Four systems, each built because a client could not buy it.

Availability, MTTR and MTBCF computed continuously across a distributed estate.

RAM began as a question an Army installation-management office could not answer: how available is the estate this morning? Every individual site could answer for itself. The enterprise could not answer for the whole, because the four systems that held the underlying records disagreed, not through error, but because each was authoritative for something slightly different and all four had been given the same vocabulary.

What it computes

RAM produces three figures continuously rather than on a reporting cycle: availability, mean time to repair, and mean time between critical failures. Each is defined once, in writing, with a named authoritative source and a published refresh cadence. When a number is stale rather than wrong, the interface says so, which is the distinction most readiness reporting collapses.

Faults do not arrive as a list. Each surfaces alongside a probable cause and a recommended mitigation scoped to the asset type, because an alert that tells a maintenance officer something is down without telling them what it usually means is an interruption, not information.

How it stays honest

The forecasting layer retrains against completed work orders rather than a fixed baseline. Organizations generate the evidence that their own estimates are drifting (actual repair durations, realized parts waits) and almost never wire it back in. RAM closes that loop as a standing process, which is why its accuracy holds through a deployment cycle instead of degrading quietly until somebody stops trusting the screen.

Where it runs

RAM operates inside the customer's accreditation boundary. Authorization posture was a design input from the first sprint: where it runs, which control set applies, and who signs. It is available to federal customers through GSA MAS and SeaPort NxG.

Obligations, burn rate and an audit-ready trail, with anomaly forecasting.