New Age Maintenance for New Age Carriers ENMA 605

New Age Maintenance for New Age Carriers:

Aircraft Carrier Maintenance for the Future

Donald Reinert

Nd23irish@yahoo.com

Old Dominion University

Engineering Management and Systems Engineering Department

ENMA 605 – Capstone Course

Instructor – Jesse L. Calloway Ph.D.

03 September 2021

Executive Summary

With the arrival of a new class of aircraft carrier comes the burden of maintenance. The purpose of this project is to provide a more cost effective and streamlined path for advanced repair of Gerald R. Ford class Aircraft Carriers for the current CVN-78 and future Ships of the same class. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was developed to move Naval Aviation into the 21st century, however multiple problems exist with respect maintenance. The class of carrier was designed to be the most advanced warfighting ship ever developed for the United States Navy. However, these technological advancements are extremely difficult to maintain and repair, traditional methods will simply not suffice. The objective of this project is to move the problem forward and create a more effective and efficient method to obtain material and develop a repair path for shipboard issues. This will problem spans multiple maintenance entities and levels. The general approach to solving this project will be to obtain the most updated information concerning the needs of maintenance providers and materials, then develop a plan to be implemented that addresses the shortcomings. Surveys were distributed to key maintenance supervisors, spanning several different maintenance fields. These surveys provide insight regarding the specific issues that these Subject Matter Experts face on a daily basis. Solutions to these shortcomings will allow maintenance practitioners to perform their jobs to the fullest. This project spans several Engineering Management topics including logistics, financial management, operations research, quality systems, and organizational systems. The outcome of this project provides a clearer, more concise path for maintenance repairs for the Gerald R. Ford. If formally accepted, it has the ability to drastically change the way maintenance is planned and executed for the entirety of the USS Gerald R. Ford Class.

Table of Contents

Introduction/Background 4

General Focus 6

Stakeholders 7

Importance of the problem 10

Project Definition 12

Significance 13

Project Approach 14

Project Design Overview 14

Specific Project Design 15

Project Management 16

Project design issues 17

Project results and Implications 19

Interpretation of data 19

Discussion of Project Deliverables 24

Recommendations/Project Results 25

Conclusion 26

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire 28

Appendix B: Acronyms 33

Appendix C: Program Assessment 39

References 49

Student Biographical Data 52

Disclaimer: Names of private corporate entities were withheld for legal reasons. Use of personal data, including names and official job titles, were granted prior to addition.

Background/Introduction

The previous class of aircraft carrier, the Nimitz class, has been in active service for almost 50 years. Over that time, the maintenance system was developed and honed to provide the needed services and material needed in a timely fashion. The Navy then decided it needed to move its Carrier fleet into the 21st century and re-design the Aircraft Carrier model to the newest technology. Considering the contract was awarded in 2008, design was started much earlier. It takes several years to design and receive approval for a government contract such as this. In essence, this means that this “advanced” equipment was designed with mid-90s technology, at best. Unfortunately, in the world of technology, 20 years can prove to make “advanced” technology essentially obsolete. When the government contracts private business entities to build the initial components for its ships, the designs are based on what is currently approved by the Navy. This means that the official components to be used may already be 10 years old. Today, maintenance providers are struggling to provide timely service with up-to-date materials. Maintenance repairs have also proven challenging for various entities. The procedures developed over the past 50 years are nearly obsolete, new practices must be developed. This hinges greatly on training and information sharing, of which private entities are not known to do well. This project focuses on the general maintenance and upkeep of ship’s systems.

General Focus

The general focus of this project is to identify issues plaguing maintenance efforts for Ford Class Aircraft Carriers and potentially develop a more cost-effective and streamlined path for advanced repair. By doing this, maintenance practitioners at all levels will be better equipped to perform their daily maintenance routines. Maintenance practitioners, at all levels, have expressed their frustration at the overwhelming difficulties surrounding repair efforts. Aircraft carrier maintenance is broken down by complexity, based on a level 1 through level 4 system. Level 4 maintenance is considered maintenance that can be performed by ship’s company with minimal outside assistance. Levels 2 and 3 are considered intermediate and technical assist maintenance, respectively. Level 1 maintenance is considered “depot” level maintenance and is without a doubt the most difficult. The focus of this paper will be on Levels 1 and 2. These levels have proven to be the most difficult levels to assess and correct. They also use the majority of repair parts, and need the most contracting assistance. This paper will focus primarily on materials, cost, contracting, and the logistics that are sorely lacking. The current “strategy” for maintenance tends to create extreme cost overruns. A more cost-effective solution is needed to ensure the Navy is being an apt steward for the taxpayers’ dollar (Zentz, 2021). To achieve this, a plan must be developed to ensure maintenance providers have the needed material, in an expedient manner, and the capabilities to repair the ship. This project will be limited to depot and intermediate level maintenance providers. It will also be limited to the providers that are currently experiencing the greatest difficulties, as a solution for them would provide a solution to the more minor issues as well. Ship’s Force maintenance training will be included in the final product. An assumption that all entities will communicate openly and truthfully will be made. These assumptions are made based on the idea that if these goals are attained, all other types of maintenance practices will follow suit. This project is designed to have aspects of both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Stakeholders

