naval engineering future state blueprint · naval engineering naval engineering (ne) is the term...
TRANSCRIPT
RIZZO REFORM PROGRAM
August 2013
NAVAL ENGINEERING FUTURE STATE
BLUEPRINT
DPS JUL030-13
NAVAL ENGINEERING FUTURE STATE
BLUEPRINTAugust 2013
© Commonwealth of Australia 2013
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Department of Defence.
All Defence information, whether classified or not, is protected from unauthorised disclosure under the Crimes Act 1914. Defence information may only be released in accordance with the Defence Security Manual and/or Defence Instruction (General) OPS 13-4–Release of Classified Information to Other Countries, as appropriate.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
ii
ForewordHead Navy Engineering
In the Naval Engineering Strategic Plan (2013-17) CN, the Maritime Capability Manager, has provided clear direction for my role as Head Navy Engineering (HNE) to be the primary steward of the Naval Engineering function across Defence and Industry.
Naval Engineering (NE) is an important, fundamental and critical enabling function for Maritime Capability. In order to control the trajectory of Naval Engineering as it necessarily evolves, it is essential that we all understand where we are heading and how we plan to operate as an integrated professional engineering network.
This document, the “Naval Engineering Blueprint”, will provide a focus for our collective efforts over the course of the next three to five years. It articulates the keystone concepts and paints a picture for how we, as an integrated network of professional engineers, technologists, and technicians, need to operate.
You will note that there is little in the way of organisational demarcation in this Blueprint, which is intentional. As the steward of the engineering capability I am mindful that there are many different workforces at play here; Navy full-time and reservists, public servants, and civilian workforce. You all contribute to the capability that is Naval Engineering. Naval Engineering has significant responsibility for delivering seaworthy materiel and assuring the technical ‘Seaworthiness’ of the Fleet. It, as a whole, must be competent and capable as satisfying that remit, irrespective the organisation it in which its practitioners reside.
This first release of the Blueprint is necessarily a high level doctrinal statement of what Naval Engineering is all about. It needs to be that in order to lay the foundation which has not previously existed. Over the coming months, work will be undertaken within the Rizzo Reform Program, to ensure alignment between this blueprint and the broader business and operating models currently in place or being developed across Navy, DMO and other Defence organisations.
In order to provide us with a unified direction to guide this work, I have set out the strategic direction for Naval Engineering within the Naval Engineering Strategic Plan (2013-17). The strategic vision of Naval Engineering is:
Deliver seaworthy materiel to enable us to Fight and Win at Sea.
We will realise this intent by pursuing the following goals:
1. Ensure HNE is established and recognised as the authority for defining the Naval Engineering functionality that will deliver seaworthy materiel throughout the entire lifecycle.
2. Implement a risk-based assurance model that provides confidence to the Chief of Navy in the seaworthiness of materiel over the lifecycle.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
iii
3. Develop, maintain and improve the engineering and maintenance support provided to materiel through the fostering of technical mastery.
4. Rebuild the Naval Engineering workforce to ensure that it is professionally competent, aligned and prepared to meet the present and future demands of Defence and Industry.
This Blueprint aims to give life to these goals. It specifies the need for an ongoing strategic planning element for Naval Engineering to ensure that the discipline continues to enable maritime capability. It acknowledges the need to establish an enduring management system that is focussed at both strategic and operational levels, through both short and long term planning processes.
The changed direction articulated in this Blueprint will not come as a significant surprise to many of you. In certain areas it aims to revitalise some of the basics and in other areas it provides a more defined paradigm shift. It is not intended to be an exhaustive decomposition of the changes required; these are more appropriately detailed in our short-term planning process. You will, however, see that there is a lot of work to be done over the next few years and I am committed to establishing the right foundations and building blocks to ensure that Naval Engineering adequately supports the delivery of maritime capability.
Rear Admiral Michael Uzzell, AM, RAN
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
iv
Table of ContentsForeword iii
Situation 2
Aim 2
The Future 2
Naval Engineering 3
The Blueprint Design Principles 5
How Naval Engineering Plans to Operate (The Future State Operating Model) 7
The Naval Engineering Functional Model 8
Chapter 1: Naval Engineering Strategy 10
The Strategic Planning Process 11
Cascading Goals and Objectives 12
Chapter 2: Naval Engineering Assurance 15
Technical Seaworthiness Management 16
Performance Management 20
Specialist Bureaus 21
Chapter 3: Through-Life Engineering & Maintenance Management 25
Class Through-Life Engineering & Maintenance Management 26
Class Generated Operating Schedule 28
Singleton Ship Classes 29
Chapter 4: Naval Engineering Workforce Modernisation 31
The future state Naval Engineering workforce will... 32
Retention of Technical Mastery in the Naval Engineering Workforce 33
Phased and Functional Streaming 34
Training and Education 35
Defence personnel and the operational phase 36
Getting Involved 40
Glossary of terms 41
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
1
SituationThe recent Plan to Reform Support Ship Repair and Management Practices (July 2011) gave rise to the Rizzo Reform Program. Necessarily, recommendations of the Report on the Strategic Review of Naval Engineering (November 2009) that remained open in July 2011 have been included within the remit of the Rizzo Reform Program. Part of this program involves rebuilding Naval Engineering to improve delivery, increase technical mastery, clarify accountability and responsibility for outcomes, and enable the Head of Naval Engineering to fulfil his role as principal steward of the Naval Engineering discipline.
AimThis blueprint defines the known features of the desired future state of Naval Engineering, the design constraints on features which are at present ill-defined, and introduces the Master Set of functions to support the future state operating model.
The FutureA key concept upon which a rebuilt NE function is required to focus is Seaworthiness. The term seaworthy relates to the state of a Mission System’s materiel, personnel, data/documentation, and internal management systems. A mission system is seaworthy if its design and construction and thence operation in its current state:
A Maximises the likelihood of achieving, and continuing to achieve, defined operational outcomes whilst
B Having made all reasonably practicable efforts to eliminate/minimise risks to personnel/public safety and the environment.1
Naval Engineering is a key discipline in the provision of Seaworthy materiel.
