Table Of ContentTHE DYNAMICS OF NAVAL SHIPBUILDING -
A SYSTEMS APPROACH
by
Timothy P. McCue
r
BA Physics, College ofHoly Cross
Master ofScience in Mechanical Engineering, SUNY Stonybrook
Submitted to the Department ofOcean Engineering
in Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the Degrees of
NAVAL ENGINEER
and
MASTER OF SCIENCE OCEAN SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
in
at the
Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology
June 1997
S31997TimothyMcCue. All rightsreserved.
Theauthorherebygrants MITpermissiontoreproduceanddistributecopiesofthisthesisdocumentinwholeorinpart.
Y)t$ /4+cV\\oe
nn MW&k
fYYC^tV
f/\
This thesis is dedicatedto the
grandfather Inever knew
LCDR Eugene PatrickMcCue USNR
Acknowledgments:
Many people at many different levels contributed to this work. I was able to
travel all over the country collecting information and interviewing people involved with
Naval Ship Acquisition and Construction. From the LPD-17 Program Manager to the
production planners at NASSCO to the manager of the Hardings plant at BIW, I found
everyone to be passionate about what they do. I also found everyone willing to discuss
new ideas and to try to find ways to improve the process. Without these discussions, the
Ship Production Model would never have been created.
I would like to thank the US Navy for the opportunity to attend MIT. The
knowledge I have gained over the past three years has already proven invaluable and will
be a true asset in the years ahead. I would like to thank the Navy staff at MIT for their
extraordinary support. The creative atmosphere spawned by Captain Alan Brown and
LCDR Mark Welsh allowed free thinking and exploration into new areas. My many
discussions with each of these officers has led to a better formulation of the role of
Engineering Duty Officers. Their advice and counsel is very much appreciated.
I would like to thank Professor John Sterman and Jim Hines of the System
Dynamics Group at Sloan for their indoctrination into System Dynamics. I found the
field fascinating and plan on continuing to use modeling in my career. Taking classes at
Sloan provided a different perspective than the engineering courses in the 13A
curriculum. I feel both perspectives are very important.
Specifically I would like to thank Jim Lyneis of Pugh Roberts Associates, Dave
Philo at Ingalls Shipbuilding, Eric Surestedt ofBath Iron Works, Peter Jaquith and Matt
Tedesco ofNASSCO, Tom Rivers ofNAVSEA and Phil Koenig ofNSWC Carderock.
All of these professionals took the time to listen to my ideas and provide valuable
feedback. Their grasp ofthe realities ofshipbuilding were critical to this work.
Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for their support during the
entire time at MIT. I tried to balance school and the real world to the best ofmy ability.
Sometimes it took a tug from one ofmy kids, Katlyn and Luke, to "...stop and smell the
roses." Karen, as usual, kept me grounded lest I forget about what is really important. I
thank her for her patience and unflagging support.
--'ry
"SCHOOL
S3-5101
The Dynamics ofNaval Shipbuilding:
A Systems Approach to Project Management Assessment
by
Timothy P. McCue
Submitted to the Department ofOcean Engineering
in Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements forthe Degrees of
NAVAL ENGINEER and MASTER OF SCIENCE in Ocean Systems Management
May 1997
Abstract:
Project management in the shipbuilding industry is a complex and misunderstood
field. Ship programs are often delivered behind schedule and over budget. Many
external factors can cause a relatively well run program to experience problems. These
include material shortages, labor problems or customer generated design changes. Even
harder for a manager to understand are internally generated problems from sources like
overtime use, hiring and firing policy, and cost estimating.
Project managers do not understand or have the tools to measure many of the
dynamic features ofa construction process. These features include feedback, time delays
and nonlinear cause and effect relationships among project components. In general,
people have a hard time dealing with nonlinear relationships in their mental models ofthe
world. When three or four of these relationships are operating at the same time, the
resulting complexity becomes very hard to unravel intuitively. Experienced program
managers can describe dynamics and understand they are operating on the system. They
cannot quantify the strength or impact ofthese features on their project.
