Logistics refers to a detailed organization and implementation of a complex system or operation. Also, logistics relates to the structure and order of flow of a facility’s stature from one point to another at the most optimal usage of the available resources. In the business realms, logistics plays an important role in determining the preference of using a facility in the expense of another or could be used as the determinant tool of deciding the most viable procedure of approaching the life cycle of a facility. That said, the life cycle of a facility or system matters a lot in determining how best systems can be put in place to complete an operation in a cost-efficient and time-bounded manner. Therefore, logistics of a system is integral to the process of initiation to development, especially in the systems engineering processes. Resultantly, a Supportability Analysis, which is also known as Logistics Support Analysis (LSA) provides structured approaches of determining how to improve the efficiency of planning, developing, and maintaining a facility by employing critical aspects of an integrated logistics support. This study focuses on examining different aspects of the Supportability Analysis in the logistics realm and how the approach is essential in determining projects viability.
Understanding Supportability Analysis requires a facility developer to acknowledge that the life cycle of a project or facility is phenomenal in determining the prerequisites of supporting it. A life cycle of a facility indicates its service length from the point of acquisition, through its operation, maintenance, and the disposal of the facility ( Kumar et al., 2012 ). Thus, a facility’s support requirements can be determined through the specific life cycle stages to enlighten developers of the support to accord the facility and consequentially attain its maximum usability and efficiency. Also, supportability analyses vary from one system to another due to the variability of lifecycles from one project to another. Nonetheless, initiating a project without a credible forecast of the anticipated lifecycle requirements of the initiative can be detrimental to the project and may inflict significant technicalities in the future. This means that in such occasions, the supportability analysis may lack an immediate execution plan to remedy the situation as the aspects may not have been predicted in the life cycle of the project initiative.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Owning any asset subjects the owner to incurring a proportional cost of ownership, which is usually more than the typical purchase price. The purchase price of a facility may solely indicate the cost of acquiring the facility from the vendor, which negates many other costs associated with the lifecycle of the facility ( Wessels & Sillivant, 2015) . For instance, the purchase price of a building facility would be much different from the cost of erecting the same building and maintaining it through to the disposal time. This is because of the underlying costs associated with the process through the entire lifecycle of the facility. From the phase of acquisition, operating, maintenance and disposal of an asset, the cost associated is incredible, which implies that a Logistics Support Analysis is essential in defining, analyzing and quantifying an asset’s support requirements to facilitate credible pre-planning before investors embark in the actual process of implementing their project. Thus, supportability analysis is crucial in assessing facilities prior to their actual lifecycles by examining assets with the aim of improving their supportability through the execution plan.
While contemplating on the supportability analysis of a facility, the design of the facility is quite a vital element to consider in appraising cost projections of the same designs ( Dallosta & Simcik, 2012 ). However, the supportability analysis is challenged in this regard by the availability of multiple comparable designs in the market, which do not necessarily reflect the exact likeness of the designs desired by investors. This implies that estimating the lifecycle costs of such designs becomes an approximation affair, which can result in shambolic supportability estimation and later sabotage the viability of the project. Nonetheless, in the contemporary world, there are a variety of estimation guidelines and databases offered by both governmental and private organizations which give credible approximations of the life cycle cost expected for the projects with a similar orientation. Thus, such referential materials are integral in the supportability analysis of the available alternatives where the costs cannot be determined spontaneously. Additionally, when a project’s costs rely on simulating predetermined support analysis of similar projects, it is important for the developers or the investor to keep validating the supportability analysis of the preferred projects so that at the projects developmental phases, actual values can be put in place to hedge the accuracy margin.
Moreover, a supportability analysis scopes the objectives of the available alternative programs or the objectives accustomed on the available levels of designs. This means that while initiating a project, objectives may differ on how the alternative facilities vary in achieving the implied objectives and the threshold in which these achievements may be attained. Also, a supportability analysis of the wrong facility implies that the supportability objectives and analyses will be aligned to the wrong project in reality as well ( Ma & Guo, 2012 ). Hence, it is undoubtedly important for an investor to have a clear outline of the objectives they intend to achieve with a specific project before sampling the alternative ways or facilities that can get to this realization at the most affordable costing. Also, this clarity enables an asset developer to rank the order of achieving their objectives and therefore prioritizing the most convenient facilities. It must be noted that accuracy is very subjective in developing supportability analysis but could be improved basing on the precision on which the developers outline their desired objectives.
Onwards, a supportability analysis is a great determinant of the preparedness of the project developers within the specified timeline. Typically, when persons or organizations intend to own a facility, they do so in respect to the strategies developed under other stakeholders’ prerogative. For instance, the projects management teams are mandated with achieving proposed projects for the company or investments within the specified budgets ( Kumar et al., 2012 ). Thus, sticking to the instructed timeline is vital to ensure timely delivery and to ensure the normal flow of activities for the firm is overpoweringly a factor to consider in supportability efficiency. That said, where a project’s management team surpassed the need to develop a supportability analysis of a facility they intend to develop, it may result in unstructured inconveniences in the standard flow of the business activities of the firm. What’s more, breaching the project’s timeline in such conditions is foreseeable, and could result in insurmountable economic losses and infractions. In this regard, the developers should be able to determine the feasible hardware and software designs, the support and operational concepts implementable for the total system. This ensures preparedness of the estimates which could be easily referred to in cases where the project needs adjusting. Also, a supportability analysis saves the time and uncertainty of trying to keep up with a project that depletes the initially allocated resources.
