organization the more difficult it is to deploy changes due to
cultural inertia. One approach is to work backwards when deployment planning. Envision the
new process in operational mode and identify the steps needed to get to the level of
supportability required by the operational customer to accomplish the mission. A good
deployment plan includes go/no-go decision points during the installation process. If installation
simply isn’t working, rollback the efforts and try to install again at a future date. Do not “go down
with the ship.” Capabilities to respond to process deficiencies, obtain user feedback, and track

16
Diagnostic metrics are measures that relate to specific elements of the maintenance process that must
be quantified, managed, and improved to ensure achievement of overall performance and cost goals.
17
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, “The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance,”
Harvard Business Review, January – February 1992.

72
metrics should be part of the deployment approach. Data conversion will be a critical task for
the deployment of new capabilities. It is a complex effort that should be started as early as
possible consistent with fleet size or numbers of site locations.

4.3.12. Complete the Business Case

A business case is a document that identifies functional and supporting technical

alternatives and presents economical and technical arguments for selecting alternatives over
the life cycle to achieve the organization’s business objectives or management direction. A
BCA is one way of showing the advantage or disadvantage of implementing a CBM+ strategy
using both tangible and intangible factors. The CBM+ implementation team should prepare a
comprehensive BCA as a companion document to the implementation plan. 18
In a CBM+ initiative, technology choices become drivers of maintenance process change
and equipment redesign. Because acquiring the technologies required for CBM+
implementation will result in significant expenditures, the BCA is an essential tool to support
management decisions and help justify program and budget inputs. 19 If the CBM+ technology is
removed or modified during the acquisition process, a BCA should be redone to measure the
impact on life-cycle costs.

4.3.13. Develop Resources Strategy and an Integrated Budget

It is highly likely that CBM+ initiatives will be viewed initially as a consumer of resources.
Considerable investment will be required to include CBM+ capabilities in new weapon systems
and equipment or to “back-fit” CBM+ onto legacy equipment. It is essential from the outset that
CBM+ be marketed with stakeholders and customers as an enabler of process improvement
and a conserver of resources over the equipment life cycle. Early emphasis on building a
credible business case will go far in justifying this perception, which also will be enhanced
through careful attention to accuracy of programming and budgeting projections.
Depending on where in the life cycle the CBM+ initiative is applied, applicable funding
sources may be from research and development, procurement, or operations and maintenance
appropriations. The manager must leverage potential CBM+ performance, readiness, and cost
benefits at each stage of the life cycle to maximize funding availability. However, a prudent
manager will not overstate projected future savings. It is essential the CBM+ implementers
work closely with program and funds managers to ensure that funding requirements are
thoroughly validated based on DoD policy requirements to implement CBM+ and that
requirements are reasonable, adequate, and likely to result in positive return on investment.
Of equal importance is the requirement to continually integrate, document, and track
validated requirements in PPBE documents. CBM+ managers should ensure validated

18
A BCA learning module is available at https://dau.edu/courses/log-0150
19
A model for developing a CBM+ business case is available at
https://www.acq.osd.mil/log/MR/.cbm+.html/CBM+_BCA_Paper.pdf

73
resources are included in acquisition requirements documents as early as possible. A Service’s
program objective memorandum should specifically identify CBM+ funding proposals. Similarly,
programmed CBM+ funds should be included in appropriate budget submissions. Finally, a
diligent, integrated approach to tracking of CBM+ requirements and funding throughout the
PPBE cycle will minimize diversions of these resources to other competing needs.

4.4 CBM+ Implementation Phase

Building on the actions accomplished in the planning phase, the implementation team
should manage a time-phased implementation of process changes, technology insertion,
organizational realignments, and equipment changes. Clearly these efforts are highly
dependent on the availability of implementation resources.
The implementation of a CBM+ strategy will be, by necessity, incremental. This
guidebook stresses the requirements for comprehensive objectives setting and rigorous
planning prior to the implementation. Each implementation plan should dictate the sequence of
actions and areas of emphasis. Once the planning phase is completed, then implementation
should proceed according to the planned milestones. The following subsections outline the
principal activities to be executed during CBM+ implementation.

4.4.1. Acquire CBM+ Technical Capabilities (Sensors, Communications, and Data

Repositories)

The acquisition of the technical hardware infrastructure for a CBM+ initiative is one of the
most visible and expensive elements of the implementation effort. While it is usually the
responsibility of the technical or engineering community to select specific hardware
components, logistics functional managers must participate to ensure selected technologies will
meet operational needs and hardware components can be integrated into the overall
architecture of the maintenance and other supporting processes. Consideration for
obsolescence and availability of technology refreshment provisions are also important, as DoD
tends to retain equipment considerably longer than the private sector.
DoD policy requires use commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions whenever possible.
Cost considerations, return on investment, availability of sources, and delivery lead-times must
also be monitored by the functional manager. Finally, selecting “leading-edge” technologies is
not always the best solution. A good rule is to select technologies that meet, but do not exceed,
functional requirements.

4.4.2. Acquire Health Management Software

Software acquisition should be the subject to some of the basic guidelines applied to
hardware in terms of interoperability, cost, and satisfying functional needs. Generally, CBM+
software components satisfy functional requirements. The documented business needs should
drive software selection.

74
 Although hardware and software must be compatible, software functionality should be
validated first, with supporting hardware matched to complete the total package. In addition,
functional managers should pay particular attention to human interface capabilities. The
operational user will interact with interfaces built into the software components therefore, overly
complex or non-standard human interface techniques should be avoided. The key is to match
software capabilities to specific functional requirements. The same COTS rules apply to
software acquisitions.

4.4.3. Demonstrate Data Management Approach

Data availability is one of the critical concerns in many DoD process improvement
initiatives. CBM is clearly a data-oriented process. Most CBM+ elements are focused on
improving data production, communication, storage, access, and use. Fortunately, thanks to
technology, a multitude of data management capabilities are available.
Functional managers should maximize the application of data standards and foster a
common understanding of data definition across the CBM+ components. Early attention to the
CBM+ architecture will be essential to an effective data management capability. A functional
demonstration of the data management process to technical and operations (i.e., user)
personnel should occur as early as possible in the implementation phase. This demonstration
should include a review of the significant range of data in a life-like database and test runs of
health management software against this test database. This is the beginning of building user
confidence in the CBM+ improvements.

4.4.4. Revalidate RCM and Reliability Analysis

As part of the implementation, a continuous review process will ensure periodic

revalidation of initial reliability assessments. This is necessary to determine appropriate
changes to maintenance approaches based on system re-engineering and redesign, equipment
and component modifications, operational and mission changes, technological advances, and
improved logistics capabilities. Based on the potential impacts of such changes, maintenance
managers may wish to revise maintenance approaches and reallocate maintenance resources
as indicated. Making such decisions on a timely and accurate basis will require full accessibility
to documentation of prior reliability analysis efforts.