In general, stakeholders are groups such as employees, customers, suppliers, creditors, owners, and others who have a direct economic link to the firm (Gitman and Zutter, 2012). Primary stakeholders that are addressed by this project include ship’s company, intermediate level maintenance providers, and depot level maintenance providers. Those entities are responsible for the general maintenance and upkeep of ship’s systems. The individuals surveyed make up a unique cross-section of Subject Matter Experts in the field of Aircraft Carrier Maintenance.

Carrier Equipment Maintenance Assist Team (CEMAT): CEMAT responsibility covers a wide variety of systems and support. Mainly, they are responsible for mechanical and electrical maintenance assistance. Note, that they are an “assist” organization. This means that while they are working, they require Ship’s Force to work alongside them. By working alongside Ship’s Force, they are able to work the issue, while simultaneously providing training. They also have the ability to contract outside support, if needed. Two supervisors were surveyed for this paper, with nearly identical issues.

Elevator Support Unit (ESU): This division of skilled workers are solely dedicated to the repair of the various elevator systems throughout the ship. Like CEMAT, this organization is an “assist” organization, thereby providing training along with corrective measures. James Craig is the supervisor for this unit and was an integral part of the survey process used for this paper.

Private Sector Maintenance (PSM): Private Sector Maintenance is a contracting organization that has the ability to contract depot level work throughout the ship. Two supervisors were surveyed from this entity. While PSM is a government entity, it contracts private entities to perform maintenance onboard the ship.

Ship’s Company: The primary focus of all maintenance is to provide a fully-functioning ship for Ship’s company to operate, with minimal difficulties. All efforts provided by outside entities are designed to aid Ship’s company. While some entities are “assist” type organizations, the overall goal of a fully-functioning ship is the top priority.

Commander Naval Air Forces Atlantic (CNAL): Also known as the Type Commander (TYCOM), CNAL is the technical owner of all aircraft carriers for the east coast. Maintenance coordination and advanced parts support are primarily held by CNAL. When a repair becomes too difficult for Ship’s Company, a request for assistance is processed by CNAL. Each ship has their own “Triad”. This Triad consists of the Maintenance Program Manager, a Combat Systems Maintenance Coordinator, and a Ship’s Maintenance Coordinator. The Triad is responsible for validating the work, screening it to the appropriate repair facility, and brokering the effort.

Private Shipbuilder (PSB): The private shipbuilder is responsible for the original build of the ship, as well as depot level maintenance efforts prior to turning the ship over to government control. The private shipbuilder is paid contractually, per effort, with taxpayer funded money.

Public Shipyard: For all ship’s stationed at Norfolk Naval Station, the public shipyard is Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY). There are various divisions within NNSY that are tasked with the overall depot level repair of the ship when it has been officially turned over for government control. The public shipyard is paid with “mission man-days” that are allocated annually by the Navy. They are the primary maintenance activity for depot level maintenance after the ship is fully outfitted.

In-Service Engineering Agent (ISEA): The ISEA is responsible for technical engineering assistance. This includes many different aspects of the shipbuilding and maintenance process. Responsibilities include development of parts lists, engineering solutions to obsolete material, and in-service engineering and troubleshooting support. In a nutshell, this entity should be the first activity called when a problem arises. They are a level 2 organization.

Naval Surface Warfare Center-Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD): Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia is but one of several ISEAs for the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. NSWCPD supports approximately 75% of hull, machinery, and electrical areas. There are a few different divisions that fall under Naval Surface Warfare Center, the focus for this project is Philadelphia.

Program Executive Office (PEO) Carriers: PEO Carriers has the responsibility of initial ship’s build, as well as funding class-wide upgrades. The Program Office receives it’s funding directly from Congress. This funding is a separate allocation of money than the funding used for maintenance. The difference lies in system acceptance. Once the Navy has received and accepted the ship’s build, PEO is no longer responsible for the upkeep of systems. This entity also owns and manages the various In-Service Engineering Agents (ISEAs).

