Original Date: 07/08/2002
Revision Date: 01/18/2007
Information : Configuration Control Board
The Directorate for Missiles and Surface Launchers Configuration Control Board streamlined the change control process by adopting a more parallel process to assure that all questions and issues are resolved before final submission to the Configuration Control Board. This enabled a more timely approval cycle and avoided expensive delays.
A traditional Configuration Control Board (CCB) process required CCB members to meet as required for reviewing and approving changes. The Directorate for Missiles and Surface Launchers (PEO TSC-M/L) recognized that this traditional CCB process needed to be revised and could be made more efficient by using current information technology. A new approach to the CCB process was established, and the cycle time for reviewing and approving changes was greatly reduced.
The CCB process, started by the originator who submitted the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP), was reviewed and revised by Board Members before the final approval in a serial process. The logistics of getting all the CCB members for the meeting was not only time consuming, but very costly. Sometimes it led to lengthy delays and often impacted production deliveries.
The current process is initiated by the ECP originator who notifies the Navy by posting a preliminary change document in the Corporate Data Management System (CDMS), a web-based information system. The Technical Representative (TechRep) of PEO TSC-M/L will then assign a leader to follow through the government review process. All review agents can access the ECP information on the CDMS and make comments to the assigned leader. The TechRep office consolidates comments and provides them to the ECP originator. The ECP originator addresses all comments, makes changes, and then submits the final ECP to the TechRep. After a final review by the TechRep, the ECP is submitted to the CCB. The PEO TSC-M/L’s ECP Originator prepares the CCB directive and routes it back to the CCB members for final review and recommendation for final approval. The process ends with the CCB Chair approving the change. The benefits for this improved process are that the Navy’s concerns are addressed well before the ECP is submitted to the CCB. It ensures all necessary supporting documentation, simulation, and testing are complete. It eliminates last minute surprises from reviewing agents, reduces investment in changes that will not receive Navy approval, and allows early allocation of resources by PEO TSC-M/L. Other major benefits include the reduction of cost and time associated with travel by both government and contractors, and improved timely approval of ECPs. An estimated cycle time reduction for the CCB process has been reduced from an average of one to six months to one to two weeks. It also emphasizes that by submitting the ECP correctly the first time, expensive delays are reduced.
For more information see the
Point of Contact for this survey.