Development and Implementation of Modern Work Breakdown Structures in Naval Construction: A Case Study

Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 15, No. 3, August 1999, pp. 136-145 Development and Implementation of Modern Work Breakdown Structures in Naval Construction: A Case Study Philip C. Koenig ~ and Walter L. Christensen 2 ABSTRACT U.S. Navy ship acquisitions are currently managed using the Ship Work Breakdown Structure, or SWBS, which decomposes ships by operational (functional) systems. SWBS was an effective tool in an era when the entire ship procurement program was physically accomplished using a ship system orientation. However as this is no longer the case, the right type of design and management information is not being collected and analyzed under SWBS. This paper describes a cooperative effort on the part of shipyards, the academic community, and the U.S. Navy to develop a generic production-oriented work breakdown structure for ship design and construction. Progress towards implementation of this new approach at a large U.S. shipyard is reviewed. Some implications of the new system and problems encountered as well as projected benefits are discussed from both government and industry perspectives. NOMENCLATURE Build strategy: Plan which covers design, engineering, material management, production, and testing for a shipbuilding contract IPC: IHI: IPDE: Interim product catalog Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Integrated product data environment BUCCS: system FPSO: vessel GBS: Boeing uniform classification and coding Floating production, storage, and offloading Generic build strategy GPWBS: Generic production-oriented work breakdown structure Group technology: Arrangement of operations to achieve some of the efficiencies of mass production in high variety, mixed quantity production, through the grouping of intermediate products by common characteristics NSRP: National Shipbuilding Research Program PERT/CPM: Program evaluation and review technique/critical path method PODAC: Production-oriented design and construction PWBS: Product work breakdown structure SWBS: Ship Work Breakdown Structure UMTRI: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute UPA: Unit price analysis WBS: Work breakdown structure Shipbuilding Technologies Dept., David Taylor Model Basin, Bethesda, Maryland. 2 Avondale Industries, Inc., Shipyards Division, New Orleans, Louisiana. Paper presented at the International Conference on Planning and Managing Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair Projects (The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London, England, 29-30 April 1999). 136 AUGUST 1999 8756-141719911503-0136500.4510 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION The U.S. Navy's ship work breakdown structure In the 1970's, the U.S. Navy introduced the Ship Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS) as its basic shipyard cost collection and analysis data structure. SWBS is the only firm-independent work breakdown structure currently in use in the U.S. shipbuilding industry. It is used by the Navy to collect and manage data on ship acquisition programs at all six large U.S. shipyards. SWBS was designed as "... a single indenturing language which can be used throughout the entire ship life cycle, from early design cost studies and weight analyses, through production and logistic support development, to operational phases, including maintenance, alteration and modernization" (Reference 1). SWBS is a hierarchical system. At the top level, SWBS contains nine groups: (1) hull structure, (2) propulsion plant, (3) electric plant, (4) command and surveillance, (5) auxiliary systems, (6) outfit and furnishings, (7) armament, (8) integration and engineering, and (9) shipyard support services. Within each of these single-digit groups, there are further breakdowns which become progressively more detailed. For example, within group 2 (propulsion plant) there are groups 23 (propulsion units) and 24 (transmission and propulsor systems) among others. Within the two-digit groups further details are broken out at the three-, four-, and five-digit levels. SWBS is a highly developed example of a data structure based on the identification of functional systems in the final product: "All classification groups in SWBS have been defined by basic function. The functional segments of a ship, as represented by a ship's structure, systems, machinery, armament, outfitting, etc., are classified using a system of numeric groupings consisting of three numeric digits" (Reference 2). Problems with SWBS The problem is that SWBS does not reflect shipbuilding processes. It provides no visibility to shipbuilding intermediate products and processes. Therefore, it cannot be used for collecting or organizing the type of data that is needed to assess producibility or evaluate alternative build strategies. In order to make intelligent choices on design questions that affect shipbuilding