Importance of the problem

The importance of this issue goes beyond the maintenance teams that work onboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. This issue is, in fact, a wicked problem. A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems (Wickedproblems.com, 2019). The underlying problems that are analyzed in this paper are all interconnected and not easily solved. However, for the purposes of this study, only a small sub-section of the overall issue will be analyzed. The analysis is limited; however, this problem contributes to severe cost overruns, material deficiencies, and a sizable degradation of morale. All stakeholders involved have expressed frustration with the current system. They are unable to provide timely repairs to the Ford Class.

The individuals tasked with repairs are also tasked to be proper stewards with taxpayer money. This ship class has proven to be extraordinarily expensive with regards to repair and procurement, thus creating severe cost overruns.

Project Definition

The specific purpose of this project is to identify provide a more cost effective and streamlined path for advanced repair of Gerald R. Ford class Aircraft Carriers. Material manufacturers are not providing the material necessary to enable repair, or in most cases, not providing a fit-form-function replacement for an obsolete component. This “strategy” for maintenance tends to create extreme cost overruns. A more cost-effective solution is needed to ensure the Navy is being an apt steward for the taxpayer’s dollar. The overall objective is to analyze the current data and provide a strategic path to solve these issues.

The primary objective is to determine paths to cost savings. This will be analyzed by comparing the current product with the desired outcome. To do this, analysis of supply chain logistics, training product cost, and obsolescence cost will be scrutinized.

The first secondary objective is to find the most stream-lined path for maintenance providers to work, without impedance, onboard the USS Gerald R. Ford and future carriers. This objective looks at the integrated logistic products that are needed to accomplish higher level maintenance.

The final objective is to determine the best path to provide “expert” analysis of problems that are beyond our current maintenance capability. This objective will look at Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) support, its contracting needs, and how to speed up the process of bringing their expert advice to bear when needed.

While this problem could very easily expand to include more layers of issues, the problem scope will be narrowed to focus on the previously discussed objectives. Implementation of the final product is complex and will need to assessed separately.

Project Significance

The problem has varying levels of significance. The relevance of this project is far-reaching, but difficult to implement. From Fig 1 below, it is obvious that a tremendous amount of taxpayer money has gone into the creation of the USS Gerald R. Ford. Future carriers of the same class will likely be nearly the same cost. This project aims to reduce future costs by outlining the various maintenance problems that can be considered “additional costs”. While these costs would generally be regarded as a national cost, the effects are felt at the lower levels due to the pressure placed on various entities to produce a premium product with minimal cost.

Figure 1 (Fighter Jets World, 2018)

While cost is a prevailing factor, many other changes are desired, at the local level, to increase efficiency and reduce worker stress. High level stress is placed on intermediate level workers to provide products and services within a timeframe that is simply unattainable. This stress leads to above average worker turnover and increased workplace tension. Employee turnover is a serious issue faced by many organizations worldwide. Not only is turnover costly in terms of recruiting and training new employees, but it can also be costly in terms of reduction in profits through reduced team performance (Kachi et al., 2020).

Project Approach

Project Design Overview

This project was designed to attempt to provide a high-level overview of the needed changes for USS Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers maintenance. The needed changes primarily revolving around maintenance were analyzed. More specifically, the paper was designed to determine a more cost-effective way to repair ship’s systems, while maintaining the desired repair speed and efficiency.

The design and approach revolve around previously known issues and their effects on various maintenance providers. The approach focuses on first-hand knowledge, from Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and past data to support the needed changes.

This project is expected to advance the maintenance planning and execution with regard to future maintenance Ford Class carrier needs. It will be an attempt to consolidate the needs and shortcomings of various maintenance providers and provide a path forward to heighten the efficiency of these entities.

Specific Project Design

This project was designed in an effort to analyze the need and provide a potential solution. The first step of this analysis is to review applicable technical and legal documents. This includes various Naval instructions that are available to the general public online. These documents include acquisition regulations, current maintenance procedures, and funding documentation. No classified information was used. This data was compiled and analyzed to determine the areas in which help is needed.

The next step requiring data collection involved surveying various Subject Matter Experts. These experts are the frontline supervisors that see problems on a daily basis. After survey distribution, interviews were held to discuss the surveys and additional notes were added to amplify various needs. The interview process is the lynchpin for the entirety of the project. The data provided by the supervisors outlines the needs that are not being met. This data was compiled and compared against all other interviewees and the current practices in place.

The results of this data collection highlighted several key areas that are lacking with regards to logistics, obsolescence, contracting, and cost. Communication also plays a large factor and will be included in the overall analysis.