4.4.5. Demonstrate CBM+ Element Interoperability

Interoperability should occur at each level of an effective CBM+ environment. This

means incrementally implementing the ability to share information and, for different elements,
demonstrating proper interaction between the equipment platform and the off-platform parts of
the condition data collection and assessment elements and across enterprise organizational
entities. Interoperability is best achieved through an open systems strategy that uses

75
commercially supported practices, products, specifications, and standards, which are selected
because of performance, cost, industry acceptance, long-term availability and supportability,
and upgrade potential.
As hardware and software elements of a CBM+ initiative are acquired and the data
management mechanism put in place, CBM+ implementers should test the information
exchange capabilities using as much of the full spectrum of condition data and analytical
information derived from sensor sources as possible. Further, the interfaces between data
repositories throughout the architectural environment and acquired analytic software should be
thoroughly tested and demonstrated. The interoperability of CBM+ hardware, software, and
human interface components should be based on the approved architectural framework.

4.4.6. Demonstrate CBM+ Functionality

Functionality means a process performs its principal tasks in accordance with the
approved design, and inputs and outputs, whether automated or manual, are acceptable in
terms of format, quality of content, processing volume capability, and timeliness. Once the
component elements of a CBM+ initiative This end-to-end functionality should be tested
according to the CBM+ architecture design.
The demonstration of functionality should assure the CBM+ implementation that, when
operational, the CBM+ elements will produce results that are accurate, timely, and meet the
expectations of the target user. The user community’s representatives should also participate in
the functionality demonstration. It is particularly important that the human interface of the
initiative be demonstrated under live conditions to the extent possible.

4.4.7. Complete Pilot Program Field Test

Despite the rigor applied in controlled testing, there is no substitute for process testing in
an operational environment. Pilot tests are a staple of the DoD’s approach to implementation of
hardware, software, and functional capabilities. Pilot testing in the field permits the initiative to
perform in a real-world setting, influenced by random events and subject to conditions not
included or even foreseen in the test environment.
A pilot test at an operational location also permits the intended users to participate in the
new process under their own terms and in a familiar setting. However, the pilot test
environment should still be more controlled than actual operations. The following are among
the elements that need to be controlled.

• A comprehensive test plan structure should be followed.

• Test activity and results should be tracked and fully documented, including operational
user comments.

• Input and output test data should be screened, with out-of-tolerance data clearly
identified.

76
 • Human operators should be well trained with hands-on oversight by the implementation
team.

• A specific pilot test timeframe and ending date should be established.

Complete records of the activity and results of the pilot test must be maintained to ensure
technical capabilities work as intended, and that cause-and-effect actions result in desired
outcomes. This means, when CBM+ capabilities are put in place, desired results (such as
reduced mean down time, reduction of maintenance hours, reduced costs) actually occur.
Documentation of pilot test results also helps assess whether the maintenance actions
determined through RCM analysis and reliability analysis are the most appropriate for the tested
equipment or component. The DoD has implemented a project management tool where pilot
program information can be stored and shared with other CBM+ practitioners.
The COP4ST suite, located within Advana, can be found at:
https://wiki.a2et.advana.data.mil/display/ASTECH/Advanced+Sustainment+Technology+Home

4.4.8. Resolve Performance and Cost Issues

The demonstration and test efforts provide the input for modification of performance
objectives and identify areas where additional costs or reallocation of resources may be
necessary. CBM+ implementers should ensure that needed revisions are documented and
executed in funding programs and in updates to acquisition requirements documents for future
program reviews. If resource changes cannot be made, then management should be advised of
the impact on the implementation plans. Revise all planning documents based on current
management decisions.

4.4.9. Train Stakeholders and Users

Training is an important part of deployment. Remember, stakeholders may need training

beyond learning how to work with the application. This may be the first time some users are
working in a condition-based process. Similarly, it may be the first-time users are working with a
new technology, but they need to be trained and educated with the technology to enable them
to work with CBM+ capabilities.
Training plans and schedules should be consistent with implementation milestones.
DoD policy requires training programs that emphasize approaches that enhance user
capabilities, maintain skill proficiencies, and reduce the individual and collective training costs.
CBM+ training plans should maximize the use of new learning techniques, simulation
technology, embedded training, and distance learning systems that provide anytime, anyplace
training and reduces the demand on the training establishment.
CBM+ implementers should seek out existing CBM+ related training available across DoD (e.g.,
DAU course CLL-029 CBM+) and commercial industry and make use of this training to the
greatest extent possible.

77
4.4.10. Revise Implementation Plan

It is important the CBM+ implementation plan be kept current and aligned with
management decisions, resource availability, acquisition of essential CBM+ elements, and the
attainment of milestones. Often changes outside the control of the maintenance organization,
such as DoD policies, will affect the CBM+ implementation schedule. These fact-of-life
conditions are common. By revising the implementation plan to accommodate such changes,
the focus and credibility of the team will be maintained. Often, scaling back the scope of
implementation or extending implementation target dates will be necessary. A flexible manager
will use such setbacks to fine-tune planning or even chart alternate implementation strategies.

4.4.11. Update Supportability Strategy

Efforts to increase weapon system availability while reducing life-cycle costs and
logistics footprints must include periodic assessments and, where necessary, improvements of
the support strategy. System or equipment supportability is highly dependent on the
maintenance plan. Revision of this plan through continuous analysis can help balance logistics
support resources through review of readiness degraders, equipment maintenance data,
maintenance program schedules and execution, and industrial coordination to identify and
assess new methods and technologies. CBM+ capabilities must also be modified if such
changes are indicated by this analysis. Increases or decreases in acquisition and use of CBM+
capabilities may also be appropriate if revisions to reliability analysis results occur.

4.4.12. Acquire Full Production Capability

This effort acquires the funded quantity of planned CBM+ capabilities and supporting
materiel and services for the full initiative or for a significant increment. The full range of
planning, acquisition, testing, and demonstration actions must be successfully accomplished
prior to approval to acquire the full scope of CBM+ capabilities. Acquisition of hardware,
software, and related items may be accomplished as a total package or according to an
incremental acquisition plan based on best-value pricing and planned deployment schedules. If
key components of planned CBM+ capabilities are not available for delivery, postponement of
acquisition or delivery of related components should be considered.

4.4.13. Accomplish CBM+ Deployment

CBM+ initiative deployment should be executed in accordance with the Deployment and
Supportability Strategy Plan. Elements of a CBM+ initiative should be an incremental or phased
implementation across the planned environment. Implementers should ensure user
organizations are fully prepared to receive and operate the planned CBM+ capabilities.

78
 In addition to the installation of CBM+ capabilities implementers should ensure
mechanisms for correcting deficiencies, capturing user feedback, and tracking performance and
cost metrics are in place and operating. Once a complete or significant portion of a CBM+
capability is in operation, a post-deployment lessons-learned report should be prepared.

4.5 CBM+ Operations Phase

The Operations Phase of a CBM+ initiative begins with the deployment of the first
significant increment at an operational user location and ends with the cessation of use or
replacement of the CBM+ capability.

4.5.1. Continuously Analyze Condition-Related Data at Component, Platform, and

Enterprise Levels

The CBM+ strategy envisions a long-term maintenance approach that is based upon
more effective collection, analysis and use of CBM information. The deployment of a CBM+
capability in an operation and maintenance environment should be viewed as a permanent way
of doing business over the life cycle of a weapon system or equipment. By acquiring and
installing sensor-based technologies and data management, and by providing the ability to
analyze collected data and produce effective decision support information, the CBM+ strategy
will become institutionalized across DoD’s maintenance community. To achieve this objective,
implementers must continue to pursue the development and installation of all of the essential
elements of CBM+ across the broadest possible range of weapons, equipment, and
maintenance organizations.

