SHIP PRODUCTION COMMITTEE September 1989

FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NSRP 0310

SURFACE PREPARATION AND COATINGS
DESIGN/PRODUCTION INTEGRATION
HUMAN RESOURCE INNOVATION
MARINE INDUSTRY STANDARDS
WELDING
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
EDUCATION AND TRAINING

THE NATIONAL
SHIPBUILDING
RESEARCH
PROGRAM

1989 Ship Production Symposium

Paper No. 12: The First Time

Integration of Product by Stage
of Construction with Cost/Schedule
Control Application

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

CARDEROCK DIVISION,
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
 Form Approved
Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED

SEP 1989 N/A -
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
The National Shipbuilding Research Program 1989 Ship Production
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Symposium Paper No. 12: The First Time Integration of Product by
Stage of Construction With Cost/Schedule Control Application 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
Naval Surface Warfare Center CD Code 2230 - Design Integration Tools
Bldg 192 Room 128 9500 MacArthur Blvd Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
SAR 40
unclassified unclassified unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
 DISCLAIMER

These reports were prepared as an account of government-sponsored work. Neither the

United States, nor the United States Navy, nor any person acting on behalf of the United
States Navy (A) makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect
to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this report/
manual, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this
report may not infringe privately owned rights; or (B) assumes any liabilities with respect to
the use of or for damages resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or
process disclosed in the report. As used in the above, “Persons acting on behalf of the
United States Navy” includes any employee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractor
of the United States Navy to the extent that such employee, contractor, or subcontractor to
the contractor prepares, handles, or distributes, or provides access to any information
pursuant to his employment or contract or subcontract to the contractor with the United
States Navy. ANY POSSIBLE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR
FITNESS FOR PURPOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED.
 between Quebec and New Brunswick for Authority’s concern about the proper
reasons of regional distribution, the management of cost and schedule
second six frigates will all be built performance on this multi-billion
in Saint John, further acknowledging dollar contract.
SJSL’s excellence Ship
Construction and Program Management. The primary objective of the Canadian
C/SC Criteria was to ensure that the
SJSL’s stated objectives to meet the resultant systems would provide the
challenges of the future are: basic principles of cost and schedule
management and ensure that:
o continued implementation of new
technologies to increase o all CPF work was defined and
productivity and performance assigned
o development of facilities to o an integrated baseline plan for
accommodate modern naval ship the performance of the contracted
construction and support work be established, including:
o development of facilities to
provide life cycle support and - definition of work scope and
maintenance for the Canadian assignment of responsibility
Patrol Frigates. scheduling of the outputs of
each segment of work scope,
1.2 COST/SCHEDULE CONTROL ON THE as well as sufficient overall
CANADIAN PATROL FRIGATE PROGRAM scheduling to provide proper
integration of all program
Cast/Schedule Control (C/SC) is a work scope
relatively new concept to Canadian the timephasing of all
industry, although it has been used program budgets
for performance measurement on major the establishment of controls
acquisition contracts in the United to monitor and measure the
States for over twenty years. While performance of the work
the initial design for the Canadian recording of all program
Patrol Frigate was still being put to costs against the baseline
paper, specifications were being structure
written to adapt the United States identification and monitoring
Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria of deviations from the plan
to the requirements of the CPF control of changes to the
program. This adaptation would baseline plan
slightly change the distribution of maintenance of valid
the elements of the Criteria, but the estimates of cost to complete
effectiveness and efficiency would the work of the CPF program.
not be impacted (see Figure 2). The
acceptance of C/SC Criteria was The refined Canadian Cost/Schedule
motivated by the Canadian Contracting Control Criteria reads like a primer
of basic management principles. So
basic was the Criteria that it
remained unchanged through all the
U.s. CANADIAN contract negotiations preceding
contract award. A further endorsement
C/SC CRITERIA c/se CRITERIA of the Criteria is SJSL’s adoption of
SUB-SYSTEMS SUB-SYSTEMS this approach to cost and schedule
control for its own internal
management systems.
-ORGANIZATION -ORGANIZATION
2. IMPLEMENTING A COST/SCHEDULE
-PLANNING AND -WORK PLANNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM
BUDGETING AUTHORIZATION
Through the Canadian Government’s
-ACCOUTING -SCHEDULING approach to implementing the
-ANALYSIS -BUDGETING AND Cost/Schedule Control Criteria, SJSL
and its three major subcontractors
-CONTRACT BUDGETING were encouraged to develop an
-REVISIONS AND -ACCOUNTING effective planning and control system
suited to their own needs.
ACCESS TO DATA
-DATA ACCUMULATION The Criteria was designed to allow
prime and subcontractors to use the
-ANALYSIS management procedures of their
-REVISIONS choice, while providing an outline of
characteristics and capabilities
FIGURE 2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN which the Canadian Patrol Frigate
CANADIAN AND U.S. C/S CRITERIA Program Management Office (CPF PMO)
deemed necessary for an effective
12-2
cost and Schedule Control system. 2.1 THE CANADIAN C/SC CRITERIA
A major strength of the Canadian C/SC
This system would provide valid, Criteria is that it does not
timely and auditable information prescribe specific methods of
indicative of progress, would organization operation, but
properly relate cost, schedule and rather, provide: vigorous standards
technical performance and satisfy the against which to measure the adequacy
Canadian Government’s requirement for of management control systems. The
summarized program information and CPF contract granted SJSL the freedom
visibility into potential problems. to organize its C/SC system in a
manner consistent with its own
The Criteria was intended to provide management philosophy. However, the
SJSL with maximum flexibility in composition of that system must
managing internal operations. From successfully embrace the following
the start, it was a CPF PMO policy to sub-systems:
avoid imposing unnecessary changes on
existing SJSL systems and to minimize I. ORGANIZATION: The Criteria
other changes whenever possible. elements applicable to Organization
Originally, CPF PMO envisioned a require that SJSL arrange all
single internal system which would contract-authorized work in the
satisfy both SJSL’ S management framework of the Work Breakdown
requirements and CPF PMO’s need for Structure (WBS) down to a manageable
information. The system must also level (see Figure 5). Designated key
provide for the clear definition of management personnel at SJSL are
total CPF contractual effort with an assigned responsibility for portions
Integrated Contract Work Breakdown of the manageable levels of the WBS,
Structure (ICWBS). The ICWBS is resulting in a number of control
simply a sub-division in family tree points. All SJSL activities
format of products, components, work (planning, scheduling, budgeting,
tasks and services required to work authorization, cost
achieve a desired goal or produce an accumulation) operate on this basis.
end-product (see Figures 3 and 4). Elements for identifying work
scheduled, work performed, actual
costs incurred, budget and estimate