Project Management

Work Breakdown Structure

Resource/instruction review

Surveys and data collection

2.1 Supervisory level individuals

2.1.1 Distribute survey prior to interviews

2.1.2 Collect survey during interviews

2.2 Combine survey data with interview analysis

2.2.1 Compare any quantitative data

2.2.2 Compare qualitative data for similarities/differences

2.2.3 Analyze for categories and tabulate data

Post-interview resource review

3.1 Link survey results to organizational behavior and past results

3.2 Analyze for apparent themes/consistencies

Finalize report

4.1 Content review

4.2 Review for course requirements

A portion of the initial resource review is already complete. Some of the documents that will be used for this project are used on a daily basis for the current maintenance “system”. The secondary literature will be analyzed after the interview/survey process is complete.

PERT Chart

Milestones

The first milestone is the development and distribution of the survey to current maintenance supervisors. The survey only included four questions. This allows for open-ended answers that can be further discussed during the interview portion. The surveys were limited to the supervisors of the most-effected organizations.

The second milestone is to receive the survey data and conduct in-person interviews with the individuals surveyed. The recording and organizing of the data from the interviews and surveys provides first-hand knowledge from supervisors considered “Subject Matter Experts” in their respective fields. The interview process allows these supervisors to speak more freely about the issues they are facing.

The last milestone is developing a plan from that data. Data was compiled and compared with previous maintenance designs. This allows for the development of a potential solution. The primary resources for this project are personnel and time. Individuals being interviewed will have the option to have their name withheld if they so choose.

Project Design Issues

This project seemed very straight-forward until the interview process was held. Once the individuals interviewed began expressing their frustrations, issues not previously considered were brought to light. This resulted in a narrowing of the overall focus, and ultimately the final outcome.

Previously, the assumed limiting factor was Integrated Logistic Support (ILS). ILS consists of technical manuals, troubleshooting equipment, and parts support. Once survey results were, and interviews were conducted, it became clear that contracting and obsolescence were at the forefront of maintenance issues. To compound these two issues, expansive time delays for receipt of these parts were noted.

Project Results and Implications

Interpretation of Data

The data retrieved shows several issues that must be addressed for the project to be realized. The data results show that all participants agree that logistics and parts availability are huge problem. Most of the participants agreed that the lack of technical drawings, obsolescence, contracting, and material costs also play a sizable role.

Logistics proved to be the most heated topic. Logistics support is sorely lacking for the Gerald R. Ford class. This is primarily due to funding issues. When a ship is designed and built, a certain amount of money is set aside for logistics support. In the case of the Ford, the build cost greatly exceeded the initial prospectus. This caused the government to reallocate funds from logistics to build support. Now that the ship is built, the logistics that are needed to maintain it are not in place.

Parts availability is another major issue. The Ford class is considered the most technologically advanced warship ever built. This leap in technology comes at a severe price. Parts that were used to initially build the ship are no longer available from the manufacturer. To compound this issue, no replacement parts have been identified by the Engineering agent.

Technical Drawings, a previously unknown issue, are created by a Planning Yard. For the Gerald R. Ford, this planning yard is maintained by the Private Shipbuilder. All maintenance providers agree that having the technical drawings originate with a private company creates issues. The drawings are vital to each maintenance organization before any work can commence.

Contracting proved to be a complex issue. While some contracts are in place for items that are considered “legacy” from the CVN-68 class, these items were few and far between. All of the individuals surveyed agreed that new, more robust contracts were needed to ensure future maintenance success.

Discussion of Project Deliverables

Project deliverables breaks down to four major components: survey results, interviews, synopsis, and recommendations. The first two deliverables are were accomplished with the assistance of various Subject Matter Experts that were first surveyed, then provided a follow-on interview.

Surveys were conducted with common responses noted. The survey consisted of only four questions. These questions were also left intentionally vague to encourage open-ended answers. This ensured that each individual surveyed addressed their specific professional needs. This also limited the “rank this” type of answer, which would have provided little help in finding the root cause of select issues.

Interviews were conducted with the same individuals that participated in the survey process. The point of the interview process was to enable the participants to expand upon their survey answers. This process proved quite helpful in getting participants to truly open up about their issues without fear of reprisal. As soon as the “ice was broken”, participants voiced their opinions quite openly.

An overall synopsis of answers was compiled. After compilation, these answers were scrutinized for common themes. The common themes included contracting, material, cost, and communication issues.

The final deliverable consists of an overall evaluation and recommendations to apply to institute the needed changes. While this will provide a path forward, it requires generous amounts of funding that are not currently available. To fully implement the needed changes from this deliverable, several entities must fully commit to the changes and initiate the needed funding and personnel resources. This deliverable is laid out in greater detail in the remaining sections.