The future state will be characterised by closer technical management of materiel by Ship Class, with engineering and maintenance management systems for each Class being overseen by Class Engineers. Ships Staff, SPOs, Projects, industry, and the Fleet Support Unit will retain primary responsibility for the delivery of engineering and maintenance services. The capabilities of these entities will be augmented by Specialist Technology Bureaus that provide expert advice, service, and support in specific technology domains. The correctness of the activities and products delivered by these entities will be assessed under appropriate governance and assurance frameworks.
1 HNE Seaworthiness Management Document, Rev 1.7.3, 2012
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
2
Naval EngineeringNaval Engineering (NE) is the term used to describe the congregation of activities and consequent totality of effort required to be applied by engineers, technologists, and technicians in the design, construction, maintenance and disposal of maritime materiel.
What is Naval Engineering and what does Naval Engineering do?
• Naval Engineering comprises the people, processes, data, organisation and tools that support the generation and sustainment of maritime materiel. Its outputs are produced by the combined application of professional engineering skills and experience, processes and data to provide cost effective, sustainable materiel capability outcomes for Navy.
• It is undertaken to conceptualise, design, construct and maintain, then assure, certify, and monitor the materiel element of capability over their lifecycle.
• Its purpose is to produce Seaworthy Platforms that can achieve the defined operational outcomes, minimise the risks to personnel, and minimise the risk to the environment. Platforms with these characteristics equip the Navy to “Fight and Win at Sea”.
The terms Navy Engineering and Naval Engineering are often used interchangeably, and often erroneously. For the purposes of this Blueprint, these terms are explained below.
• Naval Engineering embraces the totality of Naval Engineering functions and activities and refers to a workforce that is employed across the full spectrum of engineering and maintenance service delivery and capability within the maritime sector.
• Navy Engineering is used when commonly referring to RAN and Defence APS personnel conducting engineering and maintenance work at sea and ashore, within the Navy.
Figure 1: relationship between Navy and Naval Engineering
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
3
Naval Engineering - A Functional Perspective It is important to establish the contribution that Naval Engineering makes to the delivery of maritime capability and the wider Defence environment. Figure 2 represents the functional view of Naval Engineering at the highest level. The blueprint develops a breakdown of this functional view into higher level sub-functions, and develops the future state operating model through which these functions will be executed.
The Naval Engineering function is driven by maritime force requirements, controlled by the legislative and internal regulatory environment, and enabled by accurate and comprehensive data, an able and adequate workforce, suitable tools, and sufficient funding.
This Blueprint describes how Naval Engineering will achieve the desired ‘Technical Seaworthiness of the Fleet’.
Figure 2: Naval Engineering – The System
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
4
The Blueprint Design PrinciplesDesign Principles Approach to Design principles
Set direction
The direction for Naval Engineering shall be captured in doctrine, policy and business plans that have authority, providing all involved in the NE function with the direction required to fulfil their obligations.
To achieve its objectives the Naval Engineering strategy must be cascaded throughout the Naval Engineering function through the use of clear policies, standards, directives, codes of practice, and instructions.
Simplify Naval Engineering
Provide a simplified perspective on the overall Naval Engineering ‘function’ so that all those involved in it can understand and appreciate the role they play and where/how they add value.
Clarity in role, responsibility, and accountability
Ensure that the responsibility and accountability for the generation of outputs and outcomes from functional activities are delegated.
Contribute to Capability and Capability Management
Provide tangible and measurable improvements, observable through key performance indicators.
Inform and advise acquisition by providing both: a) Design support for new capability development; and b) engineering support for new capability acquisition, including construction QA and verification.
Provide the framework for enduring and sustainable delivery of competent engineers, technologists, and technicians to achieve Naval Engineering objectives (seaworthiness).
Address the reviews Address the root cause(s) of the issues that led to the Rizzo review and retire the first order recommendations of both the Plan to Reform Support Ship Repair and Management Practices and the Strategic Review of Naval Engineering.
Address organisational complexity
Where possible, create a clear understanding of the products that pass between organisations and sub-groups and minimise the number of interfaces between organisations or sub groups within the Naval Engineering function.
Contribute to In-Service Capability Management
Sustain in-service materiel (technical seaworthiness) through the provision of quality, comprehensive engineering and maintenance support for the fleet.
Rebuild the Naval Engineering Brand & Community
Create an employee value proposition that is aligned to the strategic workforce plan for Naval Engineering.
Reinvigorate and renew both the Naval Engineering brand and the Naval Engineering community through improved induction, regular community engagement, road shows and defence internal media.
Provide progressive and clear career pathways and development opportunities within and across the Naval Engineering function.
Manage Risks to Technical Seaworthiness
Identify, analyse and quantify risks associated with activities of and outputs of the Naval Engineering function and generate strategies to mitigate and minimise those risks.
Assure technical seaworthiness through audits of compliance with policy, codes of practice, instructions, standards and specifications (Risk-based assurance).
Scalability Make accommodation for variation in demand for engineering and maintenance support.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
5
Design Principles Approach to Design principles
Utilise Technology
Employ modern computer technologies in the discharge of NE functions to remove or reduce human error, increase ease of use, facilitate compliance, and improve data integrity.
Assess future technology options and adopt those technologies in cognisance of relevance to the Maritime environment, system/cross platform applicability and capability, and potential impacts on legislative compliance.
Maintain knowledge on design, construction, and upkeep standards (specifications) and methodologies and their application in the Naval context.
Cost efficiency
Qualify and quantify the trade-offs between the cost of materiel and/or engineering/maintenance techniques, the projected operational effectiveness, safety, and environmental protection benefits, the suggested increase in materiel availability, and the suspected satisfaction of longevity demands.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
6
How Naval Engineering Plans to Operate (The Future State Operating Model)The Future State Naval Engineering Operating Model will be centrally defined and coordinated, at the strategic level, by HNE, and will be applicable to Navy, Defence and selected industry entities that form the Class engineering and maintenance enterprise. The Model is shown in Figure 3.
This model defines the means by which the Naval Engineering function will be applied to a Class (ships and submarines, or other mission systems) throughout the various phases of its lifecycle, from concept to disposal. The engineering and maintenance activities associated with a Class are directed, advised and assured through the five lifecycle phases by a series of cross functional activities.
