THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transcription

1 SHIP PRODUCTION COMMITTEE FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SURFACE PREPARATION AND COATINGS DESIGN/PRODUCTION INTEGRATION HUMAN RESOURCE INNOVATION MARINE INDUSTRY STANDARDS WELDING INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND TRAINING Juy, 1997 NSRP 0480 THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH PROGRAM United States Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan Update U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY CARDEROCK DIVISION, NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER in cooperation with Newport News Shipbuiding

2 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No Pubic reporting burden for the coection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, incuding the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and competing and reviewing the coection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this coection of information, incuding suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arington VA Respondents shoud be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of aw, no person sha be subject to a penaty for faiing to compy with a coection of information if it does not dispay a currenty vaid OMB contro number. 1. REPORT DATE JUL REPORT TYPE N/A 3. DATES COVERED - 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE The Nationa Shipbuiding Research Program, United States Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan Update 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Nava Surface Warfare Center CD Code Design Integration Toos Bdg 192 Room MacArthur Bvd Bethesda, MD PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR S ACRONYM(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for pubic reease, distribution unimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR S REPORT NUMBER(S) 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT SAR a. REPORT uncassified b. ABSTRACT uncassified c. THIS PAGE uncassified 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 73 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

3 DISCLAIMER These reports were prepared as an account of government-sponsored work. Neither the United States, nor the United States Navy, nor any person acting on behaf of the United States Navy (A) makes any warranty or representation, expressed or impied, with respect to the accuracy, competeness or usefuness of the information contained in this report/ manua, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process discosed in this report may not infringe privatey owned rights; or (B) assumes any iabiities with respect to the use of or for damages resuting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process discosed in the report. As used in the above, Persons acting on behaf of the United States Navy incudes any empoyee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractor of the United States Navy to the extent that such empoyee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractor prepares, handes, or distributes, or provides access to any information pursuant to his empoyment or contract or subcontract to the contractor with the United States Navy. ANY POSSIBLE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED.

4 Technica Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Cataog No. NSRP Tite and Subtite 5. Report Date United States Shipbuiding Standards Juy Performing Organization Cods Master Pan Update 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author(s) The Marine Systems Division UMTRI performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Newport News Shipbuiding Company 4101 Washington Avenue Newport News, Virginia Suppementary Notes 11. Contract or Grant No. P.O. # P2480T-O-K1 13. Type cd Report and Period Covered TechnicaI 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 16. Abstract The Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan was deveoped as NSRP Project 0360 in November This Standards Master Pan Update project was conceived to update the earier project. Much has changed in shipbuiding standards, and most of the basic seven initiatives identified for the 1992 Master Pan have been resoved. They are 1. Estabish a communications center for shipbuiding standards. 2. Become more invoved in internationa standards. 3. Gain more domestic invovement in the shipbuiding standards community. 4. Refine the process for identifying and deveoping new shipbuiding standards. 5. Coordinate existing standards. 6. Convert the U.S. shipbuiding industry to the metric system. 7. Deveop a marketing strategy for the pan. 8. Adopt or convert existing goba standards for domestic use. This update incudes an updated survey, the SP-6 tactica pan, new windows into standards on the internet, and more. 17. Key Words 18. DistdbutIon Statement standards, standardization, shipbuiding 19. security Cassif. (Of this report) 20. Security Cassif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Uncassified Uncassified 69 i

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The atest Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan was deivered in 1992 as NSRP That Pan was deveoped using extensive interviews, surveys, and an iterative editing process to incude the views and opinions of the key persons and organizations invoved in the processes of deveoping, managing, and using standards in the marine industries. This Standards Master Pan Update was commissioned by the SP-6 Pane to track how the previous pan was working. The previous pan was deveoped in conjunction with the Standards Panning Workshop (pubished as NSRP 0344). Together, these documents were used as primary references for the work program and direction of the SP-6 Pane The eight initiatives identified by the previous pan are used as an outine for its assessment: : Estabish a communications center for shipbuiding standards. Become more invoved in internationa standards. Gain more domestic invovement in the shipbuiding standards community. Refine the process for identifying and deveoping new shipbuiding standards. Coordinate existing standards. Convert the U.S. shipbuiding industry to the metric system. Deveop a marketing strategy for the pan. Adopt or convert existing goba standards for domestic use. The update project incuded another survey to sense any shifts in opinions reated to shipbuiding standards. The resuts indicate that opinions on most issues are the same. It aso studied the actions of the SP-6 Pane and other standards-reated activities to determine the project findings. It pubishes and references the SP-6 Tactica Pan deveoped in Basicay, the SP-6 Pane and stipbuiding standards have made progress on most of the initiatives and pans, but not neary enough to have a fuy efficient shipbuiding standards program. Ongoing and panned research projects are moving the group towards a useabe standards program. The rate of movement and the expected fina resoution of ongoing work are sti unknown.

6 STANDARDS MASTER PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Report Documentation Page i Executive Summary ii. Tabe of Contents iii Acronyms and Initiaisms iv Introduction Review of Initiatives Survey Anaysis Tactica Pan Concusions Appendices A. Shipbuiding Standards Survey Appendix A Tabe of Contents 1. Survey Form A-1 2. Resuts Taies A-11 B. Internet Standards Sites and Information B-1 C. SP-6 Tactica Pan C-1

7 ACRONYMS and INITIALISMS ABS - American Bureau of Shipping AIA - Aerospace Industries Associatoin API - American Petroeum Institute ASME - American Society of Mechanica Engineers ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materias ASTM F-25 - ASTM Committee F-25 on Shipbuiding Standards AWO - American Waterways Operators DOD - Department of Defense GCRMTC - Guf Coast Region Maritime Technoogy Center NSWC, CarderockDiv - Nava Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, formery DTRC - David Tayor Research Center ECB - Executive Contro Board of the NSRP IACS - Internationa Association of Cassification Societies IHS - Information Handing Services 1S0 - Internationa Organization for Standardization MARAD - Maritime Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation NAPVO - Nationa Association of Passenger Vesse Owners (curenty PVA) NDCP - Navy Document Conversion Pan NGS - Non - Government Standards NSRP - Nationa Shipbuiding Research Program NIST - Nationa Institute of Standards and Technoogy NMRI - Nationa Maritime Research Institute PVA - Passenger Vesse Association SAE- Society of Automotive Engineers SCA - Shipbuiders Counci of America SNAME - Society of Nava Architects and Marine Engineers SP-6 - The Marine Industry Standards Pane of the SPC of SNAME SPC - Ship Production Committee SSPC - Ship Structures Painting Counci TAG - Technica Advisory Group UMTRI - The University of MichiganTransportation Research Institute USCG - U.S. Coast Guard