Recommendations

Multiple recommendations have been analyzed with the prevailing theory that more focus needs to be applied to certain support areas of the program. Locally, CNAL must endeavor to provide guidance to the various In-Service Engineering Agents, as well as PEO which owns those ISEAs.

The path forward, as developed by this project, will require stakeholder buy-in and funding in the future to be implemented. Actual implementation will require contractual changes within the Navy’s Supply department and In-Service Engineering Agents. With the needed implementations, there is the potential to drastically improve the speed and efficiency in dealing with troubling maintenance issues. This would decrease the average repair time and increase the quality of work. Consequently, this would result in taxpayer savings.

This path consists of, at minimum, a five-step approach.

1) Integrated Logistics Support Overhaul

Integrated logistics support (ILS) consists of the overarching logistics that are necessary to support a ship. This includes technical and repair manuals, as well as any research into future sustainability that the ship may need. Logistics encompasses several areas, and are always open to “additions”. Unfortunately for logistic specialists, this tends to mean “whatever the boss needs, you get”.

Within CNAL, several organizations exist to ensure the ship has everything it needs to carryout it’s mission. Logistic support is part of N43 division (www.navy.mil, n.d.). This is a daunting task when one considers the depth of the issue. The ship was built with the newest technology, but even that technology is obsolete as technology advances so quickly in today’s ever-changing market. To combat this, an extensive analysis of the missing ILS is needed. Once identified, the In-Service Engineering Agents will need to develop these products and turn them over to Ship’s Company (Whiteley, 2021).

There are ten critical elements of ILS that can be incorporated at any given time. Design interface, computer support, technical data, facilities, support equipment, packaging handling storage & transportation, supply support, training, manpower & personnel, and maintenance planning.

2) Communication –

The importance of communication in the workplace is inevitable. Moreover, improving workplace communication has become one of the most important business priorities in 2020, and this trend continues to grow (blog.smarp.com, n.d.). Unfortunately, proper communication about nagging issues is lacking. Maintenance providers do not want to seem incompetent or unable to perform their taskings. Thus, they are unwilling to accurately communicate shortfalls accurately.

This problem goes much deeper than the end use maintenance provider. From the onset, individuals in positions of authority were unwilling to communicate issues, and chose to simply let it go. This resulted in money, previously slated for improvements, to be used to overcome current deficiencies. When an issue arises, communication must be open and honest. Fear of reprisal must not factor into honest communication of issues. When an issue that may result in a maintenance deficiency is noted, it must be communicated to all stakeholders involved.

One of the biggest issues surrounding this entire process is that “we don’t know what we don’t know”. Each SME knows their systems in their current state. Issues arise when a component breaks, with no previous failure data to assist with analysis. These experts may have knowledge about the system as a whole, but no necessarily about internal components that are considered proprietary. The expert may not have even realized that this component was part of their overall system ownership. No one had ever communicated their overall system authority. When ownership of the ship was past from private shipbuilder to public use, several aspects of ownership were not communicated effectively.

3) Training

Training is a process that happens in two general ways. The first way is formal training. In this case, we are talking about formally training the ship’s crew on maintenance and repair procedures that they will need to fix their ship at sea. Training like this takes several years to set up, and generally by the time it is ready, it will be nearly obsolete by this new design.

The second is on-the-job training, or OJT. This type of training is generally a “tribal knowledge” type of training that is passed down from crew member to crew member, generally from senior to junior personnel. As the equipment is constantly changed out for newer (non-obsolete) models, the crew is forced to re-learn the maintenance and repair. This makes it difficult to pass down knowledge.

Another key aspect surrounding training is the use of various field service devices. These devices are unique to specific systems and are absolutely required to be able to diagnose an issue within a system. Currently, they are lacking the needed field devices, so the required training is unobtainable (Craig, 2021).

The overall goal is to obtain all of the necessary field devices, train Ship’s Crew, and allow them to manage more difficult repairs. This would allow for tremendous overall cost-savings.

4) Parts Analysis

The Navy Supply system is responsible for setting up and maintaining consistent avenues of material based on need (www.navsup.navy.mil, n.d.). This need is generated over time, based on the failure rate of specific pieces of equipment. Unfortunately, the Ford class of ships is too new to have developed this “need signal” within the system. This results in a mass scramble to locate parts when failure occurs.