costs, information on the behavior of cost drivers such as labor hours is needed. Labor content cannot be effectively estimated when SWBS is used to organize ship design and cost data because SWBS data does not show the product and process attributes upon which labor hours depend. SWBS, being a system-based structure, fails to reflect shipbuilding practice. Modern shipbuilding is organized around hull block construction, zone outfitting, and intermediate products rather than hull construction followed by system outfitting. A breakdown based on functional divisions cannot capture block, zone, and intermediate product information because this information does not conform to system boundaries. Different WBS needs: commercial v. naval shipbuilding In international commercial shipbuilding, the design of the WBS for a shipbuilding contract is generally less of a problem than in naval construction because the shipyard typically bears primary responsibility for design-for-production decision making. The yard can build an internal database and can use its own tailored WBS system. It need not share internal cost information with shipowners. Prospective merchant shipowners can evaluate new construction contract prices by studying the international market. Few if any price adjustments are made after contract award. In the case of a new U.S. naval construction program, the market price comparison approach does not work. The complex dynamics of U.S. Navy procurement make it impossible for the customer to simply compare bid prices at face value and trust that they represent true future costs. Some examples of the factors which help to create a naval shipbuilding environment which is different from what is seen in international commercial shipbuilding are: 1. Low number of bids for each contract. In some cases, the contract is sole-source. 2. Explicit and implicit incentive structure of the shipbuilding contract. 3. A continuous flow of design changes after contract award. 4. The practice of risk sharing between the Navy and the shipyard. Because of these and other factors, the market mechanism upon which commercial shipowners depend does not work in the case of naval construction, therefore the Navy needs to maintain an independent, inhouse capability to realistically estimate shipyard costs. With SWBS data, it is hard for the Navy to evaluate competing bid packages because costs are not correlated to production processes. With SWBS-based cost data, build strategy visibility is not achieved in the bid process. Furthermore, the use of SWBS does not encourage process innovation. As shipyard technology AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION 137

evolves, capital improvements made, and processes improved, SWBS allows no adjustment to reflect resultant increases in efficiency. This is why the shipyards do not use SWBS for anything other than meeting contractual requirements for reporting data to the Navy. IDENTIFYING THE NEED AND FORMULATING THE PROJECT The goal of the project is to develop a productionoriented WBS that (1) reflects modern shipbuilding practice, (2) can be used by any U.S. shipyard, and (3) can translate into and out of other, existing shipyard work breakdown structures. If the new generic productoriented WBS (GPWBS) met these conditions, then it would be able to: 1. Supply a framework for improved Navy cost collection and subsequent modeling based on the way that ships are built. 2. Enable realistic design for production trade-offs and investigation of alternative design and production scenarios at the early stages of ship design. 3. Improve data transfer among design, cost estimating, procurement, production, and testing personnel using a common framework and description of both the material and labor content of a ship project. 4. Provide a structure for 3-D product model data organization. The development of the GPWBS was carried out by a team of naval architects, engineers, estimators, and planners from several major U.S. shipyards, the Shipbuilding Technologies Department at David Taylor Model Basin, the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, and Designers and Planners, Inc. Information and feedback were provided by a large European shipyard. DESIGN OF WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURES General WBS concepts Production-oriented work breakdown structures are not a shipbuilding industry innovation. Slemaker (Reference 3), for example, describes general concepts of work breakdown structure development in civil and defense industries and observes that "In all but the simplest, most repetitive cases there is a need to define in detail the work that individual organizations are expected to perform. This work breakdown structure (WBS) should be a product-oriented (as opposed to functional) breakdown of the item being developed or produced or the service provided." According to Reference 4, "A work breakdown structure (WBS) is a product-oriented family tree