4.5.2. Revalidate RCM and Reliability Approaches

DoD policy prescribes CBM as the preferred maintenance approach however, as

circumstances change, maintenance managers should reassess condition-based strategies and
use of CBM+ enablers to ensure a positive return on investment and the most effective
approach to satisfying customer maintenance requirements. Continuous monitoring of
performance and cost metrics is one way of accomplishing these tasks. Managers should
regularly review the results of reliability-based support decisions and realign maintenance
analysis and execution approaches as required.
Initial RCM analysis results informed the creation of the maintenance tasks that enabled
CBM and the inclusion of appropriate CBM+ enablers. Data gathered from maintenance and
other functions should be used to revisit the RCM analysis process and either validate current
maintenance strategies or justify adjustments to the plan. This is particularly important over
time as equipment ages or is modified, missions change, and technology advances.

79
4.5.3. Develop Performance Baselines

The single greatest impediment to assessing the results and impact of a CBM+ initiative
is the lack of current and credible platform, fleet, and organizational performance, as well as
cost data over a period sufficient to support maintenance decisions. CBM+ practitioners should
build into their initiative the capability to collect, track, and assess a baseline of equipment
maintenance information sufficient to populate and continuously update performance and cost
metrics databases. As the adage goes, “What gets measured, gets done.” Establishing a
historical data repository of key CBM+ related performance and cost information is essential to
supporting maintenance programming and budgeting submissions, BCAs, and validation of
maintenance strategies.

4.5.4. Continuously Review CBM+ Metrics

Effective management of any process requires accurate and timely quantification and
measurement of results. For DoD logistics activities, such measurement relies on relating
available resources to readiness at the best cost. Maintenance managers should recognize that
metrics are essential when assessing and tracking at the progress and results of a CBM+
initiative.
As CBM+ initiatives are implemented, it is important to track progress against DoD
enterprise objectives to ensure the effort is meeting management’s expectations. 20 Specific
CBM+ metrics should be consistent with and supportive of the following operational and force
readiness objectives:

• Maximize readiness and availability of weapon systems and equipment.

• Improve reliability of weapon systems, equipment, and components.

• Reduce life-cycle ownership costs.

• Reduce mean down time.

The challenge is not the lack of data, the challenge often is a surplus of data or the lack of
useable data to make informed, strategic decisions at the right time. Implementers often
collect data to track individual, discrete performance, cost, or customer satisfaction measures.
To really have an impact, they need to compile, analyze, and act on the metrics data in an
integrated, systemic, and long-term way. Effective managers take time to review their key
metrics and validate maintenance actions or change course when necessary. Having an
overall metrics utilization strategy will help accomplish this.
A plan for evaluating the CBM+ initiative through quantifiable metrics will help. That plan
should include the following steps:

20
Section 6 describes a series of life-cycle sustainment metrics applicable to CBM+ implementation and
operations in greater detail.

80
 • Identify what metrics to use and the required data.

• Collect only the data needed to make informed decisions.

• Identify priority “action areas” for improvement, measure the impact of those actions,
and keep your stakeholders and customers satisfied.

• Determine benchmark objectives and performance goals you should aspire to and
the extent to which they are being achieved.

• Evaluate whether an acceptable return on the investment is being obtained.

Metrics can be used effectively to direct or reassess CBM+ management efforts and to
evaluate how well the CBM+ initiative is helping to achieve the organization’s mission.

4.5.6. Refresh Enabling Technologies

Rapid technological advancement requires a prudent technology refreshment strategy to

provide long-term, cost-effective support and operations and to upgrade CBM+ components
ahead of the obsolescence curve. Health management software and diagnostics and
prognostics capabilities will likely experience order-of-magnitude advances in the next several
years. What is needed is a proactive approach to managing technology updates based on the
following objectives:

• Improving technology surveillance. Provide a mechanism for proactively assessing the

obsolescence of technologies and a mechanism to influence technology planning based
on likely future developments in technology.

• Leveraging commercial industry technology advancements to reduce system cost, while

increasing system reliability, growth capacity, and performance.

• Minimizing product obsolescence impacts on the CBM+ capability through proactive

modernization planning.

• Use open-source standards and technologies where feasible and cost effective to
reduce risk of being tied to sole-source or proprietary hardware and software.

• Developing credible technology refreshment planning schedules for selected system-

critical products.

• Building and maintaining a knowledge base that contains information (e.g., lessons
learned) that can be easily accessed to support technology refreshment planning.

CBM+ implementers should understand the downsides to technology refreshment, such as

expensive modification and increased configuration management for multiple versions of
software and hardware. Include the requirements for planning, programming and budgeting
sufficient funds to enable a technology refresh. An updated business case will help support
refresh.

81
4.5.7. Revalidate Human Interfaces

The American culture has strong faith in technology to overcome many obstacles and
help with almost any job. It is critical for the CBM+ manager to avoid a mismatch between
technology capabilities and the ability of the human operators to properly understand and make
the best use of these technologies and the information they produce. Adequate training can
often be the solution to such problems however, periodic reviews of manual input and output
procedures and the utility of system management and operational products will sometimes
reveal human interface deficiencies.
Although CBM+ moves a maintenance organization closer to a more fully automated
environment, ultimately human decisions are required to fulfill the complete maintenance action.
Interface revalidation should be accomplished at all levels of the CBM+ process, from the
platform to high-level decision-support systems. By ensuring information provided to operators
and managers is credible, timely, easily understood, and relevant to the decision process,
CBM+ capabilities will more effectively contribute to an effective maintenance program.

4.5.8. Periodically Update CBM+ Business Case

The initial business case is an essential element for justifying a CBM+ initiative. As the
life cycle of the system or equipment progresses, it is a good practice for maintenance
managers to revisit the business case to see if the factors validating a particular level of CBM+
implementation are still applicable. This is also a good opportunity to determine if the original
planned performance is being achieved and if projected return on investment has occurred. A
full formal business case may not be required, but an informal revisit to the BCA may help fine
tune the long-term CBM+ strategy and to provide quantified justification for revised inputs to
budget updates.

4.5.9. Continuously Update Resources Strategy and Integrated Budget

As the maintenance strategy for any major acquisition program must include CBM+, it
should also be identified and described in the program LCSP. This includes discussion about
funding and sustainment over the lifecycle. CBM+ managers must continuously review and
update their strategies for funding the initiative over its life cycle. Resource requirements to
maintain and update CBM+ capabilities will change as new weapons and equipment are fielded,
maintenance plans are revies, new technologies are developed, and reliability assessments are
modified. It is also necessary to market the CBM+ strategy as stakeholders and customers
change to ensure management’s continued support. Further, program and budget
documentation should be updated for the entire financial program cycle to maintain adequate
levels of resources. This includes phasing out investment for weapon systems, equipment, and
major components at the end of their operational life cycle.

82
4.5.10. Optimize Maintenance Strategies

Despite the best efforts of planning and implementation managers, the CBM+ initiative
will require redirection and modifications in the operational phase. New policies and
procedures, operational experience, technology updates, mission and organization changes,
funding availability, and other factors will necessitate reassessment of a number of initial
approaches. From initial deployment, it is advisable to document the lessons learned and to
look for new ways to improve CBM+ methods and adopt updated enabling technologies.
This approach to CBM+ promotes the reliance on a CPI management strategy. Under
CPI, management and employees continuously revise the current processes and, once they
have been mastered, establish more challenging objectives. Improvement can be broken down
between innovation and evolutionary change.