The key underlying concept of this model is to maximise:
A. Effectiveness in delivering seaworthy materiel and assuring the technical seaworthiness of the Class through Class-based processes that relate to the specific support paradigm; and
B. Efficiency from utilising fleet-wide assurance entities and specialist technology bureaus.
The four central components of the future state operating model are; Naval Engineering Strategy, a Risk-based Technical Seaworthiness Assurance Framework, Class-based Through-life Engineering Management (planning for and delivery of engineering and maintenance support services), and Workforce Capability Development and Sustainment.
Figure 3: Naval Engineering Future state Operating Model
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
7
The Naval Engineering Functional ModelThe future state Naval Engineering operational model (Figure 3) is deliberately organisationally agnostic. This is to allow clarity to be established in the engineering function and activity mapping process prior to considering organisational design. However, before this process mapping can begin, the key functions that are required to deliver seaworthy materiel must be captured and defined in a ‘Master Set’, which is titled “Provide Seaworthy Materiel” (Figure 4 below).
Figure 4: Level 1 – Provide Seaworthy Materiel (Functional Model)
Currently, there is a diverse range of documents and business models available in Defence that provide definition of the processes used to support Maritime materiel. However, there is no single overarching definition of the Naval Engineering function, its constituent sub-functions, how the sub-functions link to generate outputs from inputs, and how those outputs in turn become inputs for subsequent functions, building ultimately to provide the overall outcome of “Seaworthy Materiel”. Without such a definition, we have been poorly placed to; understand the skill sets and competencies required to; inform the various organisational operating models deliver our outputs/outcomes and, organise ourselves most efficiently and effectively in that endeavour.
The ‘Provide Seaworthy Materiel Master Set’ is owned by Head Navy Engineering and provides a detailed decomposition of all linked functions that each deliver outputs that are subsequently transformed into the seaworthy materiel outcome. It establishes the functional level foundations necessary to give effect to Naval Engineering’s strategic intent and will contribute to the achievement of the goals and objectives identified in the Naval Engineering Strategic Plan.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
8
The ‘Master Set’ will enable:
• Definition and documentation of the scope of work required to fulfil Naval Engineering obligations
• Allocation and Co-ordination of Naval Engineering work across the organisational groups (Navy, Defence and industry) to maximise operational effectiveness and cost efficiency
• The assessment of organisational arrangements and business models that singularly or collectively seek to deliver the ‘Seaworthy Materiel’ outputs and outcomes to ensure complete coverage
• Delegation of decision rights regarding specific outputs to the appropriate, authorised level
• Definition of the functional context for Naval Engineering policies, procedures, and work instructions
• Identification of the skills, qualifications and experience required to perform Naval Engineering functions (and the training gap that may exist within the organisation)
• Determination of organisational structures required to deliver Naval Engineering’s vision and strategic goals
• A basis for educating the workforce on the functions that are required, the relationship of the outputs and inputs of those functions, the enabling requirements of those functions, and the constraints that are imposed on the function and/or its output(s)
• The establishment of discrete teams, with similar but not necessarily the same internal processes, and which provide flexibility for variance, whilst having a common interface. Related processes may then be tested against an agreed functional set.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
9
Chapter 1: Naval Engineering Strategy
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
10
Key Message: HNE is the authority for defining the NE functions that must be undertaken across the entire lifecycle of a platform and constituent equipment and the assurance requirements for those functions.
The Strategic Planning ProcessNaval Engineering has adopted a strategic planning process which will establish the first building block of the future state operating model. The strategic planning process enables Naval Engineering to adapt to the push and pull forces that impact on the Lifecycle, to avoid inappropriate reactive responses with sub-optimal outcomes.
Figure 5: Strategic Planning Process
National and Military organisational goals and operational objectives together with external & internal political factors which impact on the Navy and the wider ADF act as ‘push’ forces on Naval Engineering. These are highly influential elements over which little control can be exerted.
The demands of sustaining materiel capability and operational tempo whilst managing problems and incidents arising from current operations creates a strong ‘pull’ force to which Naval Engineering must respond. These pull forces can create a demand for resources that can threaten platform availability.
Current Naval Engineering Strategy has been stated in the Naval Engineering Strategic Plan 2013-17. Through the planning process, HNE has defined four goals for Naval Engineering over the next five years. Figure 6 aligns these goals to the future state Naval Engineering operating model. These goals will be prosecuted initially through the Rizzo Reform project and then via annual action plans.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
11
Figure 6: NAVAL ENGINEERING Strategic Goals vs. Naval Engineering Future-state Operating Model
Cascading Goals and ObjectivesThe above model provides Naval Engineering with a cross-organisational perspective necessary to drive technical mastery and business excellence outcomes. It creates a link between Navy’s higher order strategic objectives, the supporting and enabling organisations and functions (within Navy, Defence and Industry) and allows the measurement of their individual and combined performance.
A strong understanding and recognition that Naval Engineering is a core enabler in the delivery of maritime capability, already exists. The vision, purpose, principles, strategies, goals and objectives for organisational success, and the beliefs and behaviours that underpin this strategic direction must, however, be well defined within Naval Engineering’s Strategic Plan. What is necessary is for policy, procedures and work practices to translate Naval Engineering’s strategic intent into practical guidance for personnel.
As depicted in Figure 7, the future state Naval Engineering function considers two important aspects of performance: first, performance against agreed goals and objectives (“outcome components”) and secondly, exhibition of Naval Engineering’s values and behaviours (“input components”).
The future state Naval Engineering operating model will introduce class engineers as a single point of focus to govern the engineering and maintenance function for the class as a single entity, ensuring the alignment of goals, objectives and benefits throughout the lifecycle.
A clearly defined strategic intent, cascaded to the working level, will ensure transparency for effective performance management and accountability for all NE entities and individuals therein.
The follow-on design of organisational structures, when agreed and implemented, must maintain focus on the design principle of “clarity in decision making”, so that there is a clear linkage from strategy, through execution, to delivery.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
12
Figure 7: Cascading Goals and Objectives
Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Environment Recent studies have indicated that a significant percentage of an Engineer’s time is spent using broader professional, managerial and communication skills to enable the articulation, efficient delivery and control of the engineering performed. In a similar way, technologists and technicians, particularly at the more senior levels, are also required to work in a wider environment, using a broader set of skills. This is particularly prevalent in the construction and maintenance phases of the lifecycle. The results of these studies strongly support the conclusion of “Newport and Elms” that technical competencies are not sufficient for success as an engineer2,3. Communication, teamwork, professional attitudes, business skills, problem solving, critical thinking creativity, and practical skills were also deemed as highly important.