Navy Supply also has the responsibility of developing repair contracts with parts suppliers. Unfortunately, by the time a part fails, the original manufacturers have stopped producing said parts. The manufacturers are usually unwilling to start producing older parts, as it would require excessive re-tooling of manufacturing lines. When manufacturers are willing to undergo this effort, massive cost is incurred (Tanedo, 2021). To prevent this cost, an analysis of parts with a higher-than-average failure rate is needed. Once this has occurred, the Navy must be willing to accept the cost of obtaining this material, or locate suitable approved replacements. When a suitable replacement is determined, by the ISEA, Supply must then solicit bids in order to acquire the replacement part. A minimum of three independent bids are required to fulfill acquisition requirements (www.acquisition.gov, n.d.). An exception to this rule is noted when there is only one company that can manufacture the part. This is known as a “single-source” item and has additional restrictions that must be met.

Obtaining obsolete parts continues to be an issue as well. Material manufacturers are not providing the material necessary to enable repair, or in most cases, not providing a fit-form-function replacement for an obsolete component.

5) Contracting

While initial contracting was provided by Naval Code 200 for the primary build, this contract did not provide for continuous maintenance efforts. Nothing in the initial contract required material suppliers to provide future replacement parts or repair services. Repair contracts are the responsibility of either Depot level activities or In-Service Engineering Agents.

When CNAL desires an OEM to assist with repairs, the first choice for this contracting effort lies with the ISEA. To date, very few OEMs have been placed on contract for these efforts, thus resulting in long waits for contracting efforts to take effect. OEM contracts take several months, even years, to establish and take effect (Zentz, 2021). Establishment of OEM contracts needs to be the second overall priority to solve continuing maintenance issues.

Cost of material continues to be the prime driver with regards to contracting. Congress determines the defense budget annually. The requested allotment of money is based on previous assessments and project forecasting. A primary source of past cost growth on CVN-78 appears to have been an unrealistically low original cost estimate (Rourke, 2016). New contract discussions will lead to higher costs. These costs were not realized in a timely fashion, thereby resulting in cost growth beyond allotted funding. The overall goal, within the contracting realm, must be to limit the amount of excessive cost, while providing new contracts for maintenance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, many changes will need to be addressed to get Gerald R. Ford’s future maintenance on track. The first effort that must occur is a ship-wide determination of unsupported parts and materials. After these materials are identified, the In-Service Engineering Agents must develop the needed integrated logistics to officially catalog said material. Once this material is integrated and cataloged, Navy Supply must then develop the contracts needed to either purchase this material. If the items cannot be repaired by Navy technicians, repair contracts with the individual item’s Original Equipment Manufacturer must be established. These contracts can take up to 24 months to develop, so early identification of this need is a priority.

In parallel, Navy technicians will require formal training on the various systems that they will be required to access and repair. This training includes purchasing field devices and proprietary software for each individual component. Level 1 government repair facilities will also require the same field devices, software, along with advanced training. Government repair facilities are notoriously underfunded, so determination of a funding source takes top priority.

Communication lines must be open and honest. While not specifically stated, it has become apparent that some entities, rather than train and learn the systems, will pass the work on to another entity. While this solves the immediate fix needed for an individual repair, it does not advance the knowledge of the primary repair activity. When items are passed to another entity, it adds cost to the project, which may already be operating at a deficit.

Appendix A

Maintenance Survey

Hello:

You are invited to participate in our survey “Ford Class Issues”. In this survey, approximately 10 people will be asked to complete a survey that asks questions about issues their organization faces with regard to Ford Class Maintenance. It will take approximately 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. However, if you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point. It is very important for us to learn your opinions.

Your survey responses may remain confidential if you so choose. In that instance, your information will be coded and will remain confidential. Please specifically state whether or not you wish to remain confidential on this survey. If you have questions at any time about the survey or the procedures, you may contact Donald Reinert at 619-920-2016 or by email at donald.reinert.ctr@navy.mil.

Thank you very much for your time and support!

V/R

Donald K. Reinert

CVN-78 Maintenance Coordinator

Questions:

1. Overall, how do you feel about performing maintenance onboard Ford Class Carriers?

2. What difficulties have you endured while performing this maintenance?

3. In your expert opinion, what needs to be done to aid your future work?

4. Any other comments or suggestions:

Name:

Official Title:

Contact email:

Contact phone:

Do you wish to have your answers remain confidential? (YES/NO)

Appendix B

Relevant Acronyms

CEMAT – Carrier Equipment Maintenance Assist Team

ESU – Elevator Support Unit

ISEA – In-Service Engineering Agent

OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturer

SF – Ship’s Force: can be used interchangeably with Ship’s Company and Ship’s Crew.

PEO – Program Executive Office: can be shortened to Program Office.

