1. Vice President, Engineering NSRP Executive Director
Product Data Interoperability Overview Critical Context for Today’s Capability Demonstration
Dan Billingsley
NSRP Program Manager
NAVSEA 05DM
Pete Halvordson
Vice President, Engineering
GD Electric Boat
Rick Self
NSRP Executive Director
ATI Corporation

2. Objectives
Explain the context of NSRP and Product Model Interoperability
NSRP Overview
The shipbuilding interoperability challenge
The scope of Product Data Interoperability
and how current efforts fit
Business Case: Annual Cost of NOT having interoperability
Evidence from commercial shipbuilding
Business Model Demands for Interoperability
Navy future-state vision challenge to industry

3. National Shipbuilding Research Program
A cost-sharing, collaborative, shipbuilding technology research consortium focused on reducing the cost of Navy shipbuilding and repair
Formed at Navy request in
Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise
Attacks common cost-drivers and inherently multi-yard, multi-program problems
Unique legal mechanism avoids anti-trust concerns
High research-to-implementation transition rate
Documented shipbuilding cost reductions

4. NSRP = Enterprise-wide Collaboration
Effecting Large Scale Change with Industry-wide Solutions
Accuracy control – metrology, processes and tools
Benefit: Reduces rework labor, materials, cost and cycle time; enables automation
Steel Processing – Laser cutting, precision forming, and tab & slot technology
Benefit: 30% reduction in steel cutting costs; 8% reduction in steel plate usage in first production use
IT Interoperability – Integrating shipyard IT systems (CAD, CAM, Parts …) across firms & functions
Benefit: Reduces costs & acquisition cycle time, improves 1st time quality, enables outsourcing
eBusiness for Enterprise Integration – across construction, repair, logistics activities and suppliers
Benefit: cuts labor and cycle time of daily processes by 60%
Common Parts Catalog – Enterprise standard, shared parts database
Benefit: facilitates standardization & IPDE initiatives; fewer parts to procure, inspect, certify, track, warehouse …
Joint Lean Learning Curve - Accelerate adoption of productivity Improvement
Benefit: Systematic, repeatable boosts in productivity from shop-level to design, engineering and supply chains

5. The Problem
While credited with major reductions in design and manufacturing cost, IPDEs pose a significant software development / integration challenge and expense.
IPDE cost for a major ship or submarine construction program can total $150M to $200M, of which 45-55% is for integration planning, information engineering and interface software development.
Typically each ship or submarine program develops an IPDE to take advantage of latest hardware and software and to suit
program requirements,
team member work practices, and
team member business relationships
Interoperability among components has been achieved by ad-hoc and proprietary interfaces resulting in:
Duplication of development effort,
8-10 partially integrated systems that are not interoperable with others,
Annual integration expenses of $10M-$30M for each major program,
Multiple incompatible systems at each shipyard, and
Numerous inconsistent sources of product information for Navy engineering and service life support.

6. The Problem (con’t)
Information technology ages quickly - access to vital product data becomes problematic early in the ships life cycle
Managing the Cost and Risk of Computer Systems Development – IDE / IPDE / PLM
The development of these systems represents a significant investment in time and money
It can represent a significant amount of Program risk
Interoperability of disparate systems remains a significant challenge

7. Shipbuilders’ 3D CAD Systems
by Program
by CAD system

8. Info Technology Ages Quickly
NAVSEA CADDS 4x ISDP LEAPS
Avondale CADAM (2-D) ISDP ISDP
Bath Iron Works CADDS 4x CADDS 5 Catia 5
Electric Boat CADDS 4 Catia 4Mech award pends
Ingalls Calma Dimension 3 Catia 5
NASSCO CADAM (2-D) Tribon Tribon
Newport News Vivid Vivid Catia 4AEC
We have talked about the payoff, what is the problem?
Every shipyard has a different CAD system.
CAD systems have different content and different formats.
… ships last a long time!

9. 2005 Benchmarking Study Comparison to leading int’l commercial yards
“Inconsistent and ill defined design processes in the U.S. shipbuilding industry have led to excessive design lead-times and design man-hours.
International shipyards have a standard approach to ship design with well-defined design stages and clearly specified priority when compared to international counterparts.”
“To optimize production performance at the shipyard level, each shipyard should have a formalized and consistent shipbuilding strategy from which design rules and guidelines are developed for each stage of the design process.
If the Navy continues acquisition strategies that are teamed, or wants to provide for later cooperation of given designs, industry-wide design standards would have to be developed if this level of flexibility is desired without impairing productivity”