Governance, Leadership & Management
Naval Engineering leaders must therefore actively lead and promote an increased focus on the professional attributes required to meet the future challenges in the delivery of outcomes. This will ensure the creation of a learning environment that promotes both technical and business competence, along with the right learning opportunities for Naval engineers, technologists, and technicians to perform at their best.
Effective governance, leadership and management will be the difference between the success of the future state Naval Engineering operating model and failure.
2 Newport, C. L., & Elms, D. G. (1997). Effective Engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 13(5), 325-332.3 Trevelyan, J. P. (2010). Reconstructing Engineering from Practice. Engineering Studies, (in press).
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
13
We will know we are successful when Defence and Industry...
• Are aware of and understand Naval Engineering’s strategic intent, and their own role, responsibility and accountability in supporting the delivery of its outcomes.
• Work in an environment of continuous product and process improvement, and capability development.
• Recognise Naval Engineering, not only for its technical mastery but also for its business excellence.
• Acknowledge Naval Engineering as a core enabling function at all stages of a platform’s lifecycle.
We will know we are successful when we see...
• Clear, challenging and meaningful Naval Engineering objectives that are aligned to Navy’s strategic direction.
• That the Naval Engineering operating model is recognised as accepted practice.
• That Naval Engineering’s organisational design supports clear linkages from strategy through execution to delivery
• An agreed and accepted process that manages the processes of the Naval Engineering function.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
14
Chapter 2: Naval Engineering Assurance
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
15
Key Message: As an essential part of the Seaworthiness Management System, a risk-based assurance system will be introduced. The application of the appropriate level of product, process and system assurance will provide confidence to the Navy in the material capability of platforms throughout the lifecycle.
This chapter outlines a design for the Naval Engineering assurance environment, including its interaction with the regulatory requirements of the Seaworthiness Management System, and thereby International and Australian law, Government regulations and ADF (Defence) policy.
At present Naval Engineering uses a regulatory system which focuses on the processes that deliver products/outcomes, which produces strong management of processes but does not assure the suitability of those outcomes. The future Naval Engineering function will employ an assurance system based on both process and product/outcome. A new risk-based assurance model will be introduced that combines process, product and system assurance, operating within a dynamic, flexible and responsive operational environment.
Technical Seaworthiness ManagementThe main purpose of regulation is to ensure that platforms are seaworthy and the seaworthiness of a Class4. As depicted in Figure 8, there are three elements that contribute to the overall Seaworthiness of the Fleet: operational, technical and support. Naval Engineering has the responsibility for assuring ‘Technical Seaworthiness’.
Seaworthiness management comprises five primary, linked activities:
• Establishing controls over the generation and upkeep of inputs to maritime capability;
• Assessing the state of those inputs;
• Constraining the nature and scope of operations on the basis of the risks to the achievement of operational effectiveness, safety, and environmental protection outcomes that are represented by the assessed state of those inputs5;
• Assessing the achievement of required operational effectiveness, safety, and environmental protection outcomes during and after operations; and
• Directing changes to controls, assessments, or operating constraints where the required outcomes are not achieved.
4 HNE (2012) Seaworthiness Management Policy, v 1.6.5 The baseline definition of the nature and scope of operations for a Class is articulated in the Statement of Operating Intent (SOI).
Temporal, additional constraints can be imposed by the Defence Seaworthiness Authority or the Operational Seaworthiness Authority as delegated.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
16
Figure 8: Elements of a Seaworthiness Management System
Technical Seaworthiness Management (TSwM) is a subset of Seaworthiness Management. The primary obligations and characteristics of its design include:
• Provision of clear individual and organisational responsibilities and accountabilities for TSwM
• An environment which establishes functional requirements of an engineering & maintenance management system
• Measurement of platform or class performance to ensure that the objectives of the system are being met in order to inform a judgement as to whether a platform is Technically Seaworthy
• An assurance framework that contributes to the judgement as to whether a platform is technically seaworthy (and as to the Technical Seaworthiness of a Class)
• Assurance of compliance with functional requirements, standards, directives, and instructions
• Mechanisms for ongoing review of efficiency and effectiveness of TSwM, including the provision of independent review
Figure 9: Technical Seaworthiness Management
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
17
Figure 10: Naval Engineering Management directive
The Naval Engineering Management Directive will define the environment in which the Naval Engineering component of Seaworthiness Management resides. It will provide the authority for the technical aspects, derive Naval Engineering policy from the Naval Engineering Strategic Plan, and prescribe management standards against which the functions are to be executed. It will describe individual and organisational responsibilities and accountabilities for all technical aspects of TSwM (Figures 9 & 10).
Elements that together form the technical governance environment are:
• Naval Engineering Functional Master Set
• Naval Engineering Policy Suite
• Naval Engineering Technical Delegations
The Management Directive will guide the operation of the Technical Seaworthiness Management System (TSwMS) and its conformance with key elements of the future state Naval Engineering operating model, such as:
• Through life Management Standards (supported by the Master Set)
• Class Primacy (described in Chapter 3)
• Standardised Reporting
• Performance Monitoring
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
18
Figure 11: Developing the Technical Seaworthiness Assurance Framework
The foundation for the TSwMS, as depicted in Figure 12, will be guided by a Regulatory Framework which is “risk-based” and prescribes the control mechanisms to be employed in the Naval Engineering environment6.
The Assurance Framework will also establish traceability back to governing legislation, assure coverage across the full lifecycle and apply a baseline risk profile to Naval Engineering functions to determine the type of control mechanisms and the required implementation regime.
Key Principle:
The purpose of assurance is NOT to stop ships from going to sea but to ensure that they are Seaworthy so that they are in a state to, when required, ‘Fight and Win at Sea’.
6 Sparrow, M. K (2000). The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems & Managing Compliance. Brookings Press, Washington DC, USA
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
19
Figure 12: Technical Seaworthiness Management System
The TSwMS will aim to create an agile control environment that takes input from a Risk-based Controls Model and applies them within the operational environment, as guided by the Naval Engineering Management Directive. The agility and flexibility of the model will be derived from two main elements:
A. Performance Management – The appropriate use of self assurance within the operational and delivery environment with a “feedback loop”, enabled through performance reporting and monitoring functions, which captures the dynamic nature of risk within the complex maritime environment.
