Introduction
In the world of complex systems and products, ensuring their availability, reliability, maintainability, and overall support is crucial. Two methodologies that play a pivotal role in achieving these goals are; Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) and Integrated Product Support (IPS). While they share common goals, they have distinct differences, and combining them can pose potential pitfalls. This blog explores the disparities between ILS and IPS, highlights the dangers of merging the two techniques, and offers insights into which process may be better suited for specific scenarios.
Understanding Integrated Logistic Support (ILS)
Integrated Logistic Support, often referred to as ILS, is a comprehensive approach to managing the support and maintenance of complex systems throughout their lifecycle. It encompasses various elements, including maintenance planning, spare parts management, technical publications, training, and more. ILS focuses on ensuring that the necessary resources and processes are in place to sustain a product’s performance over time. Its primary goal is to optimise system availability, reliability, and supportability.
Understanding Integrated Product Support (IPS)
Integrated Product Support, or IPS, shares similarities with ILS but places a stronger emphasis on the product itself. IPS is centred on the design and development of a product with supportability in mind from the very beginning. It involves collaboration among multiple stakeholders to integrate support considerations into the product’s design, production, and use phases. IPS aims to create products that are inherently easier to maintain, repair, and sustain.
Key Differences
Focus: The main difference between ILS and IPS (apart form the number of elements, 10 vs 12 respectively) lies in their focus. ILS concentrates on the support infrastructure surrounding a product, while IPS emphasises designing the product itself to be supportable.
Lifecycle Stage: In practice and in my experience, ILS often only comes into play during the Design & Manufacture (D&M) phases, often having been overlooked during the Pre-Concept and Concept phases (where the biggest savings can be made) due to lack of ILS resource within the team during these early phases. Whereas IPS looks to integrate from the early stages of product development.
Stakeholder Collaboration: IPS aims for closer collaboration between design, production, and support teams, fostering a holistic approach to supportability. Something, that if carried out correctly, ILS should also do. In practice though this is generally not the case for ILS.
Potential Pitfalls of Combining ILS and IPS
While there can be benefits to merging ILS and IPS, there are also potential dangers:
Complexity: Combining these methodologies could increase the complexity of the support process, potentially leading to coordination issues and delays.
Cost: Integrating both approaches may require additional resources and investments during product development.
Overdesign: Over-emphasizing supportability in product design can lead to unnecessary complexity, cost, and decreased performance. In essence using both can drive in cost due to the very best of intentions. The key question should always be; will it add value?
Resistance to Change: Some organisations may struggle to adapt to the new integrated approach, leading to resistance and inefficiencies.
Adopting IPS – Advantages
Increased Collaboration: The specifications promote collaboration between all stakeholders from inception (pre-concept). This early collaboration will allow all stakeholders to work together more effectively and efficiently and thus delivering a better product for the end user.
Adopting IPS – Disadvantages
Resistance to change: Organisations will be resistant to change, and be reluctant to adopt the IPS standards due to the complexity, cost, time, and training burdens with only minimal benefits being realised over a correctly applied ILS process.
Compatibility issues: The suite of specifications require organisations to use specific software and tools, this may cause compatibility issues with the organisations existing systems, as well as requiring a change to business management systems, processes and procedures. Additionally existing contracts and pending contract re-lets will need to be renegotiated with the new IPS standard being placed into the Statement of Work (SoW). This in itself introduces additional complexity, cost, time, and training burdens not just on the organisation but also the client, who will ultimately have to pay for the new standard.
Complexity: IPS specifications can be complex and challenging to understand which will make it more difficult for organisations to implement. This will inevitably introduce risk(s) which will need to be realised and worked through to mitigation or acceptance within the organisations risk registers.
Resource Uplift: Implementing the specifications will place a significant burden upon already stretched organisational resource. With little benefit being realised than if ILS was merely implemented correctly and as intended, it is therefore unlikely to be palatable.
Time and effort: Implementing the specifications will require a significant amount of time and effort to incorporate, thus adding further pressure on already over-stretched organisations.
Training: Due to the complexity of the specifications, it is likely that organisations will have to send numerous personnel on training courses. This introduces a financial and training burden onto the adopting organisation.
On-going Maintenance: It is likely that once the specifications (and software) have been implemented, organisations will need to monitor for any updates whilst also ensuring that they are maintained and updated. This in itself will require a dedicated team which introduces a further resource burden.
Which is the Better Process?
The choice between ILS and IPS largely depends on the specific product, its intended use, and the organisation’s goals. Here are some considerations:
Mature products: ILS may be the preferred choice, as it optimises existing support systems and does not focus merely on the product itself.
New and Innovative products: IPS could be a better fit, as it promotes supportability from the product’s inception. However, it does not focus on the wider support system and if ILS is utilised correctly, i.e., from pre-concept, then ILS would also cover support from inception.
Hybrid: In some cases, a hybrid approach may be ideal, selectively integrating elements of IPS into ILS for a balanced solution. An example here would be closer collaboration with all stakeholders from the pre-concept phase. This in my view is the only real area of weakness with the ILS process, in that it has never dealt sufficiently with the ILS influence during the pre-concept phase.
Conclusion
Integrated Logistic Support and Integrated Product Support serve crucial roles in ensuring the reliability and supportability of complex systems. Understanding the differences between the two is vital in making an informed choice. While merging these methodologies can be advantageous, organisations must carefully evaluate the potential pitfalls and assess the suitability of each approach for their specific needs. The better process depends on the unique circumstances and objectives of the product and the organisation using it.
My view is that we don’t/didn’t need a new standard, it only serves to introduce resource burdens for no real perceivable benefit over a correctly applied ILS approach. It also brings in a high level of complexity in the adoption of the standard, an ongoing maintenance requirement, and an additional cost and training burden.
I believe that there are some great ideas within the new IPS standard, but put simply; evolving the current ILS process to include new ideas may be a more practical approach.
I also think it important to emphasise the breaking down of organisational silos and fostering closer working relationships with all stakeholders for more effective collaboration and communication. It’s great to talk, not to mention beneficial to our wellbeing, so get out there and talk to your stakeholders. It’s amazing what you can find out over a simple cup of coffee!