• Innovation involves significant improvements to existing processes in a relatively short

time and may require large investments.

• Evolutionary change focuses on small improvements over time as a result of coordinated

continuous efforts by all employees.

Effective CBM+ managers watch for opportunities for both innovative and evolutionary
improvements. They adjust or revise plans as required to achieve desired results. Once the
reason for a deviation is determined, the adjust plans to get it back on track.
Since deviation in outcomes may be positive or negative, change involves either rescuing
strategies that are not working or are not being properly implemented, or making adjustments
that help an organization capitalize on strategy overachievement. If the strategy is
underachieving, small adjustments are often sufficient to get a planned improvement back on
track. These adjustments often involve changing the timeframe for achieving a milestone or
downscaling the quantity or quality of the planned initiative. In most instances, the entire
approach should not be abandoned. If the strategy is overachieving (that is, if it is ahead of its
target achievements), adopt a more ambitious new objective for the same timetable. In any
case, managers should ensure any changes to CBM+ strategy are fully documented in official
maintenance plans.

83
This page intentionally left blank.

84
5. Managing a CBM+ Initiative or Program

5.1. A CBM+ Program Review Checklist

CBM+ planning and implementation may be initiated at any point in the acquisition life
cycle from the materiel solution analysis to the operations & support phases. The initiative
manager must be prepared to describe, market, and justify the CBM+ strategy and required
resources for reviewers, stakeholders, and customers throughout the initiative’s entire life cycle.
Table 7 is a suggested review checklist for responding to questions and issues likely to be
raised as part of the periodic life-cycle oversight reviews of a CBM+ initiative.

Area Issue
Policy Is this CBM+ initiative fully consistent with and supportive of DoD
and Service policy and direction?
Requirements Is this CBM+ initiative based on approved business needs?
identification Have the strategy and implementation actions been documented in
joint requirements documents?
Has an RCM analysis been conducted to determine baseline
maintenance requirements?
Resources strategy Have BCAs been completed for each initiative?
Have the best-cost funding requirements from the BCA been
documented in the integrated program or budget submissions?
Implementation Has the implementation strategy been documented and approved
strategy by management, stakeholders, and customers?
Has a CBM+ implementation and deployment plan of action and
milestones been published?
Does the implementation strategy include interrelationships with
other DoD and Service initiatives, such as PSS, Performance-
Based Acquisition, or Systems Engineering?
Does the LCSP describe the CBM+ implementation strategy?
Reliability relationship Has a reliability analysis and/or an RCM analysis been completed
for the target weapon system, equipment, or components?
Technology Have all applicable technology applications been identified from
applications both public and private sources?
What diagnostic or prognostic capabilities are included in this
initiative?
Have technology demonstrations been accomplished or planned to
ensure specific applicability, interoperability, and functionality?
Architecture and data Has an architectural description of the CBM+ initiative been
strategy developed?
Has a data management strategy for all organizational levels been
developed and tested?
Are accepted data and information standards planned for

85
 information storage and exchange?
Have cybersecurity requirements been met?
Metrics assessment Have performance-driven objectives and best-cost metrics been
developed for this CBM+ implementation?
Are metrics for availability, reliability, mean down time, and
ownership costs provided?
Human factors and Does the CBM+ team have sufficient training and technical skills?
interfaces Does the CBM+ implementation strategy fully consider human
interface requirements?
Continuous process Does the CBM+ implementation strategy fully consider CPI
improvement techniques such as Lean, Six Sigma, or Theory of Constraints?
Does the life-cycle planning strategy include provisions for process
and technology refreshment?
Are there provisions for maintenance plan optimization based on
changing operational requirements, reliability changes, equipment
modifications, or funding changes?
Table 7 - CBM+ Program Review Checklist

5.2. A CBM+ Management Approach

An important prerequisite of a CBM+ implementation is the need to change significant

elements of the maintenance environment to facilitate the adoption of CBM+ enabling
capabilities. Such change occurs over time in an incremental, phased fashion based on CPI
tenets The CBM+ initiative requires a life-cycle perspective and a long-term management
commitment.
Each phase of a CBM+ initiative will benefit from a continuous review of objectives,
ongoing and planned activities, and results. An outcome assessment affords the opportunity to
measure progress and whether the desired effects are being achieved. Using a sailboat
metaphor, the captain keeps checking the course position and adjusting the sails and rudder as
necessary to keep the craft on course.
An evaluation begins with a comparison of actual implementation strategies results
against targets (objectives, goals, and key results). Monitoring provides the opportunity to
adjust strategies, resources, timing, or other factors to keep a plan on track. Monitoring usually
is continuous, with formal evaluation reports periodically reviewed by key managers.
In a broad context, managers should continuously ask three kinds of questions as part of
a common-sense management approach:
1. Are the strategies and actions accomplishing the desired goals and objectives
within target ranges of results? If not, what adjustments may be necessary?

2. Are other adjustments required with respect to internal strengths and

weaknesses?

86
 3. Are other adjustments required with respect to changing external conditions and
opportunities?

The elements of a CBM+ strategy, as outlined in this guidebook, can be implemented

successfully only with a concerted application of effective management approaches to the
initiative. CBM+ implementers should not view their efforts as a technology application. Since
the technologies work, they should concentrate on managing the initiative using CPI strategies.
One management approach that is particularly applicable to a CBM+ initiative is the
Plan, Do, Check, and Act (PDCA) model (Figure 18).

Figure 18 - Plan, Do, Check, and Act Model

The PDCA model forms a never-ending cycle, and every step is equally important. It is
a process-thinking model with several key components: resource commitment; training and
culture change; assessment; communications; and documentation. Making the mode work
requires substantial and continuous commitment on the part of management. The following are
among the management strategies that essential to a PDCA effort.

• Ensure cross-organizational involvement throughout design, development, and

implementation.

• Remember that implementation consists of all the steps, not just Plan and Do. Be willing
to expend the same resources on assessments and continual improvement as expended
on planning and development; doing less is false economy.

87
 • Promote a process mentality instead of a project mentality. Avoid “check the box
activity.” Help people understand the initiative will never be finished because there will
always be better ways to do things, or better things to do.

• Maintain consistent leadership. Continuity and strong support from senior management
is crucial. One way to protect from unexpected leadership changes is to make sure
everyone at every level of the organization is continually “dipped” in the initiative. In a
process that really works, leadership can change but the system moves forward
because the new leaders are as immersed in the process as the ones who left.

• Maintain a flexible, efficient organizational structure throughout implementation.

Continuous communication throughout the chain of command is vital, as is employee
feedback.

• Employ quantifiable measures to track your progress, not “punitive” measures such as
injuries, spills, and violations. Use measures that will track the right thins to get the
initiative embedded into the organization. See Section 6 for management measures.
Remember, CBM+ implementation is not about technology. It is about helping employees
and organizations perform the way management wants them to perform and helping them to
achieve an organizational mission.