B. Specialist Bureaus (“Centres of expertise”) – The optimal use of external support to reinforce the controls. They will contain specialist resources (including knowledge, skills and manpower), necessary to provide, amongst other functions, targeted assurance across the Capability System Lifecycle (CSL).
Performance ManagementThe Performance Management function will analyse and assess technical performance against expected standards. Fundamental to performance management is access to timely performance data which can be aggregated and consolidated into a ‘single point of truth’ to inform decision making.
A. Implementation of a centralised technical performance management system will deliver two key benefits:
B. Provision of crucial information to the engineering leaders to enhance decision making
A feedback mechanism that enables proactive management intervention, through lead indicators, improving control of technical risk across classes and platforms7.
Performance Management will be integrated with the application of a risk based controls model. A change in observed risk profile can occur for a variety of reasons: internal, external, controllable and uncontrollable. In each case, there needs to be a management response by either “accepting the risk” or by “mitigating the risk”.
7 Lead indicators are measurable factors of performance that project the underlying performance trend.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
20
A change in the controls model may be considered or necessary (for example to a rules based, principles based or self controlled based regime) dependant on the trade-off between operational demand and the potential or likely impact of accepting any given risk.
Key roles of performance management function will be:
• Design and establish performance standards for class, platform and significant equipment
• Establish and maintain the performance reporting processes and frequency of reporting
• Manage a single point of truth for technical performance metrics
• Analyse the performance metrics to identify any anomalies or exceptions that require investigation
• Provide HNE (or DGTS) with analysis which assures confidence in the effectiveness of controls
• Highlight lead indicators of risks and issues, which may require specialist support and intervention
The delivery of performance management is considered an intrinsic element of Naval Engineering and its outputs will be best consolidated through permanent centres of expertise, Specialist Bureaus.
Specialist Bureaus The future Naval Engineering function will adapt efficiently and effectively to change, drawing upon cross functional specialised knowledge and expertise contained within either permanent teams or virtual technical support networks that span the Naval Engineering workforce. They will in effect, form Specialist Bureaus that can be used and add value throughout the lifecycle and across all Classes (Figure 13).
Specialist Bureaus will undertake the role of a Centre of Expertise in a specific technical field, varying in manning dependant on needs and skills, and may include RAN, APS and industry personnel. They may also vary in composition: completely outsourced; co-sourced; virtual; or a centralised in-house team. The key operational premise for all Bureaus is that their functions will be undertaken by specialist engineers, technologists, and technicians. The responsibilities, characteristics, role and potential groupings of the Bureaus are outlined below.
Class-Based Engineering can draw on the services of Specialist Bureaus to, in support of certification requirements, for example:
• Inspect the safety of weapons, including ammunition stowage and explosive handling
• Assist in the conduct and analysis of firing trials
• Analyse power and propulsion systems and weapons
• Assess the safety and certification for fire, explosives, power and propulsion, escape and evacuation
• Conduct hull surveys, structural surveys
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
21
Figure 13: Specialist Bureau functions
Responsibilities and Characteristics
• Bricks & mortar organisations with formalised virtual links (Service Level Agreement type agreements)
• Spans current Navy, DMO, DSTO and industry activities/ responsibilities
• Takes advantage of skills and experience at all levels in the professional engineering, paraprofessional, and trade based elements of the technical workforce
• Provide subject matter expertise
Key roles of Specialist Bureaus will be:
• Class agnostic where possible
• Maintain Naval design, construction, and maintenance standards pertaining to the technology and where necessary provide appropriate input to policy development and guidance for implementation. They will be aware of alternative standards and regimes, and endorse concessions between systems where appropriate
• Provide advice as to appropriate Standards, assist in providing and comparing collated performance evidence, and where necessary, physically check against agreed baselines / datums / standards / policies or undertake appropriate trials to allow assessment; thereby enabling product delivery areas to assess and ensure compliance with relevant standards
• Conduct specialist engineering tasks, such as engine change teams or underwater engineering capability (Selected bureaus only)
• Process and product assurance, so that appropriate evidence is collated to allow certification to be issued to a class and / or platform.
Specialist Bureaus will, in some instances, deliver greater efficiency by grouping together tightly coupled specialised functions, for example:
• Marine-platform machinery trials assessment, condition monitoring and specialist equipment teams i.e. Diesels / Gas turbine
• Naval architecture design, hull survey, paint specialisation, corrosion techniques (including medical / catering)
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
22
• Salvage, underwater engineering, damage control, fire fighting and battle damage techniques
• Explosives, weapon handling, magazine safety and ammunition movements
• Weapon trials, gun functions, weapon analysis, combat system management, specialist weapon, and set to work teams
• Combat systems, command & control, and systems development
• Communication technology
• Signature management (including shock, noise, infra red, Radar x-section, magnetic) and signature range management
• Environmental Protection technology
• Fire detection and fighting technology
• Life Saving technology
• Configuration and Status auditing/ accounting
• Reliability, availability and maintainability analysis
TECHNICAL SEAWORTHINESS ASSURANCE
The Technical Seaworthiness Assurance function will act as a discrete, central Bureau (which may draw on the assistance of Technology Bureaus) to undertake the Assurance, Assessment and Acceptance activities.
Technical Seaworthiness Assurance advises the Capability Manager/ Class Manager on proposals for trials, conduct those trials, and assess whether the system has met the requirements, regulations, and/ or standards. The key roles of Technical Seaworthiness Assurance are outlined below.
Key roles of Technical Seaworthiness Assurance will be:
• Manage the risk-based technical assurance environment
• Provide the central point of focus for assurance and assessment for process, product and system typically:
• Review the compliance of Class-based engineering & maintenance activities with directives
• Assess the state and operational performance of materiel
• Assess the competence of technical personnel as it relates to design, construction, maintenance, and disposal of materiel
• Provide a range of trials, capability evaluation, assessment and analysis services in order to deliver independent assurance
• Acceptance of new capabilities.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
23
We will know we are successful when Defence and Industry People...