CNAL – Commander Naval Air Atlantic: can be used interchangeably with TYCOM

TYCOM – Type Commander; can be used interchangeably with CNAL

MARMC – Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center

NSWC PD – Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division

PSM – Private Sector Maintenance

PSB – Private Shipbuilder

PSY – Public Shipyard: can be used interchangeably with NNSY

NNSY – Norfolk Naval Shipyard

SME – Subject Matter Expert

Appendix C: Program Assessment

What does Engineering Management mean to me?

To me, Engineering Management is a hybrid degree that combines managerial level aspects from both Engineering and traditional Management schools. Many technical programs, such as traditional Engineering, are not exposed to the overall business side. The business side is very important, as that is how products created by engineers are marketed sold. It also loops in the “people” side, Organizational Management, that most engineers have little or no experience in.

What does the title Master of Engineering Management mean?

The title of Master of Engineering Management means that the individual holding that title has successfully completed the knowledge requirements of the previously described “hybrid” program. This individual now possesses the knowledge, experienced or not, to adequately manage engineering professionals. While they may have had previous knowledge on the technical side of the business, they now have knowledge of the business aspect that enables the overall company to be successful. Most individuals would consider ample experience to be enough to satisfy a managerial role. This program highlights the need for additional education in art of business. This title means that the individual not only has extensive technical knowledge, but now has knowledge pertaining to financial, logistics, human resource, program management, and systems knowledge as well.

What did I learn in this program?

I found this program very eye-opening. This was my first experience with Systems Engineering and the “system of systems” approach. Also, while I have some business experience, this program provided me a much deeper level of understanding of personnel issues and how to remedy them. I had little knowledge of the financial side of business. This program expanded that little knowledge, greatly. Systems Engineering was, by far, the most enlightening course, while concurrently being the most difficult. This course taught me to open my eyes to the wider problem. It explained how systems interact with each other, and how to see the bigger picture of the system interactivity and wicked problems.

The “human” side of business was explained well in Organizational Management. I can honestly say that I had no idea that so much went into hiring, maintaining, and replacing people within an organization. This course taught me a great deal about what workers desire and the necessary compensation packages that used to make that happen. An especially enlightening point came when personnel motivation was presented. While previous generations were motivated by the work itself, newer generations are motived by outcomes. This provided great insight into the thought processes of the newer generation of workers, that I lacked.

Operations Research taught me a great deal about logistics. Specifically, how to get products to the final user the most efficient way. This course also provided more detail about resource allocation and distribution. This provided me with a greater understanding of the issues surrounding the question; “Where’s my material?”. This is a prevalent question within my organization and this course provided a greater understanding of the logistics needed to obtain said material.

Project Management seemed to be an abbreviated course. While the overall themes were presented, for an individual to fully grasp all that goes into project management, further education is needed. This course introduced time management and how to maintain a project with specified parameters. While the course focused on smaller projects, it was easy to see how to expand the knowledge to larger projects and their needs.

Cost Estimation and Financial Analysis provided a deeper insight into the “money” side of business. While most engineers do not see the financial side, this program allows the technician to understand one of most important aspects of business: money. Money is the ultimate driver for most businesses, as all industries need to earn a profit to survive. This course provided a great look at the intricacies of finance.

Risk Analysis covers the concepts of risk and how to mitigate them. Risk analysis is used for nearly every project. It provides varies paths to determine what risks are present, and how to deal with them. Risk is something that all projects experience. Mitigation techniques surrounding time, scope, and personnel are discussed, showing various alternatives that might be present.

How do we use this for future endeavors?

A simple scenario, presented as a hiring question, comes to mind. When a future employer asks “what does a Master’s in Engineering Management mean?”. The real question being asked is “how does this benefit my company?”. To answer the hiring manager, one must look at the breakdown of courses that were provided by the curriculum and be able to accurately express the benefits of each, as well as how the cumulative knowledge, best serves the company. This is more easily expressed by breaking down each course that would be considered useful to that company, and then wrapping with an overall product.

1) Cost Estimation and Financial Analysis allows me to interact on financial aspects concerning the company. Specifically, I am now able to assess a project financially and provide advice concerning the projects financial goals and how to best meet them.

2) Project Management grants me knowledge concerning the “big picture” of the project. Specifically, in determining whether or not the project is on-time, with the right personnel, and does not exceed cost restrictions.

3) Organizational Management helps me understand the needs of the personnel that will ultimately be working with, and for me. This includes how to deal with frustrated employees and how to determine where negative “infections” are affecting overall production. Another advantage to this is understanding the corporate incentive packages and being able to manipulate them for the best overall result.

4) Systems Engineering provides me with strategies to analyze problems. Specifically, this program allows me to analyze a problem that has many aspects and will affect more than one area of the company. Most technicians only see issues that deal specifically with their department or division. Systems Engineering allows me to see how these issues affect the company as a whole.