FIGURE 3. THE CPF INTEGRATED CONTRACT WORK

BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (LEVEL 1-4)

12-3
 at completion, and cost and schedule
variances must be utilized at the
selected control points. The
criteria apply to all work, whether
direct, overhead or subcontractor
oriented.
11. WORK PLANNING AND AUTHORIZATION:
Criteria elements relating to Work
Planning and Authorization require
that SJSL plan all contract-
authorized work to the extent
practicable and ensure that near term
work is planned in detail. Work must
be planned in the manner in which it
is to be performed, and be amenable
to in-process objective measurement.
Finally, all work must be adequately
budgeted on the basis work
content.
III. SCHEDULING: Criteria elements
applicable to Scheduling require SJSL
to develop a top down scheduling
system with a top level schedule
containing key contract requirements,
supported by lower level schedules
identifying areas
interface/interdependency of key
completion dates (Figure 6). The
scheduling system must descend to the
lowest level where work is performed.
At this level, and from this level
through to the top level schedule,
SJSL must be able to report progress
against stated requirements/key
events, and use this progress
12-4
 FIGURE 6. CPF INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE

information to forecast completion must be summarized as well, and work

dates for all events. The Integrated accomplishment against the schedule
Master Schedule (IMS) was developed must be identified. Finally, SJSL
to meet these needs. must ensure that only that work which
cannot be planned in discrete, short
span or measured effort work packages
IV. BUDGETING AND CONTRACT BUDGETING: is classified as Level of Effort
Criteria elements applicable to (LOE) work.
Budgeting and Contract Budgeting
require SJSL to establish and VI. DATA ACCUMULATION: SJSL is
maintain a timephased budget baseline required to provide CPF PMO access to
for performance measurement purposes. all pertinent records and
Overhead budget determination is to documentation.
be a rational, traceable process
based on SJSL’s anticipated business VII . ANALYSIS: Criteria elements
base. All overhead projections applicable to Analysis require that
beyond the current year must be SJSL generate cost, schedule and
applied systematically and adjusted at-completion variance data and be
in a timely manner. able to explain the problem cause,
impact and proposed corrective action
v. ACCOUNTING: Criteria elements associated with significant
applicable to Accounting require SJSL variances. This performance
to manage the utilization of measurement is to be applied to both
Management Reserve and Undistributed subcontracted and internal work
Budget, reconcile the Contract Target (direct and overhead). Internally,
Cost and all budgets for internal this performance measurement must
work, record direct cost on an address the total contract level to
applied or other acceptable basis the level where work is performed,
consistent with the budgets in a through both the functional
formal system controlled by the organization and the WBS. SJSL
General Books of Account, and ensure management use this data and
the Material system further effects corresponding variance narrative to
performance measurement. Direct detect and avert potential problems.
costs from the lowest level of cost
collection must be summarized to the VIII. REVISIONS: SJSL is required by
total contract level through the WBS the Criteria to incorporate approved
and the functional organization in a internal and contractual changes in a
consistent manner. Indirect costs timely manner and ensure that the net
12-5
effects of these changes are provided specific period. Regarding ship
for in existing budget, schedule and components which are purchased this
work scope. All such changes must be value represents the budget that has
documented and logs maintained to been assigned for vendor work in a
demonstrate traceability to original specified period.
assignments of budget, schedule and
work scope. Retroactive changes, BCWP: In direct relation to contract
with the exception of errors and work that is scheduled to be
routine accounting adjustments, are completed in a specified
prohibited. period, BCWP represents the
value budgeted for work which
2.2 THE OUTPUT OF A FUNCTIONAL C/SC was completed in a specified
SYSTEM: DATA CATEGORIES period. For work which has
been completed, BCWP equals
C/SC allows Canadian Government 100% of the total budget
personnel to review cost and schedule assigned. When considering
performance data, and thereby in-process work an objective
determine the status of the CPF determination of progress must
project, without detailed knowledge be made.
of the SJSL management system. The
Government relies on accurate, ACWP: As a result of the performance
consistent information from SJSL and of work. expenditures are
understands the C/SC reasoning upon incurred. cost data
which the information is based. accumulated in the accounting
system includes employees'
The information generated from the completed timecards specifying
SJSL C/SC system is grounded in sound assigned work activities and
management practices: invoices for payment to
vendors.
o all work is defined/assigned
o all work is scheduled BAC : This budgeted value represents
o all work is budgeted the total budget for work to be
o actual costs are properly accomplished. In distinguishing
collected this term from BCKS it is
o status evaluations are made relevant to note that BCKS is a
o final cost predictions are budgeted amount for a specified
derived. period (eg. month), while BAC
is total budgeted at
The Cost/Schedule Control system completion, a summarization of
accommodates formalized, established each period BCWS.
methods for communicating contractor
performance. EAC : In relation to the BAC, which
summarizes the total bud-get for
Upon successful integration of the assigned work scope, SJSL as
eight sub-systems (discussed in the responsible authority shall
Section 2.1) which support the C/SC periodically assess performance
system, information as to the status to date and estimate the final
of the CPF contract work scope cost at completion of all
becomes available. This information assigned work.
consists of:
These five data elements are derived
Budgeted cost of Work Scheduled at the lowest level within the
(BCWS) organization where responsibility is
assigned. This information is
Budgeted cost of Work Performed summarized through a matrix by
(BCWP) functional departments and by work
breakdown structure element. This
Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) breakdown provides immediate focus on
areas where there are deviations from
Budget at Completion (BAC) the plan.
Estimate at Completion (EAC) Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the
relationship between the five data
These five data categories depict the elements and the analysis that is
precise schedule and cost position, performed employing them.
both incrementally and cumulatively,
of SJSL and its major subcontractors
for a specific scope of work at a
specific point in time. They are 2.3 SUBCONTRACTOR INTEGRATION
defined as follows: In the early stages of the CPF
BCWS: The budgeted value of work that program it was determined that, in
is planned to be completed in a the interest of maximizing Industrial