10. IPDE Elements Found at Every Shipyard
Various levels of automation, integration

11. Current Events
Navy ERP
LEAPS
SPARS
CPC
ISE
Total Ship Shock Trial

12. Product Data Transfer Today $1.5B per year Total
Estimated Annual Cost to Navy of Product Data Transfer
$144M
$504M
$504M
$396M
$1.5B per year
Total

13. Business Drivers for Interoperability
Across organizations
Co-production / Co-design - more flexibility in teaming & 2nd sourcing.
Acquisition programs can re-use engineering tools and data management components developed by preceding programs.
Expedited review of shipbuilder designs by government engineering agents.
Enable common methods of handling product data for service life support
Within shipyards
Components can be upgraded or replaced without major disruption or redevelopment of the rest of the IPDE infrastructure – yielding improved flexibility, improved leverage with vendors and reduction of recurring cost.
Third-party capability can be introduced in specific areas including discipline-focused software developed by ABS, ONR, DARPA, academia and industry.
Reduce/eliminate need for multiple IPDE’s within a single yard.

14. Industry Consensus eBusiness Model Private Sector Repair Yard
Integrated Shipbuilding Environment for the Networked Functional Capability across the Enterprise
Workflow
CAD
GD Yard
PDM
CAM
Navy Logistics
Naval Yards
Suppliers
Suppliers
Suppliers
MRP / ERP
Part Catalog
Interfaces and Tools to exchange data among key IT systems and across the enterprise’s organizations
- Engineering Data (ISE)
- Inter-organization Transaction Data (SPARS)
- Parts Data (Common Parts Catalog, Mat’l Stds)
- Manufacturing data (ISPE)
Common Parts Catalog
Common Parts Catalog
Part Catalog
MRP / ERP
CAM
CAM
PDM
MRP / ERP
Part Catalog
CAD
Workflow
NG Yard
Customers
Navy
Fleet Ship
PDM
Private Sector Repair Yard
CAD
Workflow

15. Elements of Interoperability
Shared Concept of Information Content and Relationships
Exchange
Format
Spec
Native A T T
Native B
Contract
Terms
Acquisition Policy

16. NSRP ISE Accomplishments
National consensus architecture for product data interoperability
Published 100’s of industry use cases defining requirements for information sharing
Developed consensus data element definitions and consensus taxonomy for communicating product data across the enterprise
Developed tools and demonstrated feasibility for interoperability of :
Structure & Piping (March 2000 to December 2003)
HVAC & CPC Interfaces (October 2003 to October 2004)
Current Project (April 2005 – July 2006)
Ship Compartmentation
Engineering Analysis
Electrical
Steel Processing with Rules Processing
Result of this approach:
Product Data Interoperability Standards are Substantially Complete

17. Information interoperability lifecycle
Roles
Well-Defined Solution Path –- much progress -- $17M to complete
ISO
Standard Development
Standard Approved
Technology
Information Model
Prototype Translators
Testing Framework
NSRP
Contractual
Specification
NAVSEA
Business Decisions
Deployment, integration, testing
NAVAL
PROGRAM
Information interoperability
specification
Requirements
definition
Production deployment
Phases:

18. Information Interoperability Standards Roadmap

19. Vendor Support for Shipbuilding STEP APs
(Automotive Focus)

20. Interoperability Status
Substantially complete
Shared Concept of Information Content and Relationships
STEP
Substantially complete
XML
Exchange
Format
Spec
Prototyped by NSRP
Native A T T
Native B
Contract
Terms
Negotiated program by program
Acquisition Policy
DoN Policy Memo Oct 2004

21. Next Steps NSRP: Finish Remaining Standards (as resources allow)
and work with the Navy to ….
Navy: Create the business pull
Define Navy Shipbuilding Enterprise plan for standards-based product data acquisition & use
Throughout design, construction and service life
Standard contract clauses
Through-life archival & access approach
Shipyards
Move toward modular IPDE architecture with standards-base interfaces
Clarify marginal costs to package and deliver digital data
Demand standards-based translators from software vendors
Capitalize on business opportunities enabled by interoperability
Business considerations and cultural barriers are more significant than technical issues

22. ISE
ISE Demo …
Multi-year U.S. Project to Implement STEP APs for Shipbuilding
Phase 1- Requirements definition & architecture for shipbuilding systems interoperability
Gov. $2.95M , Ind. $3.07M
Phase 2 – Deployment for Structure & Piping
Gov. $17.22M , Ind. $17.89M
Phase 3 – Deployment for HVAC &
CPC Interfaces
Gov. $1.21M , Ind. $1.28M
Phase 4 – Deployment for
Arrangements, Steel Processing,
Engineering Analysis, & Electrical
Gov. $2.61M , Ind. $2.66M
Jan
1999
Jan
2000
Jan 2001
Jan 2002
Jan 2003
Jan 2004
Jan 2005
Jan 2006
Jan 2007