5.3. CBM+ Relationship with Other DoD Efforts

Organizationally and functionally, only a few efforts in the DoD truly stand alone.
Relationships among different efforts may be based on process dependencies, mutual
objectives, commonly used technologies, shared resources, or organizational linkages. CBM+
implementers should stay current on related or similar activities both to help ensure common
objectives and to benefit from lessons learned whenever possible. Some of the key current
DoD-wide initiatives that may impact or complement the CBM+ community include the following:

• PSS

• RCM

• Performance-Based Acquisition

• Systems Engineering

• Information Technology Portfolio Management

88
5.3.1 CBM+ and the Product Support Strategy

Under the DoDs Product Support Strategy, PMs are responsible for the overall
management of the weapon system life-cycle support, including the following:

• Timely acquisition of weapon systems meeting warfighter performance requirements

• Integration of sustainability and maintainability requirements during the acquisition

process

• Life-cycle weapon system and equipment sustainment to meet or exceed

performance requirements at best value to DoD.

PSS implementation is an incremental and continuous effort to ensure all valid support
requirements are identified and included in requirements and funding programs at each
acquisition milestone. Section 3 described the primary CBM+ elements that should be
incorporated into the program milestone documentation to ensure CBM+ requirements are
institutionalized as part of the acquisition program development, review, and approval process.
CBM+ contributes to a number of process improvement initiatives (such as the ones
outlined below) to attain the life-cycle support objectives of system effectiveness and
affordability. As an example, CBM+ capabilities feed into the PSS, as shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19 - CBM+ Relationship to PSS

5.3.2. CBM+ and Reliability-Centered Maintenance

RCM is the analytical process used by maintenance managers in determining

appropriate maintenance actions when considering costs, accuracy, and availability of required

89
data, and the specific failure mechanism being analyzed. Opting for condition-based
maintenance strategies in one possible outcome from an RCM analysis.
The synergy between RCM and CBM+ relates to the use of applicable CBM+
technologies and methods to support management decisions for selecting and executing
maintenance tasks. Applying RCM and CBM+ will provide maintainers with the rationale for
choosing the most technically appropriate and effective maintenance task for a component or
end item. In addition, the availability of timely and accurate condition assessment data made
available through CBM+ capabilities will support RCM analytical reviews to update applicable
approved maintenance requirements throughout the life cycle of the component or end item.

5.3.3. CBM+ and Performance-Based Acquisition

Performance-driven outcomes means the performance of all provider activities is

measured against clearly defined outcomes at the weapon system level. Within that context,
the performance-based acquisitions strategy is an approach that supports an approach
structured around the results to be achieved as opposed to the manner by which the work is to
be performed. As CBM+ helps focus the maintenance process on maximizing weapons and
equipment readiness with optimum resource allocation, it fully complements the performance-
based concept. In fact, it becomes an essential factor in attaining the performance-based
objectives in the area of maintenance. DoD policy prescribes performance-based acquisition
strategies as the approach that will be applied to all new procurements and upgrades, as well as
re-procurements of systems, subsystems, and spares that are procured beyond the initial
production contract award. 21 CBM+ tools, technologies, and processes achieve desired
outcomes through continuous improvement of weapon system performance and availability,
along with a reduction in ownership costs.

5.3.4. CBM+ and Systems Engineering

Systems engineering is the overarching process that a program team applies to move
from a required capability to an operationally effective and suitable system. Systems
engineering processes are applied early in concept refinement, and then continuously applied
throughout the system’s life cycle. PSMs are specifically charged under 10 USC 4324 to
“ensure the life cycle sustainment plan is informed by appropriate predictive analysis and
modeling tools that can improve material availability and reliability, increase operational
availability rates, and reduce operation and sustainment costs” 22. PMs, PSMs, and life-cycle
logisticians should consider the effect system development decisions, such as the application of
the CBM+ strategy, will have on the long-term operational effectiveness and the logistics
affordability of the system. The cost to implement a system change, including supportability
enhancements, increases as a program moves further along its life cycle.

21
DoD Directive 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, September 9, 2020, Enclosure 1.
22
10 USC 4324

90
 CBM+ has the greatest leverage in the early stages of development when the program
design is most flexible. The life-cycle logistician must ensure CBM+ implementation is
addressed in the system’s design and also ensure that the maintenance support concept and
plans will be flexible and responsive enough to support the design and resultant or evolving
system. The ability to ensure affordable support is dependent upon the extent and accuracy
that reliability, maintainability, and the necessary tools and information (such as prognostics and
diagnostics) have been built in during system design and procurement. Thus, it is essential that
CBM+ managers actively participate in the system engineering IPTs to ensure maintenance
approaches are balanced with program schedule, technical performance, and cost objectives.

5.3.5. CBM+ and Information Technology Portfolio Management

In its basic form, information technology (IT) portfolio management attempts to gain
comprehensive management control of the full range of IT projects within an organization. The
objectives are to ensure projects match organization strategic goals, prioritize projects and
resource allocation, and continuously manage a group of IT projects in a holistic and continuous
manner. Implementers should ensure CBM+ hardware, software, and related technology
requirements are identified and included in their organization’s IT portfolio management
process. The CBM+ implementation strategy should consider IT applications documented both
within their own Service and in other Service, agency, and commercial portfolios to identify any
joint-use software, common data standards, or supporting technology applications. Making full
use of joint-use applications will enable CBM+ funding requirements to compete more
effectively.

5.4. Overcoming Barriers to CBM+ Implementation

Organizational resistance to change is common in any endeavor. Most DoD personnel

are comfortable doing things in familiar ways that were learned through experience. Although
change is often mandated by management, effecting real and permanent change occurs when
the practitioners of a given process understand the reasons for change, the benefits to be
obtained, and how their jobs can be made easier or how results can be more effective.
Appendix C discusses some elements of resistance to change that are likely to be encountered
in a CBM+ implementation.

5.5. Twenty Questions a Manager Should Consider

Implementation of CBM+ is not a single event. It is an evolutionary effort that

progresses incrementally. DoD managers at all organizational levels, including logistics
activities, PMs, depot- and field-level maintainers, and operational commanders face similar
management issues during CBM+ implementation and execution. A good manager periodically
steps back, reviews the organization’s process, and assesses the initiative results to date.
As a CBM+ initiative progresses the following questions should be asked:

91
1. Have I correctly identified the right CBM+ requirements and implementation actions
based on desired operational outcomes that reflect stakeholder requirements?
2. Do I understand the relevant CBM+ policy guidance including the Life-Cycle
Sustainment?
3. Have I identified to leadership defendable estimates of the probable end-state results of
the CBM+ initiative based on quantified analysis?
4. Do I have the right people for my team and do I have adequate training for the team
(e.g., RCM training, CBM+ training)?
5. Does the implementation approach represent the varied interests and objectives of
stakeholders and customers?
6. Are the implementation and operating tasks sufficient to cover the breadth of the
strategy, and are they tied to a relevant organizational strategic plan?
7. Have I applied Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) analysis to develop initial
maintenance requirements?
8. Does the action plan accommodate the requirements, and can it be achieved in a
reasonable amount of time?
9. Do the implementation tasks and measures flow directly from applicable operational
requirements incorporated into applicable acquisition requirements documents?
10. Does the continuous assessment strategy provide a clear view of the road ahead, and
does it point directly to the desired results?
11. Do I have a management approach that is agile and flexible enough to account for
changing conditions and environments?
12. Have I implemented clear and measurable metrics for availability, reliability, mean down
time, and ownership costs based on a solid defendable set of policy and doctrinal
approaches likely to achieve DoD’s operational and force readiness objectives at the
best cost?
13. Have I identified promising implementation alternatives in response to resource
changes?
14. Have I found any breakthrough capabilities, and can I describe practical uses for them?
15. Have I developed a capabilities-based BCA with defendable results based on readiness
objectives and best cost?
16. Are the resource estimates, based on the affordability and technical feasibility, of my
planned implementation approach included in an integrated budget submission
reasonable?
17. Do I have a good architectural framework?
18. Have I generated a compelling set of actions for each implementation milestone that
fives decision makers a real set of options?

