It is not normal company policy to 'critique/compare' other models to OPUS10^TM. It is normal practice to allow the customer to evaluate in his environment with his own datasets. It is difficult to do a straight comparison as it is not easy to configure models with exactly the same data as, for instance, the data inputs are different or are not in OPUS10^TM. However that said the following are the areas where we believe that there are significant differences between the models:

• Although models use the same principles for Measure of Effectiveness (MoE) calculations there are some differences when non repairables are included
• OPUS10^TM is much more general in its modelling capabilities. Basically it has no limits on support levels, number of different items, depth of material structure etc.
• OPUS10^TM can handle jumps in and asymmetries in both the support organization and in material breakdown structure
• OPUS10^TM can include both the transportation time to and from supporting stations, just the down time or a fraction of the times in the calculation of operational availability, other models tend to include only the transportation time from the supporting station
• OPUS10^TM allows the modelling of a station supported by more than one station. This is very powerful as it permits the modelling of repair fractions for the same item or the splitting of demand flows by item type to different supporting stations. This is increasingly common in real world applications. Other models do not permit this modelling.
• The optimization method in OPUS10^TM relies on the strong concept of significance levels, which is believed to be unique to OPUS10^TM. This can lead to differences in the spares allocation between the models for the same MoE, depending on the scenario OPUS10^TM will have the lower cost
• OPUS10^TM uniquely includes lateral/flexible support and backorder priority within the optimization process thus permitting significant savings
• OPUS10^TM has a different algorithm for non repairables and Partially Repairable Units, which we believe is more accurate
• OPUS10^TM uniquely includes location of repair at the system level within the optimisation process whereas as other models do not or at best interface with level of repair models at the item level. This approach enables significant improvements in sparing and maintenance analysis as both share common algorithms
• OPUS10^TM connectivity is flexible with its standard links to MS products and databases in ORACLE, SQL etc. This enables OPUS10^TM to become easily integrated with IT systems
• The GUI is a matter of choice between models; OPUS10^TM more pragmatic/ functional/sober whereas others may be more colourful/graphic
• OPUS10^TM has continuing upgrade path with significant new version releases approximately every 18 months. When was the last major update for the other models?
• OPUS10^TM has better support by the supplier and its representatives
• Connectivity and commonality with OPUS10^TM simulation model, SIMLOX, also available as a COTS product. The simulation allows more detailed, complex operational scenarios to be modelled with the effects of time dependencies being fully analysed