8 U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan Update INTRODUCTION The most recent Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan was panned in 1990 and deivered in 1992 as NSRP That Pan was deveoped using extensive interviews, surveys, and an iterative editing process to incude the views and opinions of the key persons and organizations invoved in the processes of deveoping, managing and using standards in the marine industries. This Standards Master Pan Update was panned by the SP-6 Pane in 1993 and commissioned in 1994 to track how the previous Pan was working. The previous Pan was deveoped in conjunction with the Standards Panning Workshop (NSRP 0344). The survey for the earier Pan was used as a catayst for the workshop. Together, these documents were used as primary references for the work program and direction of the SP-6 Pane. The update project incuded another survey (Appendix A) to sense any shifts in opinions reated to shipbuiding standards. It aso studied the actions of the SP-6 Pane and other standardsreated activities to determine the project findings. It pubishes and references the SP-6 Tactica Pan deveoped in REVIEW OF INITIATIVES Foowing are the initiatives deveoped for the previous Pan. For that Pan, the initiatives were considered necessary for having an effective Nationa Shipbuiding Standards Program. These initiatives were discussed in more detai and supported by research and data in Voume II of the Pan, reported as NSRP The format for this update of the 1992 Pan is to restate those initiatives and discuss the current situation. 1. Estabish a Communications Center for Shipbuiding Standards. Objectives: a. Become knowedgeabe of and coordinate activities among a organizations invoved in shipbuiding and shipbuiding standards. b. Estabish a centra, unbiased, reference source of a U.S. and foreign shipbuiding c. Disseminate standards information, incuding 1S0², to industry. d. Faciitate soutions to discrepancies among different sources of standards and among users and writers. Specific Action Areas: Short Term (one to two years) a. Use the funded (or seected for funding) existing projects to deveop the functions reated to the Communications Center. b. Identify and evauate possibe performing organizations: NSRP Documentation Center, SP-6 Program Manager, Carderock Division NSWC, SCA, ASTM F-25, NIST, IHS, NMRI or some combination. co Acquire seed money, in the neighborhood of $50,000 to $100,000, from the Navy s Industria Competitiveness Programs. ¹ The 1992 Pan is hereinafter referred to as the Pan (with upper case P) ² Internationa Organization for Standardization - other acronyms are isted on page iv. 1

9 U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan Update Long Term (three to five years) a. Estabish broader based support, both in participation and financia forms, from the Navy, other owners (both government and private), member shipyards, and the rest of the marine industry. b. Estabish continuing sources of funding, possiby from the Industria Competitiveness Program, USCG, MARAD, DOD, SCA and its constituent members, and the Department of Commerce (NIST), or some combination. Communications Center Discussion The communications center issue was addressed in SP-6 project , the Shipbuiding Standards Resource and Education Center. In parae with that project, MARAD started the Nationa Maritime Resource and Education Center. This Center is based on a ibrary resource of standards based at the MARAD ibrary³ in the Department of Transportation buiding in Washington, DC. The GCRMTC and UMTRI showed interest in performing the expanded tasks of a Communications Center, but funding has not materiaized. A number of the items isted in this first initiative have been resoved to some extent. The SP-6 Pane, as we as most of the shipbuiders, have become more knowedgeabe of organizations invoved in shipbuiding and shipbuiding standards. Much of this has been reated to increased invovement in buiding for commercia customers and in the government s increased use of commercia standards in nava auxiiary ships. However, the coordination of activities between parties invoved in standards is sti not to the eve needed for a fuy efficient program. There are sti ony two or three shipbuiding representatives on the ASTM F-25 Committee; and Subcommittee F25.80 is the officia iaison to the ISO TC-8 Ships and Marine Technoogy Committee invoved in internationa shipbuiding standards. Standards information is widey avaiabe from a number of sources. The intemet (Appendix B) has a great amount of information avaiabe about ASTM, ISO, ANSI, SAE, and DOD and foreign standards sources, among others. Many of the sites aow searches for specific standards based on key words. For those who do not have access to the internet, SP-6 standards database projects, NSRP 0361,0456 and 0488, have deveoped a consoidated index to shipbuiding standards from numerous sources and provided a number of ways to search for standards. Discrepancies between users and writers of standards are resoved on a one-to-one basis, for exampe between the shipbuider and the USCG on a decision to accept certain items as equivaent to USCG Reguations. However, a number of SP-6 projects are gaining on this issue. Projects (now NSRP 0438) and (NSRP 0489) have produced anayses of equivaences for a number of key pieces of equipment and provided methodoogies for performing these anayses. However, sifting through the mass amount of information avaiabe on shipbuiding standards is too big a task for most shipbuiders. There are imited resources at most shipbuiders, so they are not fuy staing a group that can dea with the myriad of standards issues. The coordination of activities is sti needed. 2. Become More Invoved in Internationa Standards. Objectives: a. Participate more fuy in IS0. b. SP-6 shoud be a reguar member of the IS0 TAG. c. Shipyards shoud be represented on the TAG. d. A iaison between IACS and SP-6 shoud be estabished. ³ Accessibe through the Internet at 2

10 U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Master P1an Update Specific Action Areas: a. ECB. Continue to find ISO` support projects, preferaby as a reguar ine item on the NSRP budget. b. SP-6. Represent a strong presence of shipbuiders on the ISO TAG to TC-8. c. SP-6. Investigate other avenues of representation in foreign and internationa standards organizations. d. Create a database or ibrary of internationa shipbuiding standards at a centra repository for reference and access. Internationa Standards Invovement Discussion Much of the SP-6 PaneI s and shipbuider s invovement in internationa standards is hindered by the Pane s ack of invovement in ASTM F-25 through which much of the IS0 TC-8 Technica Advisory Committee program is worked. However, a few individua shipbuiders are becoming quite heaviy invoved in internationa standards by necessity through foreign fag contracts. This invovement woud be much more efficient if it were addressed ahead of time by the activities of the Pane members. The Pane was officiay represented on the TAG through the ECB Chairman, and on IACS by the membership of an ABS executive on the Pane. Presenty, the officia ink between SP-6 and IS0 is through the SNAME Technica and Research Committee, athough this ink has not been exercised. The Pane has continued to support and encourage support of the U.S. IS0 TC-8 effort. It has not investigated to any depth other avenues of representation in foreign and internationa standards organizations. The ongoing database projects 4 have provided indexes to foreign standards but are not funded to provide abstracts or fu text versions of the standards. 3. Gain More Domestic Invovement in the Shipbuiding Standards Community. Objectives: a. Expand SP-6 membership. b. Expand the communications inks among invoved organizations. c. Get more shipbuiders invoved with ASTM F-25. Specific Action Areas: a. SP-6. Recreate the maiing ist, identify peope and organizations who are or shoud be important to SP-6, baance the membership with buiders, suppiers, and reated marine industry peope. b. SP-6. Conduct membership drive, soicit members from outside the norma areas such as AWO and NAPVO (now PVA). c. SP-6. Deveop a recruiting package. d. ASTM. Bring membership ratio in ine with the B1ue Book. e. SP-6. Estabish a iaison with other standards writing organizations such as API, SAE, AIA, SSPC. Domestic Invovement Discussion The SP-6 membership has been expanded somewhat, but not to the extent desired by the Pane. Participation by major buiders is fairy continuous, and the Pane has worked to get the information (via a frequenty updated maiing ist) to some of the smaer yards that do not have the resources to participate fuy. There are sti just a few shipbuiders invoved with ASTM F-25, and none invoved with other standards-writing organizations. 4 The current database project is Phase II, soon to be pubished as NSRP