92
19. Have I identified excess capabilities resulting from CBM+, and do I have an organization
plan for bringing them forward?
20. Have I developed a prudent technology refreshment strategy to upgrade CBM+
components ahead of the obsolescence curve?

93
This page intentionally left blank.

94
6. Measuring Success

Metrics are an important element in measuring the success of any program. Metrics
provide an objective evaluation and allow program managers to determine if their efforts are
yielding the desired results or if changes are necessary. Table 8 summarizes the basic
characteristics for identifying, collecting, and using key metrics for effectively measuring the
implementation and operation aspects of CBM+.

1. Are selected metrics imposed on the organization that controls the processes producing and
tracking the metric?

2. Do the users (i.e., management, customers, and stakeholders) accept the selected CBM+
metrics as meaningful?

3. Do the metrics show how well the goals and objectives are being met through CBM+
processes and tasks?

4. Do the selected metrics measure something useful (valid), and measure it consistently over
time (reliable)? Do they reveal a trend?

5. Are the selected metrics defined clearly and unambiguously?

6. Is there an established, quantified baseline for comparison and analysis?

7. Is an economical data collection and access capability in place or planned? Is the metric data
timely and accurate?

8. Is there a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what is measured and the intended use
of the information as a management decision support tool?
Table 8 - Measuring Success Checklist

There is no shortage of data available to management in DoD information systems. One

of the problems the department faced with large amounts of data was where to find the relevant
information and how to bring it all together meaningfully. In 2019, the DoD began an effort to
bring the data from thousands of disparate systems together into a single repository, and thus
Advana was created. The Advana environment collects data from the multitude of Service level
systems to provide a single source where data across the department can be extracted and
evaluated. An additional benefit is that Advana enabled each Service to create its own data
store within the Advana environment simplifying access to their specific data as well. As the
CBM+ community continues its journey, the importance of being able to use and act upon
Advana data cannot be understated.

95
 Data collected typically falls into one of three categories: workload; current resource
expenditure and outputs; and performance compared to established standards and goals.
CBM+ implementers should seek to identify metrics that will give program managers and
operators a consistent and quantifiable picture of maintenance performance and related costs.
Although no single set of performance metrics is universally appropriate for every
organization or every organizational level, significant strides have been made to identify basic
enterprise-level metrics for DoD logistics activities. Once metrics are identified, and a baseline
of credible data is accumulated, the implementation teams will use those metrics to help form
the initiative and ultimately manage the CBM+ maintenance capabilities that will deliver the
required level of performance in future logistics operations. Metrics for CBM+ will fall into two
categories:
• Implementation metrics
• Operating metrics.

6.1. Implementation Metrics

6.1.1. How to Measure a Successful Implementation

Implementation metrics quantify the degree of progress toward a successful CBM+

implementation. The measurement process involves selecting what is to be measured and then
tracking progress toward the implementation of the selected area. A basic approach to
selecting implementation metrics starts with the essential elements of CBM+ (as discussed in
Section 3 of this guidebook). A capability scorecard should be developed as a companion to
the more detailed implementation plan. This scorecard is just a simple checklist of the principal
areas to be implemented as part of your CBM+ initiative along with key completion milestones.
An example of a basic capability scorecard is provided in Table 9.

96
Implementation Implementation Action Milestones
Area Completed

Hardware Acquire and install embedded sensors, built-in-test, built-in-test

equipment, data storage and retrieval equipment, and integrated
electronic data exchange mechanisms (buses).

Software Acquire decision support and analysis capabilities, diagnostics,

prognostics, algorithms, and health management.

Communication Implement databases and off-board interactive communication

links.

Design Use open systems architecture and standards, integration of

maintenance and logistics information systems, and required
interfaces with operational systems.

Processes Integrate RCM, configuration management, a balance of reactive,

preventive, and predictive maintenance actions, and CBM.

Tools Implement IETMS, AIT, and portable maintenance aids.

Functionality Ensure the capability to accomplish fault detection, isolation,

prediction, reporting, self-assessment, analysis, decision-support
execution and recovery, both on- and off-board.

Table 9 - A CBM+ Capability Scorecard

This simple capability scorecard may be expanded, as required, to include specific

milestone actions, responsible individuals and organizations, milestone dates, or other relevant
information.

In addition to tracking milestone implementation through the capability scorecard,

effective managers develop their own internal checklist to identify the key internal management
elements that are essential for achieving progress in a large-scale management improvement
initiative. Table 10 is an example of such a checklist, but it should be tailored to fit your
particular circumstances.

97
 Progress Element Evaluation Criteria
Management Support Statements of support
Approval of projects documented
Ideas / inputs provided
Successes praised and publicized
Team Building / Program Initiation Understanding of concepts by employees
Training programs completed
Policy and CBM+ requirements reviewed
Skills from training used
Projects actively supported
Ideas and feedback provided
Understanding the Process Processes, systems, and resources documented
Architecture diagrams developed
Applicable technologies identified
Metrics system implemented
Project Implementation Project milestones completed on schedule, within budget
Cost savings measured and attained
Process quality improved
Continuing the Program Follow-up and review procedures established
Employees kept informed and involved
CBM+ capabilities institutionalized
Table 10 - Internal Progress Evaluation Criteria

6.2. Operating Metrics

6.2.1. How to Measure a Maintenance Program Operating in a CBM+ Environment

CBM+ empowers the Services and PMs to pursue maintenance process improvement
and technology to support the operational warfighter more effectively. Since CBM+ spans the
maintenance environment, it is difficult to assign a single metric to measure it. One of the key
challenges at the DoD and Service level is to gauge and map how well CBM+ is progressing. A
common end-state is improved maintenance from the maintainer’s perspective as well as the
warfighter’s. CBM+ implementers should track a small number of metrics over the long term to
assess whether CBM+ improvements are enabling a more effective maintenance process. The
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (A&S) has established policy for
the selection of metrics applicable to logistics activities. The set of metrics directed by the Under
Secretary provide an excellent focus for efforts to assess the results of a CBM+ initiative.
Regardless of the suite of operating metrics chosen to help track the impacts of a CBM+
implementation, the maintenance community must attempt some quantification of the effect of
CBM+ capabilities. In many cases the application of modeling and simulation techniques can
be useful in quantifying the metrics baseline and projecting future trends. As discussed earlier,
the magnitude of required investment in time and funding makes such analysis an important
part of the CBM+ effort.

98
6.2.2. Relevant Operating Metrics for CBM+

At the highest level, there are four measurable objectives of a maintenance program:

• Material availability – maximizing readiness and availability of weapon systems and

equipment

• Materiel reliability – improving reliability of weapon systems, equipment, and

components

• Ownership costs – reducing life-cycle ownership costs

• Mean down time – reducing the mean down time of equipment.

These metrics are described in detail in Section 1. At a minimum, CBM+ initiatives
should be measured using these life-cycle sustainment metrics.