composed of hardware, software, services, data and facilities which results from systems engineering efforts during the acquisition of a defense materiel item. A work breakdown structure displays and defmes the product(s) to be developed and-or produced and relates the elements of work to be accomplished to each other and to the end product(s). " National Shipbuilding Research Program work During the 1980's the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP) published classic reports (References 5, 6, and 7) which documented the progress in product work breakdown structure (PWBS) development and implementation that had been made by Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) in Japan in the 1970's. Also published by the NSRP was a report (Reference 8) which presented the results of a PWBS development project and contained a re-publication of a Boeing Commercial Airplane Company internal report (Reference 9) describing a 1970's-era conception of a complete PWBS/group technology implementation. This system was called the Boeing Uniform Classification and Coding System (BUCCS). Boeing's product classification efforts in the 1970's had two stated goals: (1) minimization of parts re-design via family-oriented design retrieval, and (2) reorientation of aircraft production according to the principles of group technology (Reference 9). The design retrieval goal was attacked first, then production considerations were built in. Boeing's approach was to classify products, means of production, and controls over production. The late 1970's IHI approach to developing a product-oriented work breakdown structure as documented by Okayama and Chirillo (References 5 and 6) shares with the Boeing BUCCS system a strong orientation towards part and sub-assembly description, but in addition it explicitly relates those processes to ship final assembly. A three-dimensional PWBS is laid out, with three axes of information: 1. Type of work (fabrication or assembly; hull, outfit, or paint) 2. Product resources (material, manpower, facilities, expenses) 3. Product aspects (system, zone, problem area, stage) 138 AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION

The third dimension in this method is closely linked to the product-oriented ship design cycle of basic design (total system), functional design (system), transition design (system, zone) and detail design/working drawings (zone, problem area, stage). The zone consideration adds a specific ship geography parameter. Astilleros Espanoles WBS In the early- to mid-1990's, Astilleros Espanoles S.A. (AESA) developed and implemented a new production organization process (Reference 10). The AESA effort was particularly relevant to this project because AESA's system is based on separate breakdowns of product and process. Furthermore, the system was designed to be used at several shipyards owned by AESA but having (to some extent) individual product and process characteristics. The firm-wide system had to be flexible enough to be of practical use, yet not so general that yard implementations required individual tailoring to the extent that it lost its use as a tool for AESA corporate-wide planning. AESA acknowledged the intellectual debt owed to the seminal NSRP work described in the preceding section. AESA engineers were also influenced by the sophisticated cost and schedule control system developed by St. John Shipbuilding Ltd. (St. John, New Brunswick) for the design and construction of a series of frigates for the Canadian Navy. AESA designed a threeaxis system, but used different axes than shown in the NSRP documents. Where the NSRP system uses (1) type of work, (2) product resources, and (3) product aspects, AESA's system has the following three axes: 1. Product structure 2. Process structure 3. Organization structure The product structure is broken down into seven hierarchical levels with ship at the top, parts at the bottom, and intermediate products such as blocks and assemblies in between. The process structure has four levels: (1) shipbuilding process, (2) group, (3) process, and (4) technological family. This approach is oriented towards group technology. The organization structure is designed to be yard-specific. It comprises a breakdown of work groups such as departments and shops. In the process of developing its highly rational breakdown system, AESA clarified the need to completely separate product, process, and work unit information so that work orders can be developed which clearly and unambiguously show (1) what intermediate products will be made, (2) what processes (stages of production) will be applicable, and (3) what work unit will be held responsible. STRUCTURE OF THE GENERIC PRODUCTION- ORIENTED WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE In order to meet the project goals, the structure of the new generic production-oriented work breakdown structure (GPWBS) had to meet two specific requirements: 1. Firm-independent (suitable for use in any U.S. shipyard). 