11 U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan Update 4. Refine the Process for Identifying and Deveoping New Shipbuiding Standards. Objectives: Avoid dupication of estabished foreign or internationa standards. a. Expedite standards through the process. c. Consider the reduction of shipbuiding process time in processing standards. Specific Action Areas: a. b. c. d. e. SP-6 and F-25 shoud have a fiter to avoid deveopment of new standards when appicabe foreign or internationa standards aready exist. SP-6. Evauate the possibiity of other standards-writing organizations deveoping certain standards. SP-6. Work with the other NSRP Panes to faciitate getting the appicabe resuts of their work deveoped into shipbuiding standards. SP-6 and F-25. Participate in and use the program set up at NAVSEA to track standards through the process and reduce process time. SP-6 and F-25. Pace ine items in their pans and byaws to consider the reduction of shipbuiding process time in processing standards. New Shipbuiding Standards Discussion Current activities of the Pane, and in certain cases those of its individua members, indicates that new standards are in arge part, not needed. Effective use of current standards and, in the standards deveopment process, avoiding dupication of estabished domestic, foreign or internationa standards is being pursued. Project , Word Cass Shipbuiding Standards (NSRP 0489) and reated projects report on appicabe internationa standards, methodoogies reated to the deveopment and use of standards, and use of aternatives to estabished standards. The Pane has not ost sight of the need for new standards when there is no aternative. Project (NSRP 0490) deveoped Industry Standards for Hu Penetrations: and wi deveop a Ship Designers Handbook - Cross Reference of Standards. However, few of the SP-6 Pane are directy invoved in the standards-making process, so expediting standards through that process is not ikey. ASTM F-25 wi have a revised work pan out in the Fa of H1997 hat wi track the status of the 200 or so standards that they hande. Shipbuiders can seect standards that enhance shipbuiding process times, but with itte invovement in the standards-making process, have itte effect on the process times of new standards or those under review. 5. Coordinate Existing Standards. Objectives: a. Maintain technica currency. b. Identify a standards reevant to shipbuiding. c. Add emphasis to the NDCP. Specific Action Areas: SP-6. Become more invoved in other standards organizations. a. SP-6. Identify (and sponsor for review) out of date standards. c. SP-6. Require the Computerized Compendium of Standards subcontractor to incude a standards reevant to shipbuiding. d. NAVSEA. Expand the NDCP to incude other standards bodies and ook at equivaency of existing non-government standards or IS0 standards. e. SP-6. Estabish iaison with other standards organizations. 4

12 U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan Update Discussion on Coordination of Existing Standards A point of carification is in order. It was never intended that the SP-6 Pane woud be the centra coordinator of existing standards, as was inferred by some. If the communications center discussed in Initiative 1 were to be put in pace, it coud faciitate the coordination of shipbuiding standards reated activities. Such coordination shoud incude the efforts of SP-6, ASTM F-25 and the IS0 TAG to TC-8. If the SP-6 Pane members wish to have a positive effect on maintaining technica currency, they woud have to be more invoved in the standards making process. The Pane has been working on a number of projects reated to identifying standards reevant to shipbuiding incuding an indexing database, a study of word cass shipbuiding standards, methodoogies for adapting foreign standards, and a soon-to-be-funded project, , Ship Designers Handbook - Cross Reference of Standards. 6. Support Conversion of the U.S. Shipbuiding Industry to the Metric System. Objectives: a. Proceed with the FY 92 metrication project. b. Write new standards, and updates of existing ones, using the metric system. Specific Action Areas: a. Require SP-6 projects that dea with any units of measure to be written metric first (U.S. Customary Units second), simiar to the SNAME pubication requirements, and recommend to the SPC that it require the same. b. Impement the Presidentia Executive Order that requires changeover to the metric system. c. Impement recommendations of the FY 92 Metrication project. Discussion of Conversion to the Metric System The Pane proceeded with the 1992 metrication project and, athough the Pane has itte effect on new standards, most new or recenty revised U.S : standards are written metric frost anyway, with U.S. Customary units in parentheses. The specific action items have not been foowed by any positive action. 7. DeveIop a Marketing Strategy for the Pan. Objectives: b. c. d. Action: a. b. c. d. Give the Pan visibiity. Deveop high eve support. Give the Standards program an identity (Initiative #). Adopt continuing initiatives into the SP-6 Charter. UMTRI, SCA or SP-6 Program Manager. Mai the Pan directy to shipyard engineering VPs, ASTM F-25 Chairman, USCG Technica Division (G-MTH) head, and other identified key payers. SP-6. Conduct an impementation workshop at a Pane meeting. Have an SP-6 officer or representative present the Pan at SCA, ECB and F-25 meetings. NSRP Management. Take steps to deveop an identity for the NSRP, such as estabishing a etterhead, a singuar address and phone number for communications reference (Initiative #), and a dedicated fu time administrative contact person. 5

13 U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan Update Discussion on Marketing the Pan The Pan has been used within the Pane as a reference too for deveoping research projects and as a gauge to judge where the Pane is in its impementation of the Pan. The Pan was aso used as a reference when the SP-6 Pane made Charter revisions in The initia distribution of the Pan was widespread and impementation workshops were effectivey conducted every time it was used as a reference for other work. Presentation of the Pan at SCA, ECB, and F-25 meetings, and deveoping an identity for the NSRP, were ofty goas beyond that project. 8. Adopt or Convert Existing Goba Standards for Domestic Use. Objectives: Action: Provide easier domestic approva of equipment buit to foreign standards. b. Increase domestic abiity to buid commercia vesses for a goba market. c. Reduce the time and cost to buid ships. Short Term (one to two years) Support the standards equivaency project. b. Identify foreign shipbuiders commercia standards that may be avaiabe for purchase. c. Fuy support the IS0 TAG so that IS0 standards are directy acceptabe for U.S. commercia vesses. Discussion of Goba Standards NSRP Projects (NSRP 0438) and (NSRP 0489) have worked on the approva of equipment buit to foreign standards. Meeting the objectives of increasing the domestic abiity to buid commercia vesses for a goba market and reducing the time and cost to buid ships is an ongoing objective that shoud be buit into a NSRP projects, as it is a major goa of the NSRP. The Pane supports the IS0 TAG in principa but is not invoved directy enough to affect the standards. SURVEY ANALYSIS The survey conducted for this Master Pan Update project was simiar to the survey done for the 1992 Master Pan project. The first four pages of the survey were the same to see if there were any changes in perceptions between the ast project and the update. The fina four pages were used to eicit new data. The survey and the numerica resuts are in Appendix A. There were no statisticay significant differences in responses between the 1992 Master Pan survey and that same part of the atest survey for the update project. Participants in both surveys were from many different professiona backgrounds, incuding sma commercia buiders, arge miitary buiders, government yards and design houses. There was no attempt to categorize the data or to draw different concusions from the resuts, based on the types of backgrounds groups of respondents represented. Personne have moved around between various jobs, often between different shipyards, and the responses show that the respondents represented both their current empoyers and their respective backgrounds. A number of written comments made note of the differences in participants and expected resuts, and some of those comments are noteworthy. One respondent suggested that the resuts be reported according to the type of yard the respondent was representing. Individuas were supposed to respond as representatives of their respective companies, but many resuts show that was not the case. With ony 27 respondents, separating the resuts was not considered practica. I