6.2.2.1. Maximizing Readiness and Availability

DoD policy states that the preferred metrics for measuring readiness and availability are
operational availability and mission reliability. Each of these measures have a maintenance
component that could be affected by CBM+ improvements. Some related metrics include the
following:

• Mission capable rates – operational availability – currently reported in the Quarterly

Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC) (probably the best measure currently
available);

• Readiness of equipment and supplies on hand – currently available as required

through the Global Status of Resources and Training System (GSORTS); and

• Logistics response time – a measure of supportability and an indirect measure of

readiness available as required through an Office of the Secretary of Defense
logistics response time database.

6.2.2.2. Improving Reliability

Reliability is defined as the ability of a system to perform as designed in an operational

environment over a prescribed period without failure. DoD’s system reliability objective is to
minimize the risk of failure within the defined availability, cost, schedule, weight, power, and
volume constraints. As discussed earlier, materiel availability is generally expressed in terms of

99
a mean time between failure (MTBF). Once operational, it can be measured by dividing the
actual operating hours by the number of failures experienced during a specific interval.

6.2.2.3. Reducing Life Cycle Ownership Costs

DoD prefers the measure of life-cycle cost (LCC) to be total life-cycle cost per unit of
usage. However, capturing total life-cycle logistics ownership costs continues to be a problem,
as no credible measures are readily available to capture life-cycle costs across the Services on
a timely and accurate basis.
Some potential cost metrics include the following:

• Cost per unit of operation - a pending proposed metric the would be the best
measure of life-cycle costs

• Weapon system program total operating cost

• Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs Program and other
similar systems attempt to capture life-cycle costs of weapon systems, but their
accuracy and timeliness is viewed as unreliable.

• Other internal Service cost systems the permit comparison of cost of maintenance
labor and parts over time.

6.2.2.4. Reducing Mean Down Time

MDT is the average total downtime required to restore an asset to its full operational
capabilities. MDT includes the time from reporting of an asset being down to the asset being
given back to operations / production to operate. The transition to more condition-based
maintenance approaches should significantly reduce MDT by basing decisions to take
weapons and equipment out of service on actual maintenance needs rather than time-based
criteria.

6.3. Other Measures

Logistics footprint is defined as the presence of government or contractor logistics

support required to deploy, sustain, or move a weapon system. Measurable elements include
inventory / equipment, personnel, facilities, transportation assets, and real estate.
Representative elements included in the quantification of logistics footprint include weight (e.g.,
total weight of deployable consumables, support equipment, energy, and spares); personnel
(e.g., total number of support personnel in the deployed area); and volume (e.g., total volume of
deployable consumables, support equipment, energy and spares).

100
 Due to the difficulty of obtaining timely and accurate metric data, the following measures
could be used either as a supplement to or interim substitutes for the above metrics:

• Shorter maintenance cycles, including:

o Field-repair cycle times;

o Depot-repair cycle times;

o Shop-flow days.

• Increased quality of process means fewer repeat repairs (may be detectable

with serial item management tracking); reliability measures are similar to
those listed under quality of product below.

• Increased quality of product, including:

o Field maintenance-related MTBF – currently not available but a

pending balanced scorecard (quarterly) and PSS (quarterly) metric;

o Depot maintenance-related MTBF – same as above;

o MDT – proposed PSS (quarterly); and

o Equipment availability – available quarterly through the QRRC and as

required through GSORTS.

• Number of repairs accomplished at field / intermediate level versus return to

depot for repair / overhaul.

101
This page intentionally left blank.

102
 Appendix A.
Definitions

Term Definition

AIS A system of computer hardware, computer software, data,

or telecommunications that performs functions such as
collecting, processing, storing, transmitting, and displaying
information. AISs are the information processors that
accept, process, store, and pass AIT data.

AIT A suite of technologies that automatically captures data,

thereby enhancing the ability to identify, track, document,
and control assets (e.g., materiel) and deploying and
redeploying forces, equipment, personnel, and
sustainment cargo. AIT encompasses a variety of data
storage or carrier technologies, such as linear bar codes,
two-dimensional symbols, magnetic strips, integrated
circuit cards, optical laser discs, or satellite tracking
transponders and radio frequency transponders.

condition-based maintenance A maintenance practice based on monitoring the condition

of equipment to assess whether it will fail during some
future period in order to take appropriate action to avoid
the consequences of that failure. Condition-based
maintenance employs real-time or approximate real-time
assessments of data obtained from the equipment or
external tests and measurements using either test
equipment or actual inspection. The objective of condition-
based maintenance is to perform maintenance based on
the evidence of need while ensuring safety, reliability,
availability, and reduced life-cycle cost.

103
 Term Definition

CBM+ A collaborative DoD readiness initiative focused on the

development and implementation of data analysis and
sustainment technology capabilities to improve weapon
system availability and achieve optimum costs across the
enterprise. CBM+ is the application and integration of
appropriate processes, technologies, and knowledge-
based capabilities to improve the reliability and
maintenance effectiveness of DoD systems and
components. At its core, CBM+ is maintenance performed
based on evidence of need.

CBM+ is built upon RCM and condition-based

maintenance to enhance safety, increase maintenance
efficiency, improve availability, and ensure environmental
integrity.

CBM+ diminishes life-cycle costs by reducing unscheduled

maintenance and enabling predictive maintenance.

CBM+ turns rich data into information about component,

weapon system, and fleet conditions to more accurately
forecast maintenance requirements and future weapon
system readiness to drive process cost efficiencies and
enterprise activity outcomes.

CBM+ data At its core, CBM+ is performing maintenance based on the

evidence of need. That “evidence” is provided through the
collection and aggregation of accurate data and analysis.
This data includes life cycle item management data as
well as environmental data and data from embedded
sensors. CBM+ data is captured from the equipment item
in a variety of methods which may include physical
inspection, capture of recorded maintenance and supply
event data as well as real-time data collection from
embedded sensors on military equipment.

104
 Term Definition

CBM+ tools and technologies The complement of tools and technologies used as
enabling capabilities needed to execute CBM+ strategies
and plans. Examples of these tools and technologies
include but are not limited to: embedded sensors, data
aggregation and storage capabilities, automatic
identification technologies, portable maintenance aids,
integrated information systems, artificial intelligence and
machine learning, and automated test equipment.

corrective maintenance Corrective maintenance consists of the necessary actions

to restore a system or component after a failure has
occurred.

diagnostic maintenance Diagnostic maintenance is the process of identifying and

resolving problems with a system or component. If
involves the use of specialized tools to detect and
diagnose faults or irregularities, and take corrective action
to fix them.

IUID The application and use of a unique item identifier as the

global common data key in financial, property
accountability, acquisition, and logistics (including supply
and maintenance) automated information systems to
enable asset accountability, valuation, lifecycle
management, and counterfeit material risk reduction.

life cycle item management data Item-related data that supports product life-cycle
management and spans an item’s complete life cycle. It
begins with initial design, specifications, manufacturing,
and acquisition data that include use, supply,
accountability, custody, ownership, valuation, sustainment
cost, warranty, modification, configuration, reliability,
availability, maintainability, performance, and maintenance
history data collected in various automated information
systems. Relevant maintenance, logistics, and acquisition
data supports analysis on specific populations and on
each item throughout its life cycle.

