INGENIEUR
Key Result Area
Safety
Cost
Availability
Reliability
Maintainability
Supportability
Behaviour
Description
Commitment in complying with legislation/regulation and all aspects of material safety
through proactive management of safety hence enabling effective and successful
outcomes.
Understanding the total cost of ownership and the cost drivers to optimally balance
requirements with budget as well as promoting savings from increase in service
efficiency.
Providing the platform/system that is in a known state and ready to meet operational
requirements.
Providing the expected quality of workmanship in order to maximise successful
outcomes and platform/system availability by minimising failures and other
unexpected incidents.
Understanding scheduled and unscheduled maintenance in order to maximise
platform/system availability by minimising repair/turnaround times.
Ensuring effective/efficient delivery of maintenance and engineering services to
maximise platform/system availability and optimally balance requirements with
budget.
Consistency in service delivery and effort in aligning long-term delivery of platform/
system support through continuous improvement initiatives enabled by collaborative
relationships.
Table 1: KRAs for an aircraft fleet
basically a statement defining “what success looks
like” in terms of timeliness, quality, quantity and
consistency. The outcome is derived in reference
to the current applicable policies, operational
concepts or doctrines, relevant authoritative
instructions and others. As an example, for a
high value moveable asset such as a fleet of
15 aircraft, a successful sustainment contract
would be “having 13 serviceable aircraft at 8am
everyday” throughout the duration of the contract.
From the desired Contract Outcome, the Key
Result Areas (KRAs) for the contract will then be
determined. The KRAs are factors that contribute
to the success of a contract which later form the
basis of measure for the buyer. In the case of a
fleet of aircraft, the KRA may include the following:
Performance Measures
Measurements used in a PBC are to define the
buyer’s expectation in terms of the contractor’s
performance. The measures are formulated
6
70
VOL
2018
VOL 76
55 OCTOBER-DECEMBER
JUNE 2013
based on the need to verify the achievement
of each KRA identified earlier. Performance
measures for capability sustainment PBC are
normally centered around availability of assets
which, if combined with reliability describes the
capability to undertake current tasks, whereas if
combined with maintainability and supportability,
it describes the capability to undertake future
tasks.
A measure, whether to be assigned as KPI or
SPM or SHI, depends on the Contract Outcome as
well as the contractor’s behaviour that the contract
is trying to shape. As a rule of thumb, if a measure
has no direct impact on Contract Outcome or has
no direct influence on payment and is qualitative
in nature, then it should either be SPM or SHI.
Once all performance measures have been
identified for each KRA in a PBC, it is summarised
as the “performance matrix” for the contract. An
example of a performance matrix for sustainment
of a fleet of locomotives that comprise three KPIs,
six SPMs and eight SHIs is shown in Figure 3.