To speak to a representative call 703.237.9545
or email us at
Advanced Product Transitions Corp.


B.2 - Design Maturity

SEP and Test and Evaluation Strategy recognize the need for the establishment/validation of manufacturing capability and management of manufacturing risk for the product lifecycle.  Initial potential Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) identified for preferred systems concept.  System characteristics and measures to support required capabilities identified.  Form, fit, and function constraints identified and manufacturing capabilities identified for preferred systems concepts. 

Help Text:


To ensure manufacturability, producibility, and quality processes are in place and sufficient to produce technology demonstrators.  To identify manufacturing risks for building prototypes and ensure mitigation plans are in place.  To identify manufacturing cost drivers and establish target cost objectives.  Initial producibility assessments of design concepts have been completed.  Key design performance parameters have been identified as well as special tooling, facilities, material handling and skills required.  A manufacturing feasibility assessment at his time helps a program to: (1) Better understand the risk; (2) begin risk mitigation efforts, and (3) provides critical information to accurately reflect the financial risk in both estimating and funding processes. It is important before selecting any potential solution that manufacturing feasibility/ readiness be evaluated to understand the risk of achieving the cost and schedule for any proposed approach.

Sources of Information:
The majority of information will come from the Analysis of Alternatives, the Initial Technical Review and the Alternative Systems Review.
1. Do the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) and the Test and Evaluation Strategy recognize the need for the establishment/validation of manufacturing capability and management of manufacturing risk for the product lifecycle?
2. Have initial potential Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) been identified for the preferred systems concept?
3. Are system characteristics and measures to support required capabilities identified?
4. Are form, fit, and function constraints and manufacturing capabilities identified for the preferred systems concepts?

Additional Considerations:
• Is the item design novel, or does it contain nonstandard dimensions or tolerances or arrangements?
• Are there manufacturing technologies or processes not currently available that will lead to risk in advanced technology development?
• Does DOD need to make investments to create new industrial capabilities to support a robust design?
• hat is the risk of industry not being able to provide new program design at planned cost and schedule?

Lessons Learned:
• dentification of critical manufacturing technology and processes early on is critical to making low risk design trade-offs.  
• f there are major manufacturing obstacles due to unavailable or immature manufacturing technology, alternative design choices should be considered.

Additional Considerations:
• Are industrial base studies current and do you possess the most recent information regarding industrial capabilities that apply to CTs?
• Are any strategic/critical materials needed for CTs obtained only from sole/foreign sources?
• Are sources for critical materials financially sound with multiple products and limited dependence on military products for profitability?
• Do critical materials have significant commercial application or have application to more than one service?
• Are critical materials on the list for diminishing manufacturing sources/material shortages?
• What are the limitations on using certain materials for US defense purposes?
• Have the preliminary manufacturing processes and risks been identified for prototypes?
• Have required investments for technology development, to mature design and manufacturing related technologies, been identified and funded?
• Have initial producibility assessments of design concepts been completed?

Lessons Learned:
• Sources previously available for certain materials and/or processes may no longer exist; therefore, it is essential that the industrial base analysis be up-to-date.
• For certain systems/programs, the use of foreign sources may either be proscribed or limited due to the strategic nature of the materials.
• Foreign sources for some materials or processes may refuse to sell to US weapons programs, in which case, workarounds must be established early in the system life-cycle.
• As designs fluctuate, Industrial Capability Analyses need to be constantly updated.
• Fragility of the IB and criticality of critical components needs to be considered in the IBCA.