Additionally, supportability analyses aids in strengthening the readiness of the project developer’s at the essential phase of a projects life-cycle. Readiness in this context will include the cost preparedness of the developer and the budget allocated for the facility’s lifecycle. Developers are usually astounded at the realization of the maximum costing of running a project from initiation to its development because of underestimating costs that are not foreseeable, or those that may be miscellaneous to the project ( Wessels & Sillivant, 2015 ). This dictates that projects do not only need an acquisition price to determine if they can be bought; rather, detailed support analysis of the project will dictate to the developer the costing possibilities which would arise in the same order. This will help in allocating budgets to various options of the project and consequentially edifying the developers on the entire intensity of the project. Other than ensuring the readiness of the budget for the anticipated costs, the project owner is prepared psychologically for the eventualities of the facility’s lifecycle, and when adjustments are needed in the project’s future, they are not astonished as the projected costs are already factored in the supportability analysis at the project’s initiation phase. Intuitively, facilities that are owned without a supportability analysis simulation may end up being disposed at immature lifecycles as they cannot be supported within the budget’s threshold.
Supportability analysis is an efficient measure of the risk associated with designing, maintaining and operating a project or facility from the point of sale through the future of its lifecycle. More often than not, developers will ignore the risks associated with supporting a facility through its life cycle which could have a great impact in determining the economic viability of the said program. This is not devoid of the fact that risk analysis is what develops to risk management. Logistics imply vast systematic procedures to develop projects, which may or may not materialize at the actionable phases of the project ( Ma & Guo, 2012 ). However, preparation of mitigating risk in business is phenomenal in determining the direction of the project’s revenue. Hence, supportability analysis depicts awareness of the risks associated with different projects and how the developers can mitigate the same risks. Notably, investments or projects risk are not meant to be eliminated but rather to be reduced in their intensity. This is to imply that unless a supportability analysis is conducted to determine the risks associated with projects of similar design, there is no way to quantify the risks anticipated to uphold the same project’s lifecycle. Again, risk blends well with supportability analysis in that risk should be predetermined to curb it. Exclusion for this case would be the unprecedented unsystematic risks which strike the future of a project such as risks attributable to the natural calamities, but this would be a reason enough not to let the supportability analysis of the facility skip the insurance costs.
Indisputably, supportability analysis of a project is important when executing a project in the sense that developers can weigh in the achievability of different projects at different cost estimations from project initiation phases and through their developmental process. Upraising these estimations gives credibility to the most optimal selection in the supportability analysis, which thereof becomes the most preferred project ( Dallosta & Simcik, 2012 ). Supportability analysis enables investors or the facility owners to save not only on costs of purchasing facilities but even the costs that may project onwards within the facilities time span. Also, supportability analysis helps facility owners to make credible business decisions which do not stagger the budget allocation of the projects instantaneously, but that which is blended in everyday operation ability of the project. Particularly, when facilities do not entail any cost after the moment of purchase, they may not infer a reason for supportability analysis but transferring this notion to complex systems may lead to immense negative economic valuation. Thus, executing a few more complex projects without consideration of their supportability analysis is profoundly detrimental to the organization and could lead to insolvency and consequent closure.
Conclusively, in logistics, supportability analysis is an informative tool that is used to level the sustainability of a project or facility throughout its life cycle. There are different aspects to look into while conducting a supportability analysis. Understanding the life cycle of the project or facility is important to conduct a feasible supportability analysis. Sequentially, a project’s lifecycle enables the analysts to determine the cost of acquiring, operating, maintaining and disposing of the facility, which then is used to appraise the supportability cost requirements of the facility in respect to the budget or the financial position of the owner. Moreover, the design of the facility is an integral aspect to consider when analyzing the supportability of the facility as most designs will follow a sample analysis conducted for the precedents. The objectivity of the facility and the supportability analysis should be considered to achieve the most economically viable project objectives in the most applicable optimal procedures. A supportability analysis will ensure either the firm or facility’s owners are financially and psychologically prepared to meet a specified financial obligation either within the projects or facility’s short run and long run. Also, this logistics tool is quite remarkable in determining and managing the aggregate financial risk of embarking on a project before initializing them.
References
Dallosta, P. M., & Simcik, T. A. (2012). Designing for Supportability: Driving Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability In.. . Defense Acquisition University Fort Belvoir United States.
Kumar, U. D., Crocker, J., Knezevic, J., & El-Haram, M. (2012). Reliability, maintenance and logistic support: -A life cycle approach . Springer Science & Business Media.
Ma, L., & Guo, L. H. (2012). Design, analysis and evaluation of supportability.
Wessels, W. R., & Sillivant, D. (2015). Affordable Reliability Engineering: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Sustainability & Logistical Support . CRC Press.