12.6
Benefits throughout Canada and in
consideration of the inherent
complexities of CPF, certain defined
work scope would be subcontracted. As
a result of this decision many
subcontracts were let. Although all
subcontracts may have a potential
impact on prime contract cost and
schedule parameters, certain large
subcontracts were determined to be
critical contributors to the
successful execution of CPF. These
contractors have been assigned an
integral role on the CPF contract and
therefore require close scrutiny. As
a result, SJSL has included in these
contracts the requirement for an
operational C/SC system combined with
monthly cost Performance Report
submission.
In relation to the total CPF contract
SJSL has maintained responsibility
for a significant portion of the
contract work scope. The entire
combat and communication system was
subcontracted, encompassing design,
procurement, construction,
installation, integration, and
testing of all the associated combat
systems for six shipsets. Ship system
engineering work was also
subcontracted; this was integrated
with the effort of the SJSL
Engineering function in comprising
the entire ship design package.
Finally, SJSL subcontracted work for
the construction of three of the
first six city class frigates to a
Canadian shipyard in Quebec.
Figure 9 depicts the percentage
contribution of each critical
subcontractor in terms of contract
value. Note that the criticality of
the supporting design agent is based
more on schedule impact than on cost.
In December of 1987, SJSL’ S CPF
contract was amended to include six
additional frigates. This lengthened
and increased the value of the prime
contract and had an associated effect
on the combat/communications
subcontract (see Figure 10).
The requirements imposed on critical
subcontractors are similar to those 2.4 THE OUTPUT OF THE COST/SCHEDULE
placed on SJSL. Each subcontractor is CONTROL SYSTEM: THE COST
required to demonstrate that its PERFORMANCE REPORT
system meets the criteria
contained in the contract. SJSL's
role is to determine whether the Critical subcontractors are required
system satisfies contractual by contract to submit monthly Cost
obligations and is consistent with Performance Reports (CPRs) which
and supportive of the SJSL system. contain pertinent cost and schedule
CPF PMO as the customer oversees this data. These subcontractor cost
system demonstration and provides Performance Reports provide SJSL with
input through SJSL. the requisite visibility to manage
the CPF contract. Upon receipt,
subcontractor reports are distributed
to the appropriate management for

12-8
action and inclusion in the analysis FORMAT 5
which is forwarded to CPF PMO as part
of the prime contract deliverable, Format 5 provides an analysis of
SJSL’s CPR. performance with both graphic and
narrative explanations of cost,
The CPR consists of five standard schedule and at-completion variances
formats (Figure 11) which summarize which meet or exceed the CPF contract
cost and schedule status and provide variance thresholds (Figure 13).
a complete overview of the CPF This Format is divided into three
contract so that issues, program sections:
impacts and performance trends are
identifiable. The CPR contains: SECTION 1 Contains an executive
summary which discusses
o Contract data (headings) major problem areas.
o ICWBS and Product by Stage of
Construction performance (informal SECTION 2 Contains narrative which
reports), budgets and EAC explains ICWBS reporting
(Format 1) level variances.
o Prime and subcontractor
organizational performance, SECTION 3 Covers any additional
budgets and EAC (Format 2) variances exceeding CPF
o Baseline budget distribution and contract thresholds as
record of changes (Format 3) well as changes not
o Timephased manpower plan and/or covered in Sections 1 and
forecast (Format 4) 2.
o Discussion of problems (Format 5).
This information from the major
subcontractors is integrated with 2.5 C/SC VALIDATION
SJSL's data to form the Total Program
Cost Performance Report (see Figure The CPF contract contains the
12). Criteria requirements for a C/SC
system. SJSL developed a C/SC system
using these Criteria as a guideline.
FORMATS 1 AND 2 The necessary computer software
program was written and the
The same principles apply to review management systems were established.
the data contained in Formats 1 and 2 On numerous occasions during the
as they display the same overall implementation phase, SJSL invited
performance data in the same format. CPF PMO to review the development of
However, Format 1 shows a line item the system; CPF PMO provided valuable
breakdown of ICWBS elements at the input regarding their interpretation
reporting level, while Format 2 shows of the Criteria requirements.
a breakdown of the performance of the To ensure that SJSL's system would
major functional organizations and meet the newly designed C/SC
three major subcontractors. Criteria, SJSL was contractually
obligated to demonstrate its system’s
Additionally, Formats 1 and 2 provide sufficiency to a CPF PMO review team.
the data necessary to perform trend Once this team approved (validated)
analysis. Cumulative performance SJSL's C/SC system, further
(BCWS, BCWP and ACWP) may be plotted demonstrations would not be
monthly to provide the classic necessary, provided CPF PMO
S-curve of the three performance surveillance indicated SJSL 's
elements. continued compliance with the
Canadian C/SC Criteria.
FORMAT 3
In December of 1987 CPF PMO provided
This format shows the timephased formal notification that SJSL's C/SC
contract budget baseline, system was validated, representing
performance measurement baseline the FIRST validation granted by the
(PMB). It also quantifies all Canadian Government to a Canadian
approved changes to the PMB, provides Company on a Canadian Military
visibility into the effect of Contract. SJSL is fully committed to
changes, and recognizes any maintaining the C/SC system as
application of Management Reserve. validated, however modifications will
be made to meet future requirements
FORMAT 4 of both SJSL and the customer. CPF
PMO shall monitor the system in a
This format reports the timephased surveillance mode to ensure
estimate of labor required to continuing compliance with the C/SC
complete the CPF contract and Criteria.
contains the data best suited for
trend extrapolation and regression Reviews of CPF critical
analysis. subcontractors have been conducted by
12-9