105
 Term Definition

predictive maintenance Predictive maintenance is a technique to predict the future

failure point of a component, so that the component
replacement can be planned at an optimal time before it
fails. Predictive maintenance differs from preventive in
that it uses collected data to determine the condition of the
component and forecasts the need for maintenance.

preventive maintenance Preventive maintenance is a technique where

maintenance actions and the replacement of components
is based on calendar time, operating time, or some other
periodic measurement. Intervals are determined based on
engineering reliability and maintainability analyses,
reliability centered maintenance and historic failure data.

prognostic maintenance Prognostic maintenance utilizes the process of forecasting

the time to failure. Time left before observing a failure is
described as remaining useful life (RUL).

RCM A logical structured process for determining maintenance

requirements based on the analysis of the likely functional
failures of components, equipment, subsystems, or
systems having a significant impact on safety, operations,
and life-cycle cost. RCM supports the failure-
management strategy for any component, equipment,
subsystem, or system based on its inherent reliability and
operating context.

SIM Programs and techniques that use life-cycle item

management data to track the performance of uniquely
identified items throughout their life cycle. The
overarching goals of these programs and techniques is to
enable managers to achieve optimum weapon system
materiel availability at the best total ownership cost
through effective and efficient life-cycle management
practices.

106
 Appendix B.
Acronyms

AIS Automated Information System

AIT Automatic Identification Technology

ASSIST Acquisition and Streamlining Standardization System

BCA Business Case Analysis

CBM+ Condition-Based Maintenance Plus

CJCSM Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual

COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf

CPI Continuous Process Improvement

CSDB Common Source Data Base

DAG Defense Acquisition Guidebook

DoDAF Department of Defense Architectural Framework

DoDD Department of Defense Directive

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction

DoDM Department of Defense Manual

EAI Enterprise Application Integration

FL Focused Logistics

GSORTS Global Status of Resources and Training System

IEEE Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers

IETM Integrated Electronic Technical Manual

IPT Integrated Product/Process Team

107
ISO International Organization for Standardization

IUID Item Unique Identification

IT Information Technology

JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System

KPP Key Performance Parameter

KSA Key System Attribute

LCC Life-cycle Cost

MA Materiel Availability

MDT Mead Down Time

MIL-STD Military Standard

MIMOSA Machinery Information Management Open Systems Alliance

MTBF Mean Time Between Failure

O&S Operations and Support

OC Ownership Cost

OSA Open System Architecture

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OV Operational View

PBL Performance-Based Logistics

PDCA Plan, Do, Check, and Act

PM Program Manager

PMA Portable Maintenance Aid

PPBS Planning, Programming, and Budget System

QRRC Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress

108
R&M Reliability and Maintainability

RCM Reliability-Centered Maintenance

S&RL Sense and Respond Logistics

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SIM Serialized Item Management

SV Systems View

TLCSM Total Life-Cycle System Management

TV Technical View

USD(A&S) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment

V&V Validation and Verification

VAMOSC Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs

109
This page intentionally left blank.

110
 Appendix C.
References and Resources

DoD References
Acquisition Guidebooks, Defense Acquisition University. https://aaf.dau.edu/guidebooks/
CJCSI 5123.01H, Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) of the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), August 31, 2018.
Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Glossary.
https://www.dau.edu/tools/DAU-Glossary
DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, June 2020.
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf
DoD Digital Engineering Strategy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, June 2018
DoD Directive 4151.18, “Maintenance of Military Materiel,” August 31, 2018
DoD Directive 5000.01, “The Defense Acquisition System,”
July 28, 2022
DoD Directive 5000.59, “DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Management,”
October 15, 2018
DoD Directive 5135.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
(USD(A&S)),” July 15, 2020
DoD Directive 5137.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
(USD(R&E)), “ July 15, 2020
DoDI 4151.19, “Serialized Item Management (SIM) for Life-Cycle Management of Materiel,”
August 31, 2018
DoDI 4151.22, “Condition-Based Maintenance Plus for Materiel Maintenance,”
August 14, 2020
DoDI 5000.02, “Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework,” June 8, 2022
DoDI 5000.61, “DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification, Validation, And Accreditation
(VV&A),” October 15, 2018
DoDI 5000.71, “Management of DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Activities,” October 15,
2018
DoDM 4151.25, “Reliability-Centered Maintenance,” February 16, 2024

111
Military Service References
Air Force
AFMC Instruction 21-103, “Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Programs,” 29 July
2021
DAF Instruction 63-101/20-101, “Integrated Life Cycle Management,” 16 February 2024
DAF Instruction 21-101, “Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management,” 8
November 2022
CBM+ Strategic Implementation Plan (CBM+ SIP), May 2023
2030 USAF CBM+ Vision

Army
Army Regulation 750-1, “Army Materiel Maintenance Policy,” 2 March 2023

Navy
Operations (OPNAV) Instruction 4790.16B “Condition-Based Maintenance and
Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Policy,” 1 October 2015

Marine Corps
Marine Corps Order 4151.22, “Condition-Based Maintenance Plus,” 17 January 2020

Procedural References
DoD Acquisition Guidebooks, https://aaf.dau.edu/guidebooks/
DoD Architectural Framework, https://dodcio.defense.gov/library/dod-architecture-
framework/
DoD Continuous Improvement Transformation Guidebook,
https://www.dau.edu/sites/default/files/Migrated/CopDocuments/DoD Continuous
Process Improvement CPI Guidebook May 2006.pdf
DoD Performance Based Logistics Guidebook, https://www.dau.edu/tools/dod-performance-
based-logistics-pbl-guidebook
DoD Reliability and Maintainability Engineering Management Body of Knowledge,
https://www.dau.edu/tools/dod-reliability-and-maintainability-engineering-guide-
management-body-knowledge

112
Academic References
Cutter, David and Owen Thompson, Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Select Program
Survey, LMI Report LG301T6, January 2005
Christianson, LTG C.V., Director, Joint Logistics, JCS,” Joint Logistics–Shaping Our Future,
A Personal Perspective,” Defense AT&L Magazine, July–August 2006
Mobley, Keith R., An Introduction to Predictive Maintenance, 2 Ed,. Butterworth-Heinemenn,
2002
Moubray, John, Reliability-Centered Maintenance II, Second Edition, Industrial Press, Inc.,
1997
Nowlan F. Stanley. and Heap, Howard F., Reliability Centered Maintenance, DoD Report
A066-579, December 29, 1978

Industry Standard References

Standards referenced in this guide and related standards can be obtained at the following sites:
Industry Organization for Standardization, https://iso.org/home.html
Society of Automotive Engineers International, https://sae.org
Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers, https://ieee.org
Machinery Information Management Open Systems Alliance, https://mimosa.org
ASSIST-Online, https://assist.dla.mil/online/start

DoD Technology Related Resources

The following websites are a source for DoD-sponsored topics and initiatives for additional
technical information.
Air Force Research Laboratory, https://afrl.af.mil
Army Research Laboratory, https://arl.army.mil
Defense Acquisition University, https://www.dau.edu
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, https://www.darpa.mil
Defense Technical Information Center, http://discover.dtic.mil
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, https://www.ncms.org/
Navy Research Laboratory, https://mrl.navy.mil
Quanterion Solutions Incorporated, https://www.quanterion.com/

113
Condition-Based Maintenance Plus Guidebook

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment

3030 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
[email protected]
https://www.acq.osd.mil/log/MR/cbm+.html

114