{"id":67154,"date":"2023-11-14T18:20:39","date_gmt":"2023-11-14T18:20:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2023\/11\/14\/shifting-perspectives-reframe-readiness-with-a-focus-on-availability\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T00:51:36","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T00:51:36","slug":"shifting-perspectives-reframe-readiness-with-a-focus-on-availability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/opinion\/2023\/11\/14\/shifting-perspectives-reframe-readiness-with-a-focus-on-availability\/","title":{"rendered":"Shifting perspectives: Reframe readiness with a focus on availability"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the complex world of military preparedness and sustainment, metrics are integral to strategic decision-making, resource allocation and fleet health assessments. Traditional readiness measures have always been the bedrock of informing a commander about the readiness level<\/a> of a unit. But do these metrics adequately serve the needs of the sustainer to assess a fleet\u2019s health?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sustainment community would benefit more from a proactive focus on established Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System key performance parameters, or KPPs \u2014 materiel availability and operational availability (AO) rather than retroactively responding to readiness measures. My hypothesis is that an increased focus on materiel availability, operational availability and other sustainment health measures offers a proactive approach that integrates the expected engineered performance with the realities of the sustainment phase to better understand fleet performance over time. Additionally, it postures the sustainment community to integrate artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities as well as improve decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today\u2019s readiness metrics assess a unit\u2019s capability to perform its designated missions. It is based on the availability of personnel, the training they have received, the on-hand availability of equipment and\/or the serviceability of equipment; and it gravitates toward the diagnosis of resource deficits, culminating in a comprehensive unit readiness report presented as capability ratings. However, as comprehensive as they might be for commanders, they are fundamentally reactive, and designed to highlight problems and needed response rather than predict and prevent them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A paradigm shift toward a more data-centric, proactive and cost-conscious framework is well underway within the Defense Department\u2019s sustainment community but requires metrics that enable the sustainer to anticipate challenges versus react to condition. This change will bridge the commander\u2019s view of combat capability (readiness) with the sustainer\u2019s view (fleet health) to enable better root-cause analysis, inventory accuracy and maintenance posture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we differentiate between the traditional operational and tactical view of readiness, it must be noted traditional approaches are largely pull-based and dependent on a demand signal \u2014 usually a failure or a near failure \u2014 to instigate action. Such an approach results in inherent delays and misses strategic opportunities for more efficient, proactive sustainment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A focus on holistic fleet availability will allow:<\/p>\n\n\n\n