SJSL and observed by CPF PMO, however
none of these organizations has
received C/SC system validation at
time of writing. SJSL is expending
considerable effort assisting its
subcontractors to achieve acceptable
C/SC system implementation based on
experience gained during SJSL's
validation process.
3. IMPLEMENTING PRODUCT BY STAGE OF
CONSTRUCTION (P/Sc)
3.1 INTRODUCTION
SJSL defines Product By Stage of
Construction (P/Sc) in one word -
OPPORTUNITY.
In understanding OPPORTUNITY it is
important to realize that a shipyard
decision to commit resources to some
specific early use on a stage of
construction, or to utilize more
rather than less resources to
accomplish a task at the optimum
time, is also an implicit decision
not to commit these resources to
traditional ICWBS approaches. What
these resources accomplish when
committed at the optimum stage of
construction is OPPORTUNITY.
3.2 DEFINITION OF P/Se
P/Se is the sub-division of the ship
into readily identifiable pieces of
work. Each piece of work is called an
interim
(eg. a fabricated part or
sub-assembly, an assembly unit or
module).
12-11
The sub-division of the ship is
accomplished using the zone-by-stage
approach, that is by considering each
area of the ship and determining the
optimum stage at which to do the
work. OPPORTUNITY.
P/Se breaks the ship down into groups
of similar parts, interim
products, which are then designed and
manufactured in batches at the most
logical stage. OPPORTUNITY.
3.3 STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION
(PRODUCTION OPPORTUNITY LEVELS)
Planning ship construction in eight
production OPPORTUNITY levels is a
practical way to promote the
optimization of work flow.
P/Se views ship construction as a
series of OPPORTUNITY levels, called
stages or work centres, through which
interim products pass to culminate in
the complete ship.
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the
ship’s eight production OPPORTUNITY
levels, from delivery of raw
materials and components to final
acceptance by the customer.
NOTE : An OPPORTUNITY level is the
optimum level at which the
work can be accomplished.
This sub-division is the key to P/Sc.
The overlay of defined levels of
outfit and painting, coded according
to the production OPPORTUNITY level
in question, allows planning and
control of progress on the ship.
3.3.1 LEVEL 1: KITTING/PART
FABRICATION
Part Fabrication is the first
production OPPORTUNITY level. Part
Fabrication produces components for
the ship which cannot be further
sub-divided. Typical work orders are
issued by unit, stage, and standard
manufacture (batch).
Within the classifications, problem
areas may be sub-divided by machine
requirements, type of material, size,
etc.
STAGE TYPE OF WORK
1110 Shotblasted Plates & Shapes
1120 Marking, Cutting Plates &
Shapes
1130 Forming Plates & Shapes
1150 Drain Plugs, Thermometer
Plugs
STAGE TYPE OF WORK STAGE TYPE OF WORK

1160 Material Kitting, Bending or 1180 Fitting Cabinet Pieces

Cutting Together
1170 Marking, Cutting Plates & 1190 Fitting Connectors To Cables
Shapes
1180 Marking, Cutting Wood Panels
1190 Marking, Cutting Electrical 3.3.3 LEVEL 3: FLAT AND CURVED PANEL
Cables ASSEMBLY AND PRE-OUTFITTING
The third production OPPORTUNITY
3.3.2 LEVEL 2: PART/SUB-ASSEMBLY level is a sub-unit and initial
pre-outfitting level consisting of a
Part/Sub-assembly is the second number of fabricated and/or assembled
production OPPORTUNITY level. Typical parts. Typical work orders are issued
work orders are issued by unit and by unit and area.
area.
STAGE TYPE OF WORK
STAGE TYPE OF WORK
1200 Flat Panel with Penetrations
1140 Fitting Beams, Girders, Web Foundations & Backing
Frames Structure
1150 Fitting Liner on Shaft 1300 Curved Panel with Overboard
1160 Fitting, Welding Pipe Pieces Discharges, Foundations &
1170 Fitting, Welding Foundations Backing Structure
& Tanks
12-12
3.3.4 LEVEL 4: MODULE - which surface preparation and
ASSEMBLY /PRE-OUTFIT AND JOIN painting take place. Considerable
planning is performed at this stage
The fourth production OPPORTUNITY to minimize the on-board painting.
Level involves final module
production, including integration of
flat panel units with pre-outfit, 3.3.6 LEVEL 6: GROUND ERECTION AND
curved panel units with pre-outfit to PRE-OUTFIT 2
form a block which can be further
outfitted and tested. The sixth production OPPORTUNITY
level is clearly defined by its
STAGE TYPE OF WORK output of erection units which will
require additional pre-outfit (the
1410 Pre-outfit 1 (PO-1) Inverted remainder of PO-1 as well as PO-2,
1410 Pre-outfit 1 Upright which is cold work pre-outfit).
1420 Assembly Unit Join
1420 Final Pre-outfit 1
1500 Modules 3.3.7 LEVEL 7: ERECTION & OUTFITTING
IN GRAVING DOCK
3.3.5 LEVEL 5: BLAST & PAINT The seventh production OPPORTUNITY
level is Erection & Outfitting in the
The fifth production OPPORTUNITY Graving Dock, and entails the fitting
level is Blast & Paint, the stage at and welding together of erection

12-13
units to form the ship. It includes a structure, usually shell to shell but
defined level of outfit covering occasionally broken into port,
major component installation (e.g. gas starboard and centerline sections.
turbines, cruise diesel, main cable Erection units are typically composed
runs) and the remainder of outfitting of more than one assembly unit. (See
in way of erection unit butts. Figure 16.)