14 U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan Update There are distinct differences in the types of standards isted for comparison. Some are reguations (EPA, USCG CFRS), some from cassification societies (ABS, DNV), and others are vountary (ASTM, ANSI). However, there are shades of overapping appicabiity. Coast Guard standards do not appy to foreign ships except for those cruise ships carrying passengers from U.S. ports and a foreign vesses carrying oi as cargo or fue. Other standards are vountary unti they are invoked by ABS, NAVSEA, or the USCG as part of a requirement or reguation. The histograms in the Appendix give a comparative anaysis of the 1992 survey and the 1995 survey. The Product and Process Matrix (Appendix A-19) presented some interesting resuts in reating standards to the products produced in the various stages of ship production, and the many different processes used to create them. In the design process, functiona and detai design were considered as infuenced by standards. A the production processes except for materia movement were considered as infuenced by standards. On the operations side, test and inspection procedures, quaity contro and assurance, and the purchasing of outfitting are infuenced by standards. The evauation of SP-6 projects by peope cosey reated to standards was somewhat different than that presented by an independent PTSRP project (NSRP 0401), athough statistica information is not presented in NSRP 0401 for a fu comparison. A comparison of the differences is on page A-16. The survey respondents expressed a number of different opinions. Some indicate that the probems that SP-6 is trying to sove, for exampe, getting basic information about standards out to the shipyards, are sti probems for some yards. A number of written comments are reproduced in the Appendix. BasicaIy, the survey resuts need to be studied methodicay to get a sense for the information presented. TACTICAL PLAN The SP-6 Tactica Pan (Appendix C) was produced as a too for impementing the Master Pan and the Workshop. It was competed in ate 1995 as an unpubished NSRP specia project. It ooks beyond the practica anaysis performed by this report and gets into some of the phiosophica probems that continue to hamper shipbuiding standards deveopment. That pan is sef expanatory and needs no additiona expanation here. CONCLUSIONS The 1992 Standards Master Pan was fairy cose to the mark in its deveopment of initiatives needed for an effective shipbuiding standards program. It worked we with the Workshop as a working reference for the SP-6 program. As anayzed by this report and the Tactica Pan, there are sti a number of unresoved issues for the shipbuiding and marine standards community to address. The future work program of the Pane, both through funded projects and sma concentrated workshops within the Pane, shoud serve to sove most of the addressabe probems. The phiosophica probems identified by the TacticaI Pan must be addressed on a higher eve as aid out in that document.

15 Appendix A 1995 Shipbuiding Standards Survey and Resuts 1995 Survey Form A-1 to A Survey Resuts (for comparison) Questions A Survey Resuts Questions 1 to 5 and 8 to 13 Taies A-12 Question 1 Domestic, Bar Chart A-13 Question 1 Internationa, Bar Chart A-14 Question 13 Bar Chart A-15 Question 14 Taies A-16 Questions 15,16, and 18 Taies A-17 Question 16 Bar Chart A-18 Question 17 Matrix A-19 Question 6 Written Responses A-20 Question 7 Written Responses A-21 Other Written Comments A-22 Extensive Written Comments of Wayne Wayne A-25 Question 5 Comparison to 92 Resuts A-30 Question 12 Comparison to 92 Resuts A-31

16 SURVEY U.S. SHIPBUILDING STANDARDS MASTER PLAN UPDATE In order to ensure consistent interpretations, pease refer to the foowing definition that may be refined through the Master Pan project. Suggested modifications are wecome. STANDARDS: Prescribed designs, processes, rues and procedures to be used in repeatabe operations to ensure a predetermined eve of performance, quaity and safety. For the purpose of this survey these may incude those designs, processes, rides and procedures deveoped both specificay for shipbuiding as we as those deveoped for industria processes in genera and adapted to shipbuiding. 1. There are many sources of standards which infuence our industry. Of those isted beow, pease rate their appicabiity to shipbuiding, technica content and charity, using the foiowing scae 3- Exceent 2- Satisfactory 1- Unsatisfactory NA - Not famiiar with or do not use ANSI ASTM EPA MILSPECS NAVSEA USCG CFR S USCG NVIC S USPHS INTERNATIONAL- FOREIGN STDS BMT DIN DNV %2 MO 1S0 JIS APPLICABILITY TECHNICAL 2. Are there any of the above isted standards that you generay prefer to work with? YES (Pease ist them) NO *abbreviations are defined on ast page University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 1 A-1

17 Shipbuiding Standards Survey On your next ship new construction, repair, or overhau contract, woud you ike to see the specifications written using: _ More standards? _ Less standards? Assuming ship s specifications were written using more standards, in what area woud you prefer to see them? Pease number in order of preference, with #1 being the highest priority. Quaity assurance Design of shipboard structure and systems Procured components and materias Construction processes Other, pease specify Standards generay evoke a wide range of opinions amongst users, some of which are isted beow. Pease review them and annotate them using the foowing scae: 4 - Strongy agree 3 - Agree 2 - Disagree 1 - Strongy disagree U.S. SHIPBUILDING STANDARDS AS THEY ARE TODAY stife creativity and innovation reduce repetitious processes and make us more efficient are something we have no contro over refect state-of-the-art practices don t appy to the type of work we do protect us as shipbuiders are deveoped with the shipbuider and profitabiity in mind recognize sufficienty the differences and simiarities between commercia and Navy ships support us in the internationa marketpace create more bureaucracy than they re worth are we organized and coordinated are easiy accessibe and understandabe are sufficient in number and scope to meet our needs Out of the above ist, seect the opinion you fee most strongy positive about and comment briefy upon it. 7. Out of the above ist, seect the opinion you fee most strongy negative about and comment briefy about it, incuding suggestions for corrective action. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 2 A-2

18 Shipbuiding Standards Survey The NSRP has sponsored the deveopment of Shipbuidng Standards through the American Society for Testing and Materias (ASTM) Committee F-25, which has pubished a voume of some 100 specifications and practices. Does your shipyard use these standards as a reguar practice? _YES _ ONLY WHEN INVOKED ON A SHIP S SPECIFICATIONS _ NO Has the seection of subject matter of the ASTM Shipbuiding Standards been appropriate to your needs? _YES _ NO _ SOMEWHAT If you answered NO or SOMEWHAT, what subjects woud you ike to see more emphasis on? 10. Did you find the technica content of the individua ASTM Shipbuiding Standards to be appropriate (economicay producibe, sufficienty detaied, using the atest materias and technoogy)? _YES _ NO _ SOMEWHAT If you answered NO or SOMEWHAT, what specificay about the content woud you ike to see changed? 11. How does your shipyard utiize standards? Pease check a that appy. Use them ony as they appy to current contracts Work with standards writing (ASTM, ASME, SAE, etc.) and reguatory (ABS, USCG, etc.) bodies in the deveopment of industry standards Maintain a ibrary of industry standards in-house with assigned personne to administer them Have an assigned function within the shipyard for the deveopment of company standards (which may be based upon industry standards) Others University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 3 A-3