The purpose of this paper is to use System Dynamics modeling to examine the
Navy Ship Acquisition and Construction process and to increase the knowledge and
understanding concerning the management of large Navy shipbuilding projects. System
Dynamics captures the many complex facets of ship construction simultaneously and
examines their behavior over time. Using simulation, project managers in the Navy and
in the private sector can make better, more quantitative decisions.
11 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
CHAPTER
1 11
1.1 - Introduction 11
1.2 - Motivation 15
1.3 -Outline 19
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE SEARCH 23
2.1 - The Affordability Crisis 23
2.1 Reference Modes 25
2.12 Definition ofTerms 33
2.13 Causal Loops 37
2.2 - Acquisition Reform 45
2.2 Commercial OffThe Shelf(COTS) 46
2.22 Standards and Specifications 47
2.23 The Affordability Through Commonality Program 50
2.3 - Commercial Shipbuilding Initiatives 54
MARJTECH
2.31 55
2.32 National Shipbuilding Research Program 57
2.33 Mid-Term Sealift Ship technology Development Program (MTSSTDP) 59
2.34 Lean Shipbuilding Initiative 61
2.4 Build Strategy Development 66
2.41 Description 67
2.42 Components 69
2.5 Dynamic Project Modeling 72
2.51 History - Ingalls Case Study 74
2.52 Ingalls Internal Use ofthe Shipbuilding Model 78
2.53 Halter Marine 82
2.54 Other Systems Dynamics Models 91
2.55 Potential 99
CHAPTER3 - Shipyard Visits 101
3.1 - Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, MI 104
3.11 History 105
3.12 Financial Status 105
3.13 CurrentNavy and Commercial Work 107
*""
3.14 Future Strategic Plan 108
3.15 Shipyard Layout 09
1
3.16 Human Resource Management
1 1
3.17 Production Planning 112
3.18 Phases ofConstruction 1 13
3.19 Performance 119
3.1 10 Use ofSimulation 120
3.111 Summary 122
1
3.2 - Bath iron Works, Bath, ME 124
3.21 History 124
3.22 Financial Status 125
3.23 CurrentNavy and Commercial Work 125
3.24 Future Strategic Plan 127
3.25 Shipyard Layout 128
3.26 Human Resource Management 129
3.27 Production Planning 130
3.28 Phases ofConstruction 131
3.29 Performance 138
3.210 Use ofSimulation 138
3.211 Summary 139
3.3 - NASSCO, San Diego, CA 141
3.31 History 141
3.32 Financial Status 142
3.33 CurrentNavy and Commercial Work 143
3.34 Future Strategic Plan 144
3.35 Shipyard Layout 144
3.36 Human Resource Management 146
3.37 Production Planning 147
3.38 Phases ofConstruction 148
3.39 Performance 150
3.310 Use ofSimulation 151
3.311 Summary 153
3.4 - Newport News Shipbuilding, Newport News , VA 154
3.41 History 154
3.42 Financial Status 155
3.43 CurrentNavy and Commercial Work 156
3.44 Future Strategic Plan 157
3.45 Shipyard Layout 157
3.5- Avondale Shipbuilding, New Orleans, LA 159
3.21 History 159
3.22 Financial Status 159
3.23 CurrentNavy and Commercial Work 160
3.24 Future Strategic Plan 160
3.25 Shipyard Layout 161
3.26 Use ofSimulation 162
3.6 Summary 162
CHAPTER 4 - Ship Production Model Descriptions 164
4.1 - Model Development 166
4.1 Previous Project Models 167
4.12 Ship Production Characteristics 169
4.13 Model Features 170
4.2 Model Structure 173
4.21 Multi Phase Work Flow and Rework Sector 174
4.22 Labor Adjustment Sector 178