3.3.8 LEVEL 8: OUTFITTING WATERBORNE 3.4.1.1 UNIT NUMBERING

The eighth and final production A four digit number in the format
OPPORTUNITY level, Outfitting XYZO is used to label and schedule
Waterborne, is the most expensive. material and labor resources for a
Level 8 includes the installation of unit/pre-outfit zone. Unit zone
all miscellaneous outfit components, numbers have a geographical
final compartment completion and significance within the ship and
final system testing and acceptance al low personnel to rely on logic
of the ship. rather than memory to control
material and labor.
x Represents one of four major
Superzones of the ship:
1.Forward of Machinery spaces
A four digit number is used for 2.Machinery spaces
identifying material and labor to a 3.Aft of Machinery spaces
work center at the shipyard as listed 4.Superstructure
below:
Y Within a Superzone the ship is
STAGE TYPE OF WORK sub-divided further and is
numbered forward to aft (see
1100 Kitting, Part Fabrication & Figure 17). This represents Girth
Assembly sub-divisions (1 through 9) based
1200 Flat Panel Assembly & PO-1 on major vertical sub-divisions.
1300 Shell Assembly & PO-1
1400 Unit Assembly Join & PO-1 z Represents the deck level. Numbers
1500 Outfit Assembly run consecutively (1 through to 9)
1600 Package Blast & Paint from the inner bottom to the
1700 Ground Erection & PO-2 weather deck for hull unit/zones.
1800 Erection & Outfitting in For superstructure, the numbering
Graving Dock runs from bottom to top as well,
1900 Outfitting Waterborne using major structural horizontal
sub-divisions.
3.4 THE PRODUCT o Reserved for further sub-division
of the basic assembly unit for
The ship is divided into five more efficient design and
different types of products: Units; production cost control as
Outfit Zones; Special Installations; required.
Modules; and Standard Manufacturing
Jobs.
The following discussion describes
the products in detail and 3.4.2 OUTFIT ZONES
illustrates the manner in which they geographically
are coded according to their position Outfit zones are
within the ship. oriented divisions of the ship by
Superzone, Girth and Level. The
configuration of the outfit zone is
3.4.1 UNITS determined by the structure of the
ship and the plan for outfitting the
Units are geographically oriented zone.
divisions of the ship by Superzone,
Girth, and Level. The configuration Outfit zone boundaries are typically
of the unit is determined by the bulkhead to bulkhead and deck to
structure and design of the ship, the deck. They are the basis for outfit
facilities which are available, and design as well as outfit work,
the construction and outfitting plan. beginning after unit erection. If
desired, these boundaries can be to
Units and pre-outfit zones comprise the level of "compartment" for work
the pre-erection product. An assembly after erection to monitor cost and
schedule for specific areas (eg.
unit is a defined single deck level electronic spaces).
12-14
 O The number zero is reserved for
general outfit zone work. Numbers
1 through 9 are reserved for
further sub-division of the basic
outfit zone for more efficient
design and production cost
control.
Figure 19 shows the outfit zone for
No. 3 Deck. However, in order to
expand on the specialized outfitting
required within the electrical
equipment area, 2442 has been
established as a (sub) outfit zone or
sub-zone.
Outfit zones may also span more than
one deck level: Figure 19 shows No. 2
Deck with outfit zone 2460, the
exhaust casing, shaded. This same
outfit zone appears on No. 3 Deck as
well.

Figure 20 shows the outfit zone

breakdown with vertical design/outfit
zones. The further sub-division of
the basic outfit zone will allow.
o More efficient use of design
resources
FIGURE 17. AN EXAMPLE OF
UNIT NUMBERING o Smaller and more controllable work
packages during outfitting phases
3.4.2.1 OUTFIT ZONE NUMBERING
o More efficient use of production
A four digit number of the XYZO is resources
used for identifying and scheduling
material and labor resources to an o More discrete scheduling of the
outfit zone product (Figure 18). on-board outfitting activities.
Outfit zone numbers have a
geographical significance within the 3.4.3 SPECIAL INSTALLATIONS
ship and allow personnel to rely on
logic rather than memory to control Special Installations are complex
material and labor. installation jobs which require work
to be organized around a particular
X Represents one of four major task rather than a geographic area.
Superzones of the ship:
Special Installations often require
1. Forward of Machinery spaces multi-discipline co-ordination and
2. Machinery spaces work sequencing between two or more
3.Aft of Machinery spaces outfit zones.
4.Superstructure
3.4.3.1 SPECIAL INSTALLATION ZONE
Y Represents Girth sub-divisions (1 NUMBERING
through 5) based on watertight
bulkhead locations, forward to A four digit number in the format
aft, for the hull zones and major XYZO will be used for identifying and
structural vertical sub-divisions controlling production material and
for superstructure zones . The labor to Special Installation zones
number O is used to represent (see Figure 21).
applicability to the entire
Superzone. The numbers 6 through 9 XY Assigned the numbers 61 through
are used to designate the exterior 65 to indicate Special
shell, weather deck and house Installation, while the second
sides. digit (1 through 4) indicates
which Superzone the module is in.
Z Represents a deck level within a The number 5 in the Y digit
Girth. Numbers run consecutively indicates multi-zones. The number
(1 through 9) from the innerbottom O in the Y digit represents main
to the weather deck far hull zones cable pulls.
and major structural horizontal
sub-divisions for superstructure
zones.

12-16
 FIGURE 20. AN EXAMPLE OF ZONE
NUMBERING

20 A field of consecutive numbers Modules are classed by their physical

(00 through 99), used to identify make-up and work content. There are
the individual Special four types of Modules:
Installation.
0 Piping Modules - Major runs of
piping and their supports.
3.4.4 MODULES
0 Component Modules - Equipments
A Module is an off-ship and off-unit mounted in shipboard location on
assembly of outfit equipment, their own foundations or mock-ups
components, material and fittings to allow piping to be run.
(often mounted on a common base) Depending upon complexity, modules
which may be installed as a single may be broken apart for
unit. installation.