2. Verifiable (testable using shipyard data records). What the project team found was that three axes or substructures were needed. The substructures are somewhat similar to the AESA and IHI systems, but changes were found necessary to make the structure firm-independent, a WBS design specification not required in the AESA or IHI systems. The three axes in the new GPWBS system are: 1. Product structure 2. Process (stage of production) structure 3. Work type structure The product structure (Table 1) has eight levels. It is a hierarchical framework designed to identify discrete shipbuilding intermediate products and their constituent elements. The highest level is the total ship. At the bottom are commodities and parts. In between are blocks, assemblies, and other intermediate products. The product structure sorts shipbuilding project data by product. All work on a ship design and construction project can be assigned a location in the product structure. The process or stage structure (Table 2) is not hierarchical. It simply categorizes work by the stage of production at which it takes place. Stages of production are sequential divisions. Non-construction stages include design, planning, procurement, and other information generation activities. Fabrication, on-block installation, and erection on the other hand are examples of construction stages. All work on a ship design and construction project can be assigned a location in the stage structure. The work type structure (Table 3) is also not hierarchical. It classifies work elements by the skill, facility and tooling requirements, and organizational entities. The work type is used to associate a scope of work to an intermediate product at a specified stage. AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION 139

Table 1 GPWBS product structure Level Product 1 Ship 2 Construction zone 3 Outfitting zone (outfit) / Grand block (structure) 4 Unit (outfit) / Block (structure) 5 Assembly 6 Sub-assembly 7 Part 8 Commodity / component Table 2 GPWBS stage structure Non-construction Construction Design Planning Procurement Material management Launching Testing Delivery Post-delivery (guarantee) Fabrication Sub-assembling Assembling On-unit installation On-block installation On-grand block installation Erection On-board installation Table 3 GPWBS work type structure Non-construction Construction Administration Engineering Materials management Materials handling Operations control Production services Quality assurance Tests / trials Structure Unit construction Hull outfitting Machinery Electrical Heating, ventilation, air conditioning Piping Painting Joiner 140 AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION

As with stages, there are non-construction work types which involve information generation (engineering, quality assurance, etc.) and construction work types (machinery, electrical, painting, etc.) All work on a ship design and construction project can be assigned a location in the work type structure. As shown in Figure 1, the three axes of the GPWBS may be visualized as forming a cube which includes all of the work tasks that form the total scope of the design and construction of an ocean-going non-combatant ship. This cubic representation is a conceptual key to the use of the GPWBS as a project management data structure. i-, i' I Fig 1 Cube representation of the GPWBS structure. AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION 141

- Ingalls - Avondale First the "cube" is built by identifying work tasks and populating them with data elements each of which has attached indicators showing where they fit with regard to the three axes. With this data "cube" in place, it is then possible to create reports which subdivide or "slice" the cube along any of the three axes to give a different view according to what type of data visibility is required for a specific need. One might be interested in, for example, determining the labor content of the work tasks that occur during on-block outfitting (a specified stage) in a certain midships block (a specified product) involving piping (a specified work type). Such a report could be generated if, for each element of project work, data had been properly logged into a GPWBS-based data set. A NEW COST ESTIMATING TOOL The GPWBS is forming the basis for the Navy's new product-oriented design and construction (PODAC) cost model development project which is currently being led by the Cost and Operational Effectiveness Assessment Department at David Taylor Model Basin. The PODAC cost model is being developed under a cooperative program whose major participants include: - U.S. Navy Industries, Inc., Shipyards Division - Bath Iron Works Corporation Shipbuilding, Inc. - National Steel and Shipbuilding Company - Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc. - University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute - SPAR Associates, Inc. The conventional U.S. Navy approach to