• Understand the purpose and value of controls over the generation and upkeep of materiel
• Appreciate that the assurance system is not over assuring functions but is targeting risk identification, assessment, and mitigation
• Proactively utilise the skills of experienced and expert personnel in the Specialist Bureaus to provide assistance in identifying risks, assessing risks, and mitigating risks.
• Do not see controls as impediments to performance but as an aid to achieving the appropriate standard.
We will know we are successful when we see...
• Lead indicators that provide feedback that enables timely intervention to prevent incidents
• A Risk-based assurance/controls Model is understood and used flexibly
• Operational programs that are agreed against a risk profile and are successfully undertaken
• A centralised performance team providing a single source of truth on Performance information
• Dedicated Specialist Assurance teams
• Dedicated specialist assessment teams
• Technical Warrant Officers employed to assist in technical assurance and assessment roles
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
24
Chapter 3: Through-Life Engineering & Maintenance Management
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
25
Key Message: Management, operation and delivery of the future state Naval Engineering function will be class-centric.
A Class-based Engineering and Maintenance Management System will provide a mechanism to optimally balance operational and engineering demands, and,
A Class Through-life Engineering Management Portfolio will provide the single point of truth for the material state of a Class
Class Through-Life Engineering & Maintenance ManagementClass Through-Life Engineering Management (CTLEM) will support Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assessment; risk & performance reporting; asset, capability and workforce management; and delegation of bounded accountability.
This form of management will require a Class-based Engineering and Maintenance Management System with an agile technical seaworthiness assurance framework. It will have an integrated focus on operational program, capability development (insertion and upgrade), maintenance techniques, material state capture, and training and education..
A Class Through-Life Engineering Management Portfolio will be managed by a Class Engineer. This database of measurements, planning targets and ship data will allow the ‘health ‘of a class of platforms to be determined confidently at any time across the entire lifecycle. Figure 14 provides a graphical representation of several classes (A through D) as they move through the capability lifecycle using a Class Through-Life Engineering approach.
Accumulated and populated from the early design stage for each Class of platforms, this portfolio of evidence must be enduring (Figure 15) throughout the life of a class.
The Class-based team undertaking this work will need to access Specialist Bureaus for specialist skills, advice and assistance. Specific requirements for Bureaus will vary across the lifecycle of the Class.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
26
Figure 14: Class perspective to Through-life Engineering Management
Figure 15: Hierarchy of Through-life Engineering Management Planning
Class Through-Life Engineering Management planning is given authority and direction through a Naval Engineering Management Strategy. This strategy provides a directive that seeks coherency and consistency across the classes, but not necessarily ‘sameness’ It will be implemented through a three-tiered hierarchy of Class Plans each containing a ‘snapshot’ of the current material state (with increasing detail) of the class, across the lifecycle (Figure 16):
1. Class TLEM Portfolio
2. Platform TLEM Plan
3. Equipment TLEM Plan
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
27
Figure 16: Portfolio of Though-Life Engineering Management Plans
Class engineering management is designed to maximise the effectiveness that can be achieved from the provision of engineering and maintenance support, to provide clear accountability within the organisational structures, and where possible minimise organisational interfaces.
During the ‘In Service’ phase, a Class focussed engineering approach allows close alignment and ownership of the engineering function, structured to optimise the planning of operations against required maintenance cycles, and broader management of maintenance ashore and afloat. It also provides the benefits of pooling class engineering skills across Defence and industry including performance-based through-life service contracting.
Class Generated Operating ScheduleA Class Through-Life Engineering Management Portfolio is designed to be a “live” system, available for use as both a management and planning tool (Figure 17).
The Class Through-Life Engineering Management Portfolio will be managed by a Class Engineer and capture the materiel state of the platforms through performance reports; assurance and materiel state inspections; capability upgrade requirements; and maintenance needs. Class Engineers will be in a position to analyse, advise and inform decisions relating to the trade-off between maintenance requirements, class availability, platform operational schedules and long term planning requirements within a risk based assurance environment. The Class Engineering Management Engineering and Maintenance Management System will define the engineering processes and delegations to maintain the technical integrity of a class.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
28
Figure 17: Class Generated Operating Schedule
Singleton Ship ClassesThe RAN has several singleton ship classes which will need specific and careful management. Where possible, it is considered appropriate to gather these orphan platforms under a common capability thread to form a class (for example, afloat support platforms), or alternatively, embed them within an established class (such as an Amphibious Class) to enable coherent operational capability planning.
We will know we are successful when Navy, Defence and Industry people...
• Understand and appreciate what Naval Engineering does in the Through-Life Management of Assets at the Class, Platform and Equipment levels
• Understand the value of Through Life Engineering Management in providing a clear view of the current material state of each class and platform
• Have confidence in the quality and relevance of Naval Engineering information delivered to the Capability Manager
• Direct and manage Naval Engineering projects using a Class Through-Life Engineering Management Portfolio to deliver Technical Seaworthiness for each class level
• Understand their role as a core component of the Naval Engineering function, as well as the role of others
• Have specialist skills utilised within Class from specific Bureaus
• Understand that the effective management and delivery of Naval Engineering requires close alignment and collaboration between Navy, Defence and Industry (this concept being embodied through class-level industry outplacements across organisations)
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
29
We will know we are successful when we see...
• A class engineer competently managing each class
• Decisions being made which are supported by strong “evidence based” justification (Class TLEM Portfolio)
• Configuration management being conducted at the class level
• Technical Seaworthiness being addressed at the class level
• A ‘master set’ of functions being interpreted and applied in the context of each class.
• Class Through-Life Engineering Management is an integral part of overall Force group management
• A bringing together of skills through Industry, DMO and Navy personnel producing a larger more effective / capable skills pool
• Fleet Support Units contributing integrally to Class Groups
• Engineering and maintenance requirements are appropriately factored into the Fleet Operating Schedule (with identified and acknowledged risk)
• Established and effectively managed Class level industry outplacements (aligned with DMO Contract approach for Class Management under the Smart Sustainment Group Maintenance Contracts)
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
30
Chapter 4: Naval Engineering Workforce Modernisation
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
31
Key Message: Establish and embed an integrated, professional and competent workforce across Defence and Industry for the delivery of Naval Engineering.