19 Shipbuiding Standards Survey 12. Pease indicate beow the eve of utiity your company gains from the types of standards isted: SOME MUCH NONE 1. Engineering standards describing how design and engineering data is deveoped and dispayed. 2. Materia standards defining purchased items that are preferred. 3. Production standards describing methods for performing repetitive tasks. 4 Design standards which are drawings for items or assembies which appear severa times in a ship s design. 13. I recommend that a future program of U.S. Shipbuiding Standards might incude the foowing concepts: Pease rate the concepts beow using the foowing scae: H - High Priority M -Medium priority L - LOW priority An index and centra repository of a approved U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Deveopment and consoidation of existing standards that have both commercia and miitary appications Deveopment of equivaencies, internationa and foreign to U.S. standards Adoption of Internationa and foreign standards to repace and/or suppement domestic standards Estabishment of a standards cearinghouse to coordinate and administer shipbuiding standards Other (respondent s choice) 14. Standards reated reports on fie at the NSRP ibrary are isted in Appendix A. Pease identify your famiiarity with them and rate them regarding their vaue (1 = ow, 5 = high). 15. The current Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan is NSRP If you are somewhat famiiar with that report, pease continue. Otherwise, skip to question 16. Are you happy with the format of that report? _YES _ NO If no, pease indicate what changes you woud ike to see in the updated pan. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 4 A-4

20 Shipbuiding Standards Survey Appendix B ists the Internet Home pages of a number of organizations that write or manage standards. Do you have access to the Internet? _YES _ No Are you famiiar with any of these organizations? _ YES If you answered yes, pease indicate which ones you are famiiar with. _ NO Appendix C is a matrix that reates shipbuiding products to the processes used to produce them. Pease identify where you fee standards are highy infuentia (5), of itte importance (), or somewhere in between. Appendix D is a brief expanation of the product and process areas. A Compendium of Shipbuiding Standards" was produced (NSRP 0361) in 1992 as a reationa database index to marine reated standards. Are you famiiar with that report? _ Y-Es _ NO Have you used the computerized database? _ YES _ NO If yes, are you happy with the format of the database _ YES What format or fieds woud you ike to see in the updated database? _ NO 19. Pease add any additiona comments here or on an additiona sheet. SUBMITTED: COMPANY: NAME TITLE: A responses wi be hed in the strictest confidence by the University of Michigan. Thank you for your time and thought in competing this survey. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 5 A-5

21 NSRP # TITLE DATE Pubished FAMILIARITY (-5) RATING (-5) 0042 Propusion Pant Feasibiity Study Report - Subtask I, Forecast for Propusion June Pant Standards Propusion Pant Feasibiity Study Report - Subtask II, Technica Anaysis and January Determination of Standards Candidates Propusion Pant Feasibiity Study Report - Subtask III, Economic Anaysis of February Seected Standards Candidates Executive Summary - Propusion Pant Standards Feasibiity Study June Ship Producibiity Task S-1 - Propusion Pant Standards Feasibiity Study June Fina Report - Propusion Pant Standards Feasibiity Study August Standard Structura Juy Executive Summary - Feasibiity of Shipbuiding Standards October Castine Report S-15 Project - Shipbuiding Standards October A Compendium of Shipbuiding Standards - Consoidated Piot Phase Report October Interim Report on Subtask I - Reguatory Body and Cassification Body Shipbuiding Standards Interim Report on Subtask III - Foreign Shipbuiding Standards 0088 A Compendium of Shipbuiding Standards - Index to Shipbuiding Reguations Apri and Standards Interim Report on Subtask II - Industria Standards in Shipbuiding Use May A Compendium of Shipbuiding Standards - Fina Report September Wed Defect Toerance Study June Nationa Shipbuiding Standards Program Status Report No. 1 June Nationa Shipbuiding Standards Program Status Report No. 2 November 1980 Appendix A-1 (of the Survey) A-6 (of the Master Pan Update Report)

22 NSRP DATE FAMILIARITY` RATING # Pubished (-5) (-5) 0126 Navy Wed Defect Toerance Study March Nationa Shipbuiding Standards Program Status Report No. 3 November Recommended U.S. Shipbuiding Standards Program Long Range Pan - Fina February Report IHI Marine Technoogy Consensus QA/QC Acceptance Standards November Jigs and Fixtures Handbook Deveopment August Feasibiity Study for the Commerciaization of U.S. Navy GENSPECS Juy Edition Computerized Appication of Standards Marine Industry Standards Panning Workshop 0349 Baoting of Hu and Mechanica Standards June Standard Practice for the Seection and Appication of Marine Deck Coverings Juy Navy Document Conversion Program Project - Pipe Fanges May Shipyard Standards Program Deveopment Guide October United States Shipbuiding Standards Master Pan October Computerized Compendium of Standards December Providing Administrative Support to the U.S. TAGroup in its Participation on December the ISO Committee on Ships and Marine Technoogy Metrication of U.S. Shipbuiding - The Chaenges and the Opportunities October, Benefit Anaysis of SPC Pane SP-6 Projects and Evauation of SPC Pane November SP-6 Management and Administration 1993 Appendix A-2 (of the Survey) A-7 (of the Master Pan Update Report)

23

24 PRODUCT and PROCESS MATRIX interim Outfitting Hu Products Structure Concept Preiminary Functiona Detaied Fabrication Precesses Joining and ASsemby Processes Surface Treatment and Coating Materia Movement N D E s I G N P R O D U C T I O Testing/nspection High Leve Resource Panning and Scheduing Production Engineering Purchasing / Procurement Shop Foor Resource Panning and Scheduing Quaity Contro & Assurance O P E R A T I O N S M A N A G E M E N T Standards are: Highy Infuentia Moderatey Infuentia Somewhat Infuentia Of Minima Infuence Not Reated APPENDIX C (of the 95 Survey) A-9 (of the Master Pan Update Report)

25 PRODUCT ORIENTED CATEGORIES Structure Primary and secondary structure incuding she, deck and superstructure. Outfitting Equipment, services and systems instaed in and on a ship, incuding piping, machinery and mechanica systems, HVAC, eectrica, hu fittings. Interim Products 0utfit packages, system bundes, paetized parts, sub-assembies, assembies, hu bock and grand bock construction schemes. FUNCTIONAL PROCESS AREAS Conceptua/Preiminar y Design The initia design stages for a new vesse, in which genera characteristics and basic system requirements are defined. Functiona Design Second stage of ship design, primary structure scantings, compartment ayouts, distributed system diagrams, primary space arrangements; incudes transition design in which initia design and outfitting zones are defined. Detaied Design Detaied structura and systems design, detaied cacuations, systems integration, detaied product mode, and production documentation incuding bis of materias, fabrication and assemby eve drawings, and sketches. Fabrication Processes Part fabrication, incuding eveing/straightening, marking, cutting, bending and forming, machining, casting and forging. Joining and Assemby Processes Joining and assemby, weding, mechanica joining and adhesives. Stages incude subassemby, assemby, bock erection and post erection instaations. Surface Treatment and Coating Incudes a preparatory and finish work, pre-production priming, basting and ceaning, residue coection and ceanup, painting, and finish painting. Materia Contro A aspects of materia identification, moving, kitting, paetizing, storing and disposa. Incudes both hardware and software support of materia handing and tracking. Testing/Inspection Incudes wed inspections, visua inspections, pipe hydro test, ventiation pressure, compartment tests, compartment competion inspections, and grounding and EMI tests. High-Leve Resource Panning and Scheduing Incudes buid strategy deveopment, miestone panning, bock production, test and inspection schedues, trias and deivery. Production Engineering The interface between design and production, detaied panning, definition of work packages, product work breakdown structure, CAD/CAM interface. Purchasing/Procurement Materia ordering, procurement and suppier reations, bi of materias, vendor furnished information, and processing and tracking of purchase orders. Shop Foor Resource Panning and Scheduing Issues not incuded in high eve panning, incudes shop foor and process ane ayouts, equipment and personne scheduing, abor and/or cost contro, job statusing, machine sequencing and shop capacity panning. Quaity Contro and Assurance, SQC A aspects of quaity assurance from design, through production, deveopment of dimensiona toerances, reference ine systems, distortion contro, dimensiona data gathering, statistica process contro and statistica quaity contro. APPENDIX D (of the 95 Survey) A-10 (of the Master Pan Update Report)

