Product Data Interoperability Overview Critical Context for Today’s Capability Demonstration

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

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

3. National Shipbuilding Research Program A cost-sharing, collaborative, shipbuilding technology research consortium focused on reducing the cost of Navy shipbuilding and repair Formed at Navy request in 1997-1998 Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise • Attacks common cost-drivers and inherently multi-yard, multi-program problems • Unique legal mechanism avoids anti-trust concerns • High research-to-implementation transition rate • Documented shipbuilding cost reductions

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

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

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

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

8. Info Technology Ages Quickly 1987 1997 2006 NAVSEA CADDS 4x ISDP LEAPS Avondale CADAM (2-D) ISDP ISDP Bath Iron Works CADDS 4x CADDS 5 Catia 5 Electric Boat CADDS 4 Catia 4Mech award pends Ingalls Calma Dimension 3 Catia 5 NASSCO CADAM (2-D) Tribon Tribon Newport News Vivid Vivid Catia 4AEC … ships last a long time!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Information Interoperability Standards Roadmap

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

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

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

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