Whilst the Naval Engineering functions detailed in this Blueprint are meant to be organisationally agnostic, it is acknowledged that their delivery will come from the following core workforce groups. Although these resource groups will remain the same, it is anticipated that the workforce size, profile, and nature (flexibility) will require constant adjustment, to assure the successful delivery of Naval Engineering outcomes into the future.
Figure 18: Naval Engineering Workforce
The future state Naval Engineering workforce will...• Provide a RAN workforce that is optimally sized and configured to meet the organisation and structural
requirement to:
• Raise, train & sustain the sea-going, in-service engineer workforce
• Do discrete tasks that can only be performed by uniformed personnel
• Provide experience opportunities in ashore roles to provide foundations for future afloat and ashore roles
• Manage RAN shore employment of technical workforce such that staff:
• Provide technical support to the fleet
• Provide military support to the fleet
• Are prepared and up skilled to better perform their core functions at sea
• Are prepared and up-skilled to perform in ashore roles beyond the sea-employment phase
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
32
• Manage positions, posting, training and development opportunities to align to the functional streaming and class-focused streaming concepts (care will be required to achieve an effective balance between the functional stream, and class-focussed stream of each workforce segment.)
• Optimise the career management and utilisation of the Defence civilian workforce, drawing from professionals, para-professionals and associates (particularly in SPOs and Specialist Bureaus) so that deep ‘in-house’ technical mastery is both developed, retained, and utilised in support of platforms.
• Identify, develop and foster Industry partnerships to address skills and knowledge gaps, develop Naval Engineering personnel across the function, and construct an integrated workforce through shared training, education and experience opportunities.
• Optimise the balance of engineering discipline ability (e.g. engineering requirement and design, sustainable development) and professional management competence (e.g. communication, leadership and information management) in order to develop Naval Engineers with the skills and competencies to fulfil both their technical and management obligations.
Retention of Technical Mastery in the Naval Engineering WorkforceThere is a need to sustain the Naval engineering workforce’s technical mastery. The Future State Naval Engineering function will aim to achieve this by increasing the retention of people within the Naval Engineering industry. In an increasingly competitive market for engineering skills and experience, the Naval Engineering organisation needs to offer more flexible employment options (e.g. clear pathways and straightforward processes for career/role transfers between Defence and industry), whilst developing core skills over time in order to rebuild and thence avoid depletion of vulnerable categories. The Naval Engineering Blueprint sets out the workforce shape and profile to address this need for flexibility through the establishment of a career continuum.
A career in Naval Engineering will build over four phases, with some focus on Class-based support and functionally streamed environments. The career continuum is applicable to all staff within the Naval Engineering Workforce, expanding entry pathways, increasing cross-organisational opportunities, and encouraging the development of broad or specialist expertise. The continuum will enable workforce mobility within and between Navy, other Defence bodies, and industry through secondments, outplacements and transfers (particularly in the directive and strategic phases). The alignment of operational requirements and workforce capability will enable the Naval Engineering function to attract, retain and manage qualified, experienced and professionally competent personnel.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
33
Figure 19: NAVAL ENGINEERING Career Continuum
Phased and Functional StreamingThe four phases of Naval Engineering workforce development are outlined below.
Induction Phase
Induction, initial engineering and technical training are conducted in this phase. Navy, Defence and Industry will each develop and deliver baseline-level training to personnel to suit their requirements. Education in all domains must cover the Reference Set definition, the Naval Engineering Model and Reference Set of E&M functions, and the typical relationships between organisations responsible for engineering and maintenance products/outcomes across a platform lifecycle.
Operational Phase
During this phase, specific training in particular E&M functions is provided, culminating in registration, licensing, and certification of personnel to undertake those functions where appropriate. It is in this phase that the majority of the technical workforce will be employed. Employment in this phase focuses on the function execution and product/output delivery. This phase:
• Employs the majority of the Naval Engineering workforce (a selected group will proceed into the later stages of the continuum)
• For Navy personnel, aligns sea and shore postings of personnel to encourage class specific knowledge and development of greater understanding in the maritime materiel support regime
• Provides the wide diversity of skills necessary within each organisational group
• Requires that the training and management of each workforce be the primary responsibility of their respective employer, organisational group or sub group
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
34
Directive Phase
This is the phase in which employment is characterised by command and management of personnel in the Operational Phase. Whilst it is envisaged that there will be specific group training necessary for these senior posts, there will be far greater commonality in the additional professional skills and competences required.
It is in this phase that formal career functional streaming will be undertaken into; Sustainment Engineering, Capability Acquisition Engineering, and Specialist Engineering. Building on experience from employment in the Operational phase, personnel will be managed within the functional streams to meet the specific challenges pertaining to these functions, as follows.
1. Sustainment Engineers will form the key personnel in the in-service Class Environment managing large repair & maintenance projects, engineering support activity, materiel update activity. They will require project management competence along with contract and financial management experience in addition to their in-service support knowledge.
2. Capability Acquisition Engineers will require capability development, design engineering, construction engineering, and project management competencies, along with contract and financial management experience.
3. Specialist Engineers will be employed within the Specialist Bureaus where their deep subject matter expertise will be drawn to provide service, advice, assurance and guidance across the totality of Naval Engineering, particularly in defined technology domains.
It is from functional streams 1 & 2 above that the predominant number of personnel will be drawn from when personnel are promoted into the strategic phase.
Personnel are likely to remain within these functional streams for much of their later careers. Whilst movement of personnel across these functional streams will be possible, it is expected that such a transfer will occur on the basis of organisational need, primarily, and personal preference.
Strategic Phase
Personnel in this phase will be those selected as the Strategic Directors for Naval Engineering capability within Defence, undertaking specific Defence training as required and relevant on bespoke basis (e.g. RCDS, CDSS).
Training across the directive and strategic phases will, where relevant and agreed, be shared across Defence and industry.
Training and Education Training and education are critical to the attraction, development and retention of professionally competent practitioners. Training provides the skills, knowledge and behavioural (attitudinal) development required to perform effectively and efficiently. Training and education, if appropriated for cross-organisational relevance, will enable knowledge sharing across organisational interfaces, broaden the sharing of skills across the workforce and facilitate the development of technically astute senior leadership, aware of their contribution and their role in the broader Naval Engineering environment.