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34 17. PRODUCT and PROCESS MATRIX SURVEY RESULTS interim Hu Products Outfitting Structure Conceptua /Preiminary Functiona Detaied Fabrication Processes Joining and Assemby Processes Surface Treatment and Coating Materia Movement Testing/Inspection High Leve Resource Panning and Scheduing Production Engineering Purchasing / Procurement Shop Foor Resource Panning and Scheduing Quaity Contro & Assurance O P E R A T I O N S D E S I G N P R O D U C T 1 O N M A N A G E M E N T Standards are: Highy Infuentia 5 Moderatey Infuentia 4 Somewhat Infuentia 3 Of Minima Infuence 2 Not Reated 1 A-19

35 QUESTION 6 WRITTEN RESPONSES The buets beow are written responses reated to the ist of opinions in Question 5. Underined words are keys to the opinion to which the comments are reated if indicated by the comments. Question 6 - Comment on the opinion you fee most strongy about. Improved efficiency is critica to the success of U.S. shipbuiding. Standards are a usefu shorthand for communicating with customers - make us more efficient. Reduce rerpetitious processes, a good standard wi aow a process to do severa simiar but unreated activities with ess setup and peope. Standardization at the component or [for] entry eve parts, are essentia to reducing costs and providing competitive products - don t confuse this with reguation. Standards are a necessary evi and in need of reform. Less of [them] and more universa [appication is needed]. One set for both pubic and private. Create more bureaucracy. Standards tend to add cost for unknown or unforeseen interpretations due to unfamiiarity at working eves. As standards are revised, the orientation to common satisfactory products for mature technoogy is a great savings. Standards for deveopmenta items must be performance/first principe oriented. The U.S. shipbuiding industry HAS NO STANDARDS. The standards currenty in use have been imposed by NAVSEA, USCG and others. [Lack of] Participation by shipbuiders in the process of deveoping a core base of marine standards verges on crimina negigence. Reduce repetitious processes - [especiay] piping component ratings and acceptance. Having reorganized standards eiminates the ongoing, boring acceptance process. It aso aows making designs where confidence in acceptance is justified. Standards, recent and currenty under deveopment, are hepfu to profitabiity. Standards do not generay refect state of the art practices because the estabishment of a standard takes so ong is it sometimes out of date before it s pubished. Using standards heps guide designers and shipbuiders in producing products which are most in ine with our customer s expectation. They create probems when our customers do not understand products that are equa to or better than the products defined by the standard. Standards are a key in reducing abor hours and minimizing materia cost. Support us in internationa market. Most standards are mispec based and therefore create more bureaucracy than they re worth. Standardization shoud be pursued more vigorousy where it can reduce costs when weighed on a tota (ship) ife cyce basis, but shoud permit fexibiity. They provide a common, objective standard for evauating work performed. Standards refect considerabe accumuated experience and essons earned, thus making it unnecessary to reinvent the whee (reduce repetitious processes) in many processes. Certainy reduce repetitious processes and make us more efficient. The probem for commercia shipbuiding is not a ack of standards, but a consoidated, agreed to, one of a kind isting of standards that a [buiders] utiize for consistency, cost and time efficiency. Are easiy accessibe and understandabe. With IHS databases it is much easier to identify and obtain copies of standards than before. A- 20

36 QUESTION 7 WRITTEN RESPONSES Question 7 - Comment on the opinion you fee most strongy negative about. Standards need to be better codified The standards we use and commony encounter do appy to the work we re doing. However, there are many standards - remaining aware of those which are new (or new to us, or revised) is a continuous issue. Standards do appy to the type of work we re doing, commercia or miitary. Deveoped with shipbuider in mind-shipyards have deveoped a set of their [own] standards but are not shared in a way to capture a market which a yards can benefit. Reguatory standards tend to over specify and over reguate design soutions [stife creativity] negating the opportunity to find innovative and creative soutions. We have too many standards that are often not reay required. Refect state of the art. Many standards take so ong to famiiarize [with] that technoogy has passed us by. Foreign standards tend to be fexibe enough to aow for new products. Standards are useess uness hinged on the process. U.S. shipbuidng process is inefficient so using even the best standards woud not change profits upwards. The tower of baba of standards in the U.S. is a severe probem for industry internationa competitiveness, commercia/navy integration and a severe hindrance to cost effectiveness. Standards are not we organized or coordinated. Suuport us in the internationa market. Very few of our standards support us in this market. We often use u and no one knows how this compares with iec. More fexibiity is possibe with internationay with eectrica equipment in hazardous areas. The U.S. standards effort is not we organized. Our industry has to somehow pick one organization and support it. Standards create bureaucracy uness they are cear, accepted and generay appied; otherwise, reguation and appication become bureaucratic. Standards do not provide protection. The industry has a proiferation of standards but no contro over their content or organization. Are sufficient in number. Mispec [based] standards are not competitive for the internationa market. Standards shoud not be infexibe to the point that they inhibit creativity. Too many and too diverse - need consoidation and organization into ogica arrays. Standards can ag state of the art because of sow approva/change processes to change standards compared with reativey quick change in the state of the art in certain [other] industry segments. Standards used by most U.S. yards are miitary which are generay very non-producibe and out of date. Need to continue and strengthen adoption of commercia standards. Shipbuiding standards are appicabe and are ignored at our peri. We as an industry need to have contro of what standards we shoud utiize, identify them and then utiize them as a marketing too to compete intemationay. Most standards are not we organized and coordinated. A- 21