12-17
3.5 P/Se NUMBERING 3.6 PICTORIAL EXAMPLES OF P/Se

Labour, material and technical Photographs included as Figures 24

information is planned, scheduled and through 35 depict products, most with
controlled by the P/se Numbering pre-outfit completed at optimum
System. stages of construction.
The P/Se Numbering System describes
all construction products. It is
also flexible enough to accommodate
all construction techniques and
stages (see Figure 23).

12-18
o Tank Modules - Completion of free
standing tanks with tank level
indication alarm sensors, etc. and
testing in the shop.
0 Integrated Modules - The most
desirable module where design
permits. It includes grating,
piping, equipment, ventilation, Standard Manufacturing Jobs are
local cabling, etc. on a common special interim products which are
foundation. built off-flow, that is, outside the
main hull construction flow. They are
Modules can be installed in the part-assemblies made at Manufacturing
following stages of construction: Level II.

1.Unit Assembly & Pre-outfit 1 It is intended that Manufacturing

2.Unit Joining & Pre-outfit 2 Jobs be grouped according to their
3.Hull Erection common manufacturing characteristics
4.On-Board Outfitting in order to maximize efficiency by
making parts in batches.
On-Module Outfitting is targeted at
performing as much outfit work as All Manufacturing Jobs are given
possible off-ship. It ensures that
work is performed in the best
possible environment and takes facilitate planning, scheduling and
maximum advantage of the lowest cost progressing. Material procurement,
factor available within the shipyard. fabrication, assembly, painting,
testing and QA/QC requirements are
all controlled by the P/Se tracking
3.4.4.1 MODULE NUMBERING number.

A four digit number in the format

XYZO will be used for identifying and 3.4.5.1 STANDARD MANUFACTURING JOB
scheduling material and labor NUMBERING
resources to a module. As with units
and zones, the module number has a A four digit number in the format
geographical significance within the XYZO is used. Manufacturing Job
ship. numbers have no geographical
significance within the ship.
XY Assigned the numbers 71 through
74 to indicate a module where the XY Assigned the numbers 75 through
second number (1 through 4) 79 to identify the Manufacturing
indicates which Superzone the Job type:
module is in.
75 - Structure
ZO Represents a consecutive set of 76 - Pipe
numbers (00 through 99) used to 77 - Electrical
identify individual modules. 78 - Sheet Metal
79 - Hull Outfit
As modules have been identified on
the CPF program, the Z digit has been ZO A field of consecutive numbers
used to identify the Girth the module (01 to 99) within the 75, 76, 77,
78, and 79 series to indicate a
specific job.

12-19
4. DEVELOPING THE TRANSLATION MATRIX
Product by Stage of Construction
The original CPF contract ICWBS (P/Sc) method, two major questions
established the framework for were raised concerning the
performance measurement and Cost/Schedule Control Criteria:
management of the CPF program. At
the time of contract negotiation and Firstly, how effective will the "new
signing it was decided that the direction" be in achieving the stated
product of the contract WBS would be C/SC contract objectives(to employ
a ship system, that all effective management control systems
cost/performance data would relate to for cost/schedule planning and
that ship system, and that the ICWBS control of major program elements,
would be organized accordingly. and provide useful data on cost,
However, shipyard functional schedule and technical performance);
organizations became increasingly secondly, can the "new direction"
frustrated by their inability to report and integrate actual cost at
report and monitor performance in a the proper level of the contract
manner in keeping with the way they ICWBS for historical recording?
were building the ship - by PRODUCT.
Contributing to this frustration was Considerable effort was expended to
the inability to perform the answer these questions by broadening
following functions accurately: the rationalization process to
include the C/SC Criteria. Starting
o Adjust manning levels because of with the ORGANIZATION and moving
early or late shifts in product progressively through the Criteria
production to REVISIONS, it was determined that
o Integrate operational (or P/se reporting is capable of
recovery) schedules into supporting the contract ICWBS.
day-to-day performance objectives Indeed, a P/Se WBS would achieve
o Report timely corrective action to literal compliance with all C/Sc
cost/schedule variances Criteria requirements. This further
o Forecast the impacts of late implied that a quantitative method of
material or drawing delivery moving from the ICWBS to P/Se WBS and
o Identify and evaluate the impact back to the ICWBS would be developed
of engineering changes on both for reasons of traceability.
hull construction and zone Additionally, relationships between
outfitting. the stages of transition would have
to be cl early expressed and
These analytic deficiencies, coupled identified. The technique for
with the ongoing rationalization of performing this quantitative movement
fundamental shipbuilding processes between ICWBS and PRODUCT is depicted
and concomitant redesign of the SJSL by the Translation Matrix (Figure
organizational structure, called the 36).
entire concept of performance
reporting by ship system into
question. It became increasingly 4.1 TRANSLATION BETWEEN ICWBS AND
clear that comprehensive performance PRODUCT
measurement structured in the same
manner in which the PRODUCT (in this No single, accurate method of
case a ship) is built affords determining the amount of budget to
considerable analytic possibilities. be allocated to each PRODUCT from
It can provide that margin needed for each element of the ICWBS existed.
outstanding growth and profitability, Indeed, even the most experienced
and, when coupled with sound estimators would employ different
planning, furnish a substantial methods, depending upon such factors
framework of objectives and as the type of ICWBS element, the
strategies to form the basis for particular product in question, and
responsible decision-making. There the level of accuracy required.
are ancillary benefits as well,
including the development of a Because of this ambiguity and lack of
powerful communications conduit definition it was necessary to
through which managers both disclose establish a common ground. Firstly, a
and gain visibility into problems definition of PRODUCT was agreed:
limited to specific areas or
affecting performance in the entire A PRODUCT is any physical Unit or
shipyard. Outfit Zone (to that level detail
required for control and performance
However, before a total commitment measurement), Special Installation
was made to move CPF (detailed by Engineering and
contract method of reporting to a Planning), Module (as designed by
Engineering and incorporated into
Product drawings), and Manufacturing
12-26
 Job (as defined by Engineering and Finally, a Translation Simulation
Planning). A PRODUCT starts as a Model was developed to compare the
part to which another part is added strengths and weaknesses of each
at a Stage of Construction. The translation and, more importantly, to
PRODUCT is always defined in track and label the assigned system
conjunction with the optimum Stage of budget to the PRODUCT.
Construction.
At this point, the Translation
Secondly, a fundamental theory was Simulation Model is used only to
postulated and agreed: pre-test proposed distributions of
the ship system (ICWBS) budget to a
There can be an allocation and PRODUCT.
effective distribution of the ICWBS
budget to a PRODUCT at a Stage of The pre-testing performed by the
Construction most opportune computer and subsequent analysis by
fabricate or install the PRODUCT. the planner trace, in detail, the
This distribution starts at a high implications and consequences of
level and is sub-divided into selected ICWBS distributions.
assembly, sub-assembly, component and Substantial effort was expended
part until each PRODUCT has a portion during the design stage of the model
of budget correctly correlated with to incorporate the "rules of
its particular Stage of Construction. distribution". Broadly speaking,
As the allocation descends the these rules focus on defining and
PRODUCT hierarchy, the process of analyzing correct algorithms for
budget distribution becomes budget distribution.
progressively more complex; final
decisions of correct allocation are Once the correct algorithms were
subject to a qualitative analysis. defined, the following questions were
applied:
Once this process is completed and
the total budget is assigned by o Do the algorithms accomplish what
PRODUCT, the Performance Baseline is desired?
Model is effectively sealed against o How do they perform?
further manipulation or modification; o HOW good is the distribution "on
through linkage with the Integrated the average"?
Master Schedule, it becomes a basis o How average is average? That is,
for TRUE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT. what is the variance in
distribution?
12-27
Analysis and manipulation of the
three conceptual elements - PRODUCT,
budget allocation by PRODUCT, and the
Translation Simulation Model -
culminated in the development of a
two-axis Translation Matrix. With
this matrix, it is possible to
identify at any point of intersection
the resources required to achieve "an
element of the ICWBS by a Product"
(Figure 37).
The Translation Simulation Model was
extended to make distributions and
comparisons in three dimensions. This
extension was taken to a sufficiently
low level of detail to allow its use
as a guide for finally establishing
the budget for installation of a
PRODUCT at the optimum Stage of
Construction.
The extension of the Translation
Simulation Model was controlled by
designing the following
characteristics into the model:

4.2.1 FEASIBILITY
Some Product/ICWBS/Stage of
Construction combinations are more
amenable to distribution than others
in that they can be apportioned with
a high level of confidence. However.
combinations which must accommodate
transitions through basic, functional
and detail design are only
“approximated”; this is because the
information for these combinations is
less than complete at different
stages of design. AS part of the
extension of the Translation
Simulation Model, all distributions
would have an "associated accuracy"
value with the final budget
distribution.

4.2.2 TESTABILITY
Testability refers to the degree of
ease with which corrections to the
final distribution may be tested,
requiring knowledge of what is
correct and documentation of the
mechanics for conducting that test.

4.2.3 EFFECTIVENESS
All final distributions have an
impact on the analysis of Product
The matrix offers a great deal of performance. For example, a
clarity in the inital translation, projection of percentage completion
allowing the planner to "see" the is not very reliable if analysis
distribution of resources (budget and shows that the majority of
trade component data) over the distributions have a low degree of
complete shipbuilding process (the associated accuracy. On the other
PRODUCT). Furthermore, through the hand, accurate data would demonstrate
Simulation Model, the matrix may be an immediate acceptability.
adjusted and fine-tuned to
incorporate or simulate changes.
4.2.4 LOCATABILITY
A sophisticated technique was devised
4.2 TRANSLATION BETWEEN PRODUCT AND for tagging the ICWBS number and
STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION associated budget of each proposed
distribution in order to allocate
The effective distribution of the actual cost back to the correct ICWBS
complete ICWBS budget across the account accurately. This technique is
PRODUCT paves the way for the second able to link and unlink relationships
step of the translation process: repeatable sequence
distribution of the PRODUCT budget distributions are iterated to their
across the Stages of Construction. final conclusion.

12-28
4.2.5 MOVEMENT FROM SIMULATION MODEL The WD/ITP is the set of all required
TO TRANSLATION MATRIX detailed work instructions,
procedures, material lists and
The final output of the Translation processes necessary to plan, perform,
Simulation Model into the Translation and finally accept the work tasks for
Matrix consists of: a specific product at a Stage of
Construction. Through the WD/ITP,
o Product by Stage of Construction the work performed (BCWP) is
Budget objectively measured and the control
o Relational Matrix Pointer and monitoring of work performance is
o Performance Contribution [P(x)] supported. Control is established by
task (ICWBS system) through the
P(x) is the contribution made by the Product and Stage of Construction.
Product at a Stage of Construction to
overall ship performance. The sum of The WD/ITP has been designed to
all contributions equals completion effectively report and monitor. any
of the Product, or 100% performance, differences resulting from the
thus performance of work at a stage
differing from the designated
Optimal/Primary Stage. (See Figures
40, 41, 42 and 43 for a more detailed
where T(p) = Total Performance discussion. ) This is accomplished
P(x) = Contribution of a through the unique approach of
Completed Product linking portions of work to Primary
P(n) = Contribution of the Stages of Construction, with the
Last Completed option of performing the work at that
Product. stage or at a Secondary Stage of
Construction if necessary.
This output is illustrated in more
detail at Figure 38.
At this juncture it should be noted
that the Integrated Master Schedule
is relationally linked to the
intersection of Product at a Stage of
Construction (see Figure 38). This
link is a major factor in the success
and acceptance of the P/Se system.
Finally, it must be emphasized that
the Translation Simulation Model and
resultant Translation Matrix are
tightly controlled; changes to any
distribution or optimum location of
Product must be approved by an
Executive Steering Committee, thus
ensuring a true and consistent
baseline for performance measurement.