cost estimating uses the Unit Price Analysis (UPA) Cost Model. This model is: - System based - Weight driven Systems are defined using SWBS. Man-hours are estimated on a system-by-system basis using equations derived from SWBS data. The equations contain unknown amounts of and undefined relationships among products, stages of construction, and work types. The basis for the new PODAC cost model is GPWBS rather than SWBS. This means that the cost estimating relationships can be derived to show man- hours as a function of the GPWBS data elements, i.e. product, stage of construction, and work type. Different cost estimating relationships are currently being derived for different products at different stages of construction. The goal is to build a cost estimating system that will enable a proposed ship design and build strategy scenario to be built up from the lower level work elements of the GPWBS. Returning to the idea of the "cube" representing the total work involved in a shipbuilding project, the GPWBS-based PODAC cost model is being populated with data broken down according to how work is organized and executed in shipyards. Projects in which cost data is collected via SWBS show a total work content cube, but the cube is not subdivided into production-oriented elements and so a project's work scope cannot be realistically estimated. USE OF THE GPWBS AT AVONDALE SHIPYARD The GPWBS structure may be coded in different ways. An initial coding system was developed to test the general validity of the GPWBS by checking to make sure that actual shipyard work orders could be successfully imported into it. This work is described in Reference 11, pp. 108-115. Avondale Industries, Inc., Shipyards Division is presently implementing the GPWBS on the LPD 17 ship acquisition program. The Avondale engineers share a common goal with their Navy colleagues: the institution of a common language for organizing, planning, scheduling, estimating, and reporting ship design and construction work. Currently these functions are being fed by data which is stored and maintained at various locations in the yard. Much is compiled and accessed in the traditional manner, i.e., via paper records and notes. GPWBS is being used by Avondale as the basic structure for a new generation, integrated data system which will enable cross-functional reports to be generated at various points of the product structure, stage structure, and work type structure of a shipbuilding program. At Avondale, implementation of the GPWBS is coded to provide visibility to data along the three GPWBS axes (product, stage, work type). The GPWBS system is used at Avondale to collect information on performance metrics, e.g. planned v. actuals. A SWBS index is provided, but is not used for labor as labor costs cannot be accurately correlated to SWBS number. Avondale has realized the GPWBS using the following 37 data fields: 142 AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION

1. Contract number 2. Project number 3. Work center code 4. Work order number 5. Integrated product team (IPT) identifier 6. PERT/CPM activity (from Avondale project schedule) 7. Revision 8. Revision date 9. Planned quantity per bid 10. Actual quantity as issued on work orders 11. Unit of measure 12. Equation for labor cost estimating relation 13. Budgeted labor hours 14. Budgeted labor cost 15. Budgeted material cost 16. Work order issue date 17. Planned start date 18. Planned finish date 19. Planning activity 20. Drawing number 21. Planner 22. Foreman 23. Manual progress (physical percent complete) 24. Zone (geographical breakdown plus ship wide) 25. Outfit zone 26. Unit 27. Assembly 28. Subassembly 29. Part 30. Group (cost group - craft, trade) 31. Subgroup 32. Item (work type) 33. SWBS number (not used for labor, just material) 34. Contract line item (not used for labor, just material) 35. Change order identifier 36. Stage 37. Work type This 37-field data structure is currently forming the basis for a test version of the PODAC cost model which is running at Avondale. At present, Avondale has completed the entry of its activity-unique cost structure into the GPWBS-driven PODAC cost model. Seven complete T-AO class ship-sets of return cost data have been loaded. This represents the first instance of the new cost system being used, albeit experimentally, on an actual ship construction contract. For the LPD 17 (a lead ship) the GPWBS/PODAC system is being used in parallel with existing cost estimating and reporting systems; the goal is to run mostly GPWBS/PODAC for the first follow ship. DISCUSSION With the GPWBS concept in place, the next problem from the Navy standpoint will be to (1) begin to populate it with data, and (2) to develop an understanding of how to interpret it. Will shipyards provide the Navy with cost data down to the level of the "cube"? Is cost data necessary, or are there other performance metrics sufficient for the Navy's management needs? The GPWBS "cube" approach is designed to