Training and education, its format, timing, location (sea vs. shore) and content will be crucial to the successful functioning of a modernised workforce, and ultimately, Naval Engineering’s contribution to maritime capability. As an aspiration, at the Directive and Strategic levels , training and education will be more aligned to the requirements of the Naval Engineering function. This training will be conducted more cohesively across Defence and Industry.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
35
A key challenge for the implementation of this career continuum (and therefore, a key focus for future Naval Engineering environment), will be the need for recognition of skills, qualifications and experience across all entities involved in Naval Engineering. This recognition process must be a unilateral acknowledgement of the skills and knowledge individuals bring to their role, irrespective of whether these have been developed and / or experienced within or external to the Naval Engineering domain. There is also significant opportunity for benefit to be gained from shifting to a shared training approach, particularly in the directive and strategic career phases.
Shared responsibility and recognition for the training of practitioners across will increase:
• Promotion of the unique opportunities available in employment in Naval Engineering
• Retention of skills and qualifications through access to contemporary flexible working arrangements
• Retention and better utilisation of specialist skills within the Naval Engineering environment
• Increased effectiveness in training delivery through efficiencies gained in a shared approach
• Quality of engineering management, operations and delivery through a shared, deep understanding of the Naval Engineering environment
Developing technically proficient, professional Practitioners
In general, practitioners will be trained to manage technical functions in the design, construction/production, and support arenas and, as they progress in experience and competence, will be employed in the broader strategic environment within the various entities involved in Naval Engineering. In all cases, however, advancement to the strategic level is predicated upon the Naval Engineering manager developing necessary core competencies, which includes a balance of the technical skills with leadership and managerial skills, and business acumen; mastering technical knowledge by itself will not be enough to assure the Naval Engineering manager’s success. In short, the addition of broader professional skills and competencies such as communication, teamwork, leadership, motivation and general management will be equally important to the success of all future Naval Engineering managers.
Defence personnel and the operational phaseGiven the unique challenges of the Defence environment, it is recognised that the career continuum must focus particular attention on the operational phase of Naval Engineering careers, and the impact this phase has on maritime capability in military deployment.
This Blueprint is focused on the strategic vision to “Deliver the technical capability of platforms to Fight and Win at Sea”. The ability to deliver this effect must therefore be founded on Naval Engineering’s capacity to provide required in-service engineering capability.
Figures 20 to 22 outline the proposed training and role profile of Navy engineer officers, technicians and civilians within the operational phase of their career. Although these diagrams set out (indicatively) the job classifications for each group separately (currently under review), Naval Engineering workforce initiatives will be developed recognising inter-relatedness and interdependency.
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
36
Figure 20: Navy Officers
Figure 21: Navy Technicians
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
37
Figure 22: Naval engineering civilians (Professional Officers, Technical Officers, APS)
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
38
We will know we are successful when Navy, Defence and Industry...
• Understand the cross-organisational opportunities available in a Naval Engineering career
• Acknowledge and value engineering skills, experience and qualifications gained across the breadth of the function, through a formalised and simple Recognition of Prior Learning process
• Are exposed to, understand, and live the Naval Engineering behaviours in their day-to-day work
• Understand the organisational and personal benefits of contemporary, flexible workforce arrangements in Naval Engineering
• The Naval Engineering workforce is effectively balanced between ADF personnel, APS staff, and contractors
• Use class management as a posting criteria in their management of workforce in its earlier phases
We will know we are successful when we see...
• A Naval Engineering workforce that is optimally sized to meet the organisational requirements for today and in the future
• The Naval Engineering workforce with the training, experience and skills to perform organic and deep-level material maintenance as required
• Professional and competent engineers and technicians retained, motivated and developed within a high-performance culture
• Specialist engineers, technologists, and technicians organised into Bureaus operating in the directive phase
• Personnel provided with the information and support required to be aware and understand the career and development opportunities across the career continuum
• Education and training that optimises the balance between technical engineering abilities and professional attributes as core competencies
• An optimal balance of roles at sea and meaningful employment ashore to increase job satisfaction of Navy engineers
• Increased understanding of Naval Engineering skills, qualifications, and experience in the marketplace
• Retention of skills within the wider Naval Engineering Network NA
VAL
ENGI
NEER
ING
FUTU
RE S
TATE
BLU
EPRI
NT
39
Getting InvolvedHow can I find out more?
HNE and his authorised delegates are committed to the realisation of the principles and concepts presented within this Blueprint. To ensure all personnel understand these concepts and have access to information relevant to Naval Engineering through-out the blueprints implementation, an intranet page has been established. The webpage is located will be the central source of all “Rebuild Naval Engineering” news, and information.
www.defence.gov.au/navyweb/RizzoReform/RebuildingNavalEngineering.html
Who can I contact?
If you still have questions that the webpage fails to answer, please contact the ‘Rebuild Naval Engineering’ team using the details below:
Email: [email protected],
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
40
Glossary of termsADF Australian Defence Force
APS Australian Public Service
CDG Capability Development Group
CN Chief of Navy
CSL Capability Systems Lifecycle
CTLEMP Class Through-Life Engineering Management Plan
DMO Defence Material Organisation
DSTO Defence Science & Technology Organisation
DTS Directorate of Technical Seaworthiness
ETLEMP Equipment Through-Life Engineering Management Plan
FEG Force Element Group
HNE Head Navy Engineering
HMS Head of Maritime Systems
KPI Key Performance Indicator
MEO Marine Engineer Officer
NCAA Naval Capability Assurance and Assessment
NE Naval Engineering
PTLEMP Platform Through-Life Engineering Management Plan
RAN Royal Australian Navy
RN Royal Navy
SLA Service Level Agreement
SOI Statement of Operating Intent
SPO Systems Program Office
SRNE Strategic Review of Navy Engineering
SRP Strategic Reform Program
SwMS Seaworthiness Management System
TCO Total Cost of Ownership
TLM Through Life Management
TSwM Technical Seaworthy Management
USN United States Navy
WEO Weapons Engineer Officer
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
41
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
42
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
43
NAVA
L EN
GINE
ERIN
G FU
TURE
STA
TE B
LUEP
RINT
44
RIZZO REFORM PROGRAM
August 2013
NAVAL ENGINEERING FUTURE STATE
BLUEPRINT
DPS JUL030-13