37 OTHER WRITTEN COMMENTS 4. Assuming ship s specifications were written using more standards, in what area woud you prefer to see them? Other - Performance of Equipment - but more so of ship systems. I wish SNAME T&R buetins were maintained ŽPartnering per Associated Genera Contractors of America. 9. What [ASTM] subjects woud you ike to see more emphasis on? Construction practices We need equivaent materia and process contro specifications to aow satisfactory repacement of outdated MiSpecs. Ž Shipboard automation, eectrica cabes, fire protection incuding structura. Ž Standards that actuay support shipbuiding and enhance profitabiity. Ž More conversion or acceptance of internationa standards. When based on internationa standards, state differences and simiarities [to the internationa standards]. Have annexes that suggest sampe user options of suppy requirements, i.e. Navy, USCG, ABS, commercia, etc. High cost compex equipment and contros for eectrica and propusion pant. Whie the subject matter has been appropriate, the standards generay do not refect equipment that is avaiabe in the market. More standard practices as opposed to hard and fast standards. Limit is not [the] standards, but appication of those to miitary contracts. Subjects and items identified by SP Did you find the technica content of the ASTM Shipbuiding Standards to be appropriate? There is some fear that during conversion of MiSpecs, miitary requirements wi be embedded which may not be appicabe to commercia appications. ASTM standards poory communicate information because of continuous references to other standards. ASTM standards are aso subject to the whims of producers of components that are not concerned with the economic constraints paced on shipbuiders. The earning curve is difficut - there shoud be a summary and intent avaiabe somewhere. For exampe, the new piping component standards are treacherous (MABs, Victauic coupings, etc.) The standards often ag behind the commercia work pace and can inhibit adoption of more cost effective products and processes. The modification process needs to be faster. Inefficient methods and materias specified, no room for shipbuider to make producibiity adjustments. Performance and interface standards are not emphasized enough. They are not designed to compete with JIS, etc. Major drivers need to be simpicity, cost, producibiity. ASTM paces too much emphasis on number of standards produced than the usefuness of its standards. A- 22

38 OTHER WRITTEN COMMENTS How does your shipyard utiize sandards? Other. To identify aternative approaches. We constanty perform equivaences for reguatory acceptance and pan approva. Use standards as they appy, even if not specificay caed out for a specific design or anaysis task. Internationa infuence. I recommend that a future program of U.S. Shipbuiding standards incude: Other Deveop a program to repace MiSpecs Agreements for copyright restrictions to be eased for on-iine promugation of viewing and using standards. Estabishment of equivaency is ess important than the acceptance of foreign standards reguating authorities. Identification of approved ABS and USCG equipment/sytems and vendors which can be used as standards. Deveop overa industry metrics vis-a-vis concurrent engineering pus goba benchmarks. Changes you woud ike to see in the updated Standards Master Pan. Strongy address the need for coordinated standards deveopment process between a parties. Separate Navy-combatant, Navy-noncombatant, and pure commercia. For commercia you shoud coordinate with [SP-6 project ] Address shipyard needs for organization, forma approach within the company What format or fieds woud you ike to see in the updated database? I don t think SWBS numbers are of much hep. The database woud be more hepfu if it had abstracts. I aso ike the format of the database Perinorm index - it shows reated standards. Subject/ key word searching, Appicabiity to Navy, commercia, etc. This shoud bean interactive internet homepage with hypertext retrieva of appicabe standards. See the CFR server as an exampe. Additiona Comments. Having worked as an engineering manager and nava architect, I am shocked at the number of standards isted with which I am unfamiiar. Is this uncommon? Am I out of touch? We organize our standards by the pubishing body. Is this Compendium of Shipbuiding Standards avaiabe on disk? How can we become aware of muti-source standards which may appy to a given specified need? Things are moving too fast to reease periodic reports and databases. Use of interactive internet homepages with hypertext retrieva of appicabe standards is the ony way I see out of this. In order to maintain current with standards, I spend $25K for subscriptions to CD-ROM s, paper and microfiche and have a fu time administrator. This is an awesome burden for a singe nava architecture firm. A- 23

39 OTHER WRITTEN COMMENTS 19. Additiona Comments. (cont d) I think an effort shoud be made to understand the basic internationa standards and work program first - IEC, ISO, IMO. Then focus on major area standards DIN, JIS. Due to the arge gaps in the inventory of Canadian standards, Canadian companies have become adept at using standards from any internationa source which has a reputation in the industry. The avaiabiity, athough hepfu, is not essentia in the internationa market for commercia ships. The critica factor is one of repute and acceptance by owners and reguatory authorities. Nationa poitica attitudes may require nationa standards to be avaiabe. As a ong time member of NSRP SPC SNAME Pane SP-4 on Design/Production Integration, I appreciate the vita necessity and desirabiity of good standards. Keep up the good work! I A- 24

40 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Attn: A. W. Horsman Senior Engineering Research Associate Marine System Division 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, MI Subj: SHIPBUILDING STANDARDS SURVEY NAVSEA 03W Jefferson Davis Hwy Arington, VA NOV 1995 I have decided that it woud be inappropriate for me to answer the shipbuiding standards survey forwarded by your etter of 19 October 1995 for the foowing reasons: (a) The survey is obviousy aimed at shipbuiders (b) The survey fais to ist many of the organizations which deveop standards suitabe for use in the shipbuiding industry. (c) The survey is poory constructed and to provide answers without quaification can resut in miseading resuts However, I wi make a few comments regarding the survey and U.S. Shipbuiding Standards. 1. Sources of Standards. Organizations other than those isted deveop standards which are appicabe to ships and ship systems. For exampe, American Society of Mechanica Engineers, Nationa Fuid Power Association, Nationa Fire Protection Association, SAE. The isting of foreign standards is simiary isted. As a minimum, the survey shoud have provided space to Write in organizations not isted. ANSI does not deveop standards. Standards deveoped by other organizations are submitted by other organizations for consideration for adoption by ANSI as U. S. nationa standards. Whie NAVSEA deveops specification and standards they are issued as Federa Specifications and Standards, Miitary Specifications and Standards and as Commercia Item Descriptions. The ony one of these isted on the survey is MILSPECS. Metric documents have designated as DoD Specifications and Standards. Many of the NAVSEA deveoped specifications and standards have been coordinated with other DoD and government agencies. The survey asks one to ist the appicabiity, technica content and carity of standards produced by the isting organization. Appicabiity: I see itte sense in rating appicabiity. Obviousy, ABS, MARAD and USGG documents wi have a high rate of appicabiity. On the A-25

41 other hand Miitary Specifications cover many appications other than ships. However, many organizations issue documents that appicabe to the shipbuiding industry. The industry must identify the appicabe documents. This survey is not constructed to do that. Technica Content and Carity: Again, every organization issues exceent and poor standards. Of the miitary specifications under the cognizance of NAVSEA are some of the best and some of the worst specifications that have been issued. I can aso make the same statement about standards issued by a number of industry organizations. Some organizations have many committees preparing document and some committees do a much better job than other committees within the same organization. Some organizations have better contros than others to make sure that a opinions are considered and propery resoved. 2. Preference. The survey asks if there are any of the above standards that one generay prefers to work with. As chairman of the SAE Ship Systems and Equipment Committee, I naturay have some bias for documents under the cognizance of that committee. However, within the Committee we reference documents prepared by other organizations when we fee that they are technicay superior to simiar SAE documents. I seect documents for use based on their technica content, not the issuing organization. 3. More or ess standards? Whie this question is directed toward shipyard personne, I wi repy. In order to ower shipbuiding costs, we need more standardization. For components we need standardized configurations to ensure interchangeabiity and promote competition. However, more important than the number of standards is the quaity of standards. Invoking poor standards can increase costs and hinder product improvement. Good standards where they exist shoud be invoked. 4. Preferred areas for more standards. My persona preference is system and component standards but that may be a persona bias since areas I normay work with. 5. Comments on various opinions: 4 Strongy agree 3-Agree 2-Disagree -Strongy disagree for more those are U.S. Shipbuiding Standards as they are today: stife creativity and innovation Poor standards wi have this resut. Good standards shoud have minimum impact. 3 reduce repetitious processes and make us more efficient 1 are something we have no contro over 2 refect state of the are practices unfortunatey, many of the standards are obsoete. In genera, the deveopment and revision of standards is a sow process. Good specifications wi refect the state of the art. 1 don t appy to the type of work we do 2 protect us as shipbuiders 2 are deveoped with the shipbuider and profitabiity in mind 2 recognize sufficienty the differences and simiarities between commercia and Navy ships support us in the internationa market pace create more bureaucracy than they re worth A-26