be process-oriented. As processes change, the way the cube is sliced can change. Or can it? Will the initial way of categorizing the data simply solidify today's processes, and form a barrier to future change? We believe that this is not a problem but rather an important advantage of the GPWBS method. Since the GPWBS system is based on lower-level processes, lower-level process changes can be readily isolated, examined, and when appropriate, changed or replaced. Higher level processes can be assembled from lower-level elements and evaluated in a similar manner. Another issue in the evaluation of the comparative efficiencies of shipbuilding processes and build strategies is the issue of corporate strategy. In the long run, what should be the responsibility of the shipyards, the supplier base, and the Navy? To analyze issues of industrial structure, vertical integration, and other corporate strategic issues requires that GPWBS information be used in conjunction with a value-added analysis of the total production chain including input materials, contracted services, and the shipyard's own activities. The GPWBS provides a key data structure for this type of analysis (Reference 12). At the project level in the shipyards, GPWBS could provide a useful means of data communication between design, planning, estimating, and material procurement. U.S. shipyards are currently working on methods for making quicker, more accurate cost estimates at the bid stage, and this will involve increased integration of cross-functional information at the bid stage. GPWBS cube breakdowns (product, stage, work type) facilitate the set-up of production-oriented interim product catalogs (IPCs) of reusable, group-technology-oriented design elements which could help bid preparation personnel to quickly assemble bids tailored to design characteristics, supplier capabilities, and specific build strategy constraints and interferences projected during the design and build period (Reference 13). AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION 143

The GPWBS system was developed with naval construction in mind, but the concept could prove useful in certain types of commercial shipbuilding contracts as well. The capability to import data from different shipyard WBSs into one system might be helpful in cases where shipbuilding projects involve collaboration between two or more shipyards. In today's naval shipbuilding environment it is not unusual for more than one shipyard to combine forces on a single class of ships. This situation has been seen in international commercial shipbuilding also. For example, it has recently been reported that Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Mitsui Zosen had joined forces for an order of ten containerships to be delivered to Kuwait's United Arab Shipping Company. Kawasaki would build four of the vessels, and the other yards would be responsible for three each (Reference 14). In a similar case, Sumitomo Heavy Industries and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) were reported as planning to cooperate on a series of tankers for Mobil (Reference 15). Certain specialized, high value ship types can involve more than one building yard, with each taking responsibility for the part of the project for which its facilities, capabilities, and availability is suited. The FPSO (floating production, storage, and offloading) vessel is a good example of this type of distributed value-added structure. In these cases, a generic, translatable WBS could prove helpful in developing an effective allocation of work and resources between the yards. In other words, a GPWBS-based system could form an umbrella system for use by the general manager of the overall project. CONCLUSIONS The U.S. Navy's ship acquisition community has a requirement for a shipbuilding work breakdown structure which (1) is able to indicate the construction cost implications of different build strategies and production processes, and (2) can import production-oriented cost data from individual shipyard WBSs. In this paper, our progress towards this goal has been outlined. The basic groundwork has been laid and the concept has been validated. However, substantial work remains before it can be considered fully implemented. The Navy's functional systems-oriented work breakdown structure, SWBS, evolved over many years. This new generic production-oriented work breakdown structure, GPWBS, should be implemented and evolved in a similar manner. The authors hope that the GPWBS will prove a valuable enabler, opening the door to significant process improvement in our naval shipbuilding community. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of three senior staff members of Avondale Industries, Inc.: Mr. Robert A. Oehmichen (Assistant Vice President and Manager of Production Engineering), Mr. Stephen A. Maguire (Assistant to the Corporate Vice President, Government Programs), and Mr. Lon Webb (Assistant Program Manager, LPD 17). In addition, the contributions of Mr. Jay Kelly (Senior Logistics Consultant, American Management Systems, Inc.) and Mr. John Trumbule (Cost and Operational Effectiveness Assessment Department, David Taylor Model Basin) are also gratefully acknowledged. Current WBS R&D efforts at David Taylor Model Basin are being carried out with the support of the U.S. Navy's Affordability Through Commonality Program and the CVN 77 Program Office, REFERENCES 1. Naval Sea Systems Command, "Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure for all Ships and Ship/Combat Systems." Washington, D.C.: Naval Sea Systems Command. Document No. NAVSEA S09040-AA-IDX- 010, 0910-LP-062-8500, 1985. 2. Naval Ship Engineering Center, "Ship Work Breakdown Structure." Washington, D.C.: Naval Sea Systems Command. Document No. NAVSEA 0900-LP- 039-9010, 1977. 3. Slemaker, C. M., "The Principles and Practice of Cost Schedule Control Systems." Princeton, N.J.: Petrocelli Books, 1985. 4. Department Of Defense, "Military Standard Configuration Management." MIL-STD 973. Washington, D.C., April 17, 1992. (Note: the WBS definition on p. 17 acknowledges as its source Department of Defense MIL-STD 881, "Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items.") 5. IHI Maritime Technologies, Inc., For Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., "Product Work Breakdown Structure." Washington, D.C.: National Shipbuilding Research Program, Report No. 117, 1980. 6. IHI Maritime Technologies, Inc., For Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., "Product Work Breakdown Structure, Revised Version." Washington, D.C.: National Shipbuilding Research Program, Report No. 164, 1982. 144 AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION

7. IHI Maritime Technologies, Inc., For Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., "Integrated Hull Construction, Outfitting and Painting (IHOP)." Washington, D.C.: National Shipbuilding Research Program, Report No. 169, 1983. 8. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. For Newport News Shipbuilding. "Product Work Classification and Coding." Washington, D.C. : National Shipbuilding Research Program, Report No. 255, 1986. 9. Beeby, W.D., Thompson, A. R., "A Broader View of Group Technology." Seattle, Wash.: Engineering Division, Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. No date. Reprinted in [8]. dissertation, George Washington University, 1998. Published by UMI, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 12. Koenig, P. C., "Synthesizing an approach to strategy and structure in heavy industry." Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, December 1997. 13. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Shipbuilding Technologies Department, Bethesda, Maryland. "Final Report: Interim Product Catalog Phase I." Contract N00140-94-D-BC08, Delivery Order 0012, U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command, Mid-Term Sealift Ship Technology Development Program. 14. U.S. Office Of Naval Research, Asian Office, "Report on Shipbuilding CIMS Development at Mitsui 10. de la Fuente, R., Manzanares, E., 1995. "A Zosen." 20November 1996. production control system based on earned value concepts." Presented at National Shipbuilding Research 15. U.S. Office Of Naval Research, Asian Office, Program 1995 Ship Production Symposium, Seattle, "Report on Shipbuilding CIMS Development by SHI and Wash., January 25-27. IHI." 18 November 1996. 11. Koenig, P. C., "Structure and performance in heavy industry: The case of shipbuilding." Doctoral ICETECH 2000 6th International Conference on Ships and Marine Structures in Cold Regions St. Petersburg, Russia September 12-14, 2000 Web Site: www.icetech2000.org Hosted by: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers - Arctic Section Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute Central Marine Research and Design Institute A) The Northern Sea Route: The scientific, engineering and technological challenges for the design, construction and navigation of vessels using the Northern Sea Route in the 21st Century. B) Vessel and Structure Design: Recent achievements in the research, design and building of ships and marine structures for cold regions. Conference Themes C) Vessel and Structure Operations: Experience in the use and operation of new icebreakers and transportation systems in ice covered waters. D) Environment and Codes: The environment of cold regions and the development of Regulations and Codes for safe and efficient operations. Deadline for early registration fee: June 1, 2000 Conference Co-Chairmen Prof. Valentin Pashin, Krylov Shipbuilding Institute 44 Moskovskoye Shosse, St. Petersburg Russia 196158 Phone: (812) 127-9647, Fax (812) 127-9595 albert@krylov.spb.su Mr. Archie Churcher, Cautley Enterprises Inc. 1132 Deer River Circle, Calgary, AB., Canada Phone (403) 225-1032, Fax (403) 278-5415 team2000@icetech2000.org AUGUST 1999 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION 145