4.3 REPORTING COST/SCHEDULE CONTROL

AND PRODUCT BY STAGE
CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE THROUGH
THE WORK DESCRIPTION/INSPECTION
AND TEST PLAN
The Work Description/Inspection and
Test Plan (WD/ITP) is the primary
document defining the work required
for a Product at a specific Stage of
Construction. The resources to
accomplish the work tasks are
formally assigned through the WD/ITP
and are relationally linked to the
baseline schedule (IMS) and/or
operational schedules. The budget
for the WD/ITP is allocated through
the Translation Matrix, including The Primary Stage of Construction is
both system (ICWBS) and budget data. the OPTIMUM Stage of Construction for
Through a sub-set of the Relational the Product, as determined by
Matrix, distributed trade data for planning in relation to available
each stage of construction is facilities at SJSL. At ibis Primary
accessed. Additional sub-sets Stage, the budget associated with the
provide data for material, kitting, Product reflects the optimal
etc. (see Figure 39).
12-29
allocation of resources. Should the Superintendent (Primary Stage
product be completed at any other WD/ITP), but is also accountable for
stage, a negative cost impact could performance of the work within his
be realized; Secondary Stages of stage.
Construction accommodate performance
of work but may incur cost and SJSL has linked the C/SC Baseline
schedule deviations. with the Operational Baseline through
the WD/ITP. The reporting mechanism
The work described on the WD/ITP is supports the preservation of detailed
cracked from the Primary Stage historical data by Product, Stage and
through to its completion, regardless ICWBS and further supports stability
of the number of secondary Stages of of the baseline, as all reassignments
Construction through which it might of task are formally recorded.
be performed. With the movement of
the Product to the next construction Overall performance against the
stage, the WD/ITP tasks are statused WD/ITP is recorded at each stage and
and the remaining work is reassigned variance analysis is performed where
through the WD/ITP to Secondary applicable.
Stages for completion. Consequently,
the WD/ITP, at any point in time,
represents the performance of work
completed (BCWP) and the exact Conclusion
assessment of the performance
required to complete the work The integration of Product by Stage
remaining (EAC). This represents a of Construction with a Cost/Schedule
major step in performance measurement Control application results in a
systems, as it allows the shipyard to solid framework of cost and schedule
take stock of day-to-day objectives, data that forms a basis for sound
in real time, and preclude the impact planning and decision making.
of subjective statusing of in-process
work. The Translation Simulation model
described in this paper is designed
Formally, the process is accomplished not only to effect the transition
through the systematic closing out of from the ship system (ICWBS) to the
each completed task defined in the Product approach, but also affords
ND/ITP as the work moves from one traceability for historical and
stage to another. When the schedule control purposes and provides a
dictates that the Product moves to sealed model against which to measure
another stage, but some of the work and report progress.
tasks have not yet been performed or
are incomplete, a status is prepared As illustrated in Figure 44, P/Se and
and recorded. The WD/ITP for the ICWBS data are synthesized through
current stage is closed, and records the model and correctly assembled in
performance for that stage only. The the WD/ITP. The application of
work tasks which remain outstanding Integrated Master Schedule
are then reassigned to the next stage requirements and actual cost of
through the same WD/ITP, with the accomplished work (ACWP) to the
budget remaining from the Primary WD/ITP represents a comprehensive
Stage WD/ITP also transferred. technique for measuring exact
budget (BCWS) authorized for the performance (BCWP) at a given point
WD/ITP does not change from that in time.
which was authorized at the Primary
Stage. At time of publication, Saint John
Shipbuilding Limited is engaged in
The remaining work is evaluated by dialogue with the Contracting
the Secondary Stage Superintendent Authority to integrate Product by
who will reassess work requirements Stage of Construction reporting
and recommend increases (operational formally into existing C/SC
budgets) through an Estimate to performance documents, and looks
Complete (ETC). Ultimately the total forward to validation of the P/Se
estimate authorized to production system as implementation progresses
through the Secondary Stage(s) WD/ITP and matures.
represents a reasonable estimate and
schedule to perform the remaining Concurrent combined use of P/Se and
work. C/SC systems breaks new ground in
Canadian and perhaps North American
If need be, this process is repeated shipbuilding industry. It is hoped
through further Secondary Stages this paper will stimulate and provide
until the work is completed. Each a basis for further investigation
Stage of Construction Superintendent into this comprehensive approach to
is responsible to perform the work on project management, reporting and
behalf of the Primary Stage control.

12-35
The authors extend appreciation to Structure," U.S.
colleagues for assistance and support Department of
administered throughout the Transportation,
development of this paper. Particular Maritime
acknowledgement is due L.D. Chirillo Administration, 1982.
whose publication, Product Work
Breakdown Structure, co-authored with 4. Y. Okayama and L.D. Chirillo.
Y. Okayama, represents the single Product Work Breakdown
most authoritative current treatment Structure, NSRP,
of PWBS. Maritime Administration.
Revised December 1982.
The authors also wish to thank their
current employer for the permission 5. R.L. Storch et al.,
and scope to prepare and present this Production,
paper. Maritime Press,
Centreville, Maryland,
REFERENCES 1988.
1. L.D. Chirillo et al., Pipe Piece 6. F.A. Graybill, An Introduction to
Family Manufacturing, Linear Statistical
NSRP, Maritime Models, Vol. 1,
Administration, March McGraw-Hill, New York,
1982. 1961.
2. T. Lamb, "Engineering for Ship 7. J. Riordan, An Introduction to
Production," Journal Combinatorial Analysis,
of Ship Production, John Wiley and Sons, New
Vol. 3, No. 4, York, 1958.
November 1987.

12-36
Additional copies of this report can be obtained from the
National Shipbuilding Research and Documentation Center:

http://www.nsnet.com/docctr/

Documentation Center
The University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute
Marine Systems Division
2901 Baxter Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150

Phone: 734-763-2465
Fax: 734-763-4862
E-mail: Doc.Center@umich.edu