42 2 are we organized and coordinated - Unfortunatey, many standards are not we organized and coordinated. Many miitary specifications fa in this category in spite of a framework that exists to ensure that they are propery organized and coordinated. NAVSEA has not done a good job in foowing DoD requirements for specification organization and coordination. I know of exampes where changes have been made on the suggestion of one company with a proprietary interest without any coordination or review. 3 are easiy accessibe and understandabe With IHS databases it is much easier to identify and obtain copies of standards than it once was. It wi be even easier in the future. Most standards are understandabe. Of course there are exceptions. 2 are sufficient in number and scope to meet our needs There are a arge number of standards avaiabe but there are many more that are needed. Aso there are many that shoud be canceed. I have seen standards organizations retain standards that 90 to 95% of the committee members think shoud be canceed because one or two peope objected. Interface standards that ensure interchangeabiity are often acking and the most difficut to deveop. 6&7. Comment on the opinions you fe most strongy positive and negative about. Since I expressed an opinion about a number of comment I wi skip these questions. 8., 9. & 10. These questions about ASTM Shipbuiding Standards are specificay addressed to shipyards. Briefy, I' address the genera subject. I don t generay invoke ASTM shipbuiding standards. In genera, I have not been impressed with their quaity. In some cases, ASTM has taken on work to convert a miitary specification to an ASTM specification without anyone on the committee with expertise in the subject of the specification. The resut is garbage in - garbage out. In the area of fuid power systems and components the standards have not been appropriate to my needs. ASTM Committee F-25 shoud not undertake projects uness they have severa experts in the project subject deveoping the standard. 11. How do I utiize standards? x I invoke them in shipbuiding and overhau specifications both in a mandatory manner and for guidance x I have worked with ASME, ASTM, SAE, Nationa Fuid Power Association, ANSI, USA Technica Advisory Groups to ISO in the deveopment and review of standards. I have served as a U.S. technica expert at ISO meetings. I prepare and review miitary standards. I review approximatey 200 standards per year. x I do maintain fies of various miitary, industry and ISO standards which are used by engineers within the same Division. x I do have an assigned function to deveop standards for fasteners and hydrauic components. 12. N/A 13. Future Program of U.S. Shipbuiding Standards a. The first item deas with the concept of and index and repository of a approved U.S. Shipbuiding Standards. The question does not address who woud deveop the index and approve the standards. With current computer bases it is easy to search for standards on a particuar subject. Many different A-27

43 organizations write standards which may be appicabe to the shipbuiding industry. Currenty, the technoogy exists to make them readiy avaiabe to everyone without the need for a centra repository. The probems which must be resoved have to do with payment/compensation for obtaining the standards. I beieve that efforts to deveop an index of appicabe/approved standards is not a worthwhie project. Indexes take years to deveop and are obsoete before they are issued. With current data bases, I can in 5 minutes identify a the potentia standards of interest for a particuar subject. This concept rates ow priority in my thinking. b. The second item deas with the deveopment and consoidation of existing standards that have both commercia and miitary appications. The government has recognized the need for greater use of industry standards and minimizing the use of "miitary standards". Use of common standards is of a benefit to both the industry and the miitary. In some cases, miitary specifications have been abe to achieve greater standardization in configuration/interface standards than industry standards where configuration standardization becomes just too hard to achieve. Within industry, we often have more than one organization working on simiar standards unike many foreign countries with ony a singe nationa standards body. ANSI is the U.S. body that governs which industry standards become Nationa Standards. There needs to be greater cooperation between standards bodies to eiminate dupicate efforts. In genera, this concept deserves a higher priority rating. c. Deveopment of equivaences, internationa and foreign to U.S. Standards. I am not sure what is meant by this concept. We need to work with other countries to deveop internationa standards. There is not a need to deveop U.S. standards based on foreign standards. f we agree with the foreign standard, make it an internationa standard. If we then issue an equivaent U.S. standard that is satisfactory. On the other hand, if we don t agree with a foreign standard, we shoud deveop our own nationa standard and the work for its adoption as an internationa standard. d. Adoption of Internationa and foreign standards to repace and/or suppement domestic standards. Discussion immediatey above appies. I rate as medium priority. e. Estabishment of a standards cearinghouse to coordinate and administer shipbuiding standards. There may be some sort of a roe for an organization that provides some coordination of standards for the shipbuiding industry. However, there are aready estabished organizations which aready have a partia roe in this area. These are the U.S. Technica Advisory Committees to various ISO Technica Committees. With the arge number of organizations deveoping standards which are used in shipbuiding, I woud be reuctant to estabish another organization whose vaue is questionabe. I rate this as ow priority. 14. & 15. Insufficient famiiarity to rate. 16. Internet Famiiarity. I have access to internet and am famiiar with many of the organizations athough the survey indicates some unfamiiarity with the orgainzations and their reationships. A-28

44 ANSI/IEEE is not an organization. Standards which have been deveoped by an industry standards organization and adopted as a Nationa standard have been identified with an ANSI number or by ANSI/standards organization designation. The current practice is now to retain the initia standard number of the deveoping organization. Whie there are home pages for various federa and miitary standards these are not the names of the organizations deveoping the standards. It is beieved that other organizations not isted aso have home pages. 17. Infuence of Standards on Various Shipbuiding Products. I' eave this for the shipbuiders to answer. 18. Famiiarity with Compendium of Shipbuiding Standards Unfamiiar with document. 19. Additiona Comments. a. Standards deveopment. I fee that shipbuiders do not participate in the deveopment of standards to the degree that they shoud. This work often get ow priority. Ony when the standard is invoked on them do they review it carefuy. Unfortunatey, standards deveopment is often a sow process. Many shipyard managers do not fee that they can support attendance at meetings of standardization groups which meet severa times a year. At the same time, many of the groups are not effective in producing good and timey standards. For the most part, the standards are produced by vounteers with other priorities. Therefore, the non-government standard bodies have to offer benefits to attendees and deveop standards in an effective manner. b. My comments. The comments herein do not necessariy refect those of my empoyer, NAVSEA nor those of the SAE Ship Systems and Equipment Committee which I chair. This repy was compied on my own time and refects my personne opinions. These comments do not have to be hed in confidence and may be shared with others if you wish. You may foow this survey up with a teephone interview if you wish. Sincerey, Wayne K. Wicox Company: NAVSEA Tite: Head, Fastener and Hydrauic Component Standardization Phone: (703) X116 A-29

45