5) Risk Analysis is something that every entity must perform for each project. Being able to analyze risk early provides said company with the tools it needs to overcome that risk, or potentially shut the project down early if the risk proves to be greater than the reward.

Summary: While I’ve only discussed five topics specifically, an individual with a Master’s degree in Engineering Management should be able to enter into any situation and access it with accuracy. This assessment includes aspects of finance, logistics, risk, and overall project management. This enables the individual to see the “big picture”. Therefore, this individual is able to provide new insight and potentially solve problems that are currently plaguing the company.

Program Feedback

Overall, I feel this program is a resounding success. It allows individuals with hectic schedules the ability to pursue their higher education goals. This is done without the use of conventional classroom facilities, which is sorely needed considering today’s societal environment. There are a few positives and negatives to highlight.

Positives:

1) Convenient 12-week courses. Three-month courses make it easy to plan my course start and stop times.

2) I do not have to “log-in” at specific times through-out the week. This enables me to work the classes around my job.

3) Overall, I felt that I gained a great deal from select courses. I can honestly say that Systems Engineering, while the most difficult, was exceptional.

Negatives:

1) Some of the course materials were well behind the syllabus. For example, the Organizational Management textbook is three revisions ahead of the syllabus, making it very difficult to follow.

2) Instructor responses could be slow at times. I understand that this is a “self-teaching” type of instruction, but when a small question is asked it should not take 3 to 5 business days to respond. Some instructors even respond with “what does your syllabus say?”.

3) Some instructors on the DVDs were quite difficult to understand. This is not a jab at ethnicity, merely a suggestion that the video sound quality may need to be enhanced.

References

13newsnow.com. (n.d.). Report: Navy still struggling with USS Gerald R. Ford. [online] Available at: https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/national/military-news/gao-highlights-problems-with-uss-ford/291-264ea5ac-8b79-4941-a8f9-655bedea3c47

Acquisition.gov. (2019). Acquisition.GOV | www.acquisition.gov. [online] Available at: https://www.acquisition.gov/.

Acquisition.gov. (2019). DFARS | Acquisition.GOV. [online] Available at: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars.

Adams, K (2006), ‘Systems Thinking and Systems Theory’, technical paper.

Bausch, K. (2021). Ford Class Maintenance Issues. 6 Aug.

blog.smarp.com. (n.d.). The Importance of Communication in the Workplace (& How to Do It Right). [online] Available at: https://blog.smarp.com/communication-in-the-workplace-importance.

C Ariel Pinto and Garvey, P.R. (2013). Advanced risk analysis in engineering enterprise systems. Boca Raton, Fla. Crc Press.

Chron.com. (2014). What Are the Causes of Communication Breakdown in Business? [online] Available at: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/causes-communication-breakdown-business-78230.html.

Craig, J. (2021). Ford Class Maintenance Issues. 6 Aug.

Curran, D. (2021). Ford Class Maintenance Issues. 6 Aug.

Egozi, A. (n.d.). Beyond The Ford: Navy Studies Next-Gen Carriers EXCLUSIVE. [online] Breaking Defense. Available at: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/beyond-uss-ford-navy-will-study-next-generation-aircraft-carriers-exclusive/.

Fighter Jets World. (2018). 5 Amazing Facts About USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) Aircraft Carrier. [online] Available at: https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/fighter-jets-videos/5-amazing-facts-about-uss-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier/7514/

Flood, RL, and Jackson, MC 1991), Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention,

Wiley, Chichester.

The Ford Class. (n.d.). The Ford Class: The Next Generation of U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers. [online] Available at: https://www.thefordclass.com/.

Gao.gov. (2019). U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). [online] Available at: https://www.gao.gov/.

Gerald R. Ford Foundation. (n.d.). USS Gerald R. Ford CVN 78. [online] Available at: https://geraldrfordfoundation.org/uss-gerald-r-ford-cvn-78/page/2/.

Gitman, L.J. and Zutter, C.J. (2012). Principles of managerial finance. Boston (Estados Unidos) Prentice Hall.

Hagan, F. (2021). Ford Class Maintenance Issues. 6 Aug.

Harvard Business Review. (2014). Strategies for Learning from Failure. [online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure.

Harvard Business Review. (2011). We Don’t Know What We Don’t Know. [online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2011/07/we-dont-know-what-we-dont-know.

Kachi, Y., Inoue, A., Eguchi, H., Kawakami, N., Shimazu, A. and Tsutsumi, A. (2020). Occupational stress and the risk of turnover: a large prospective cohort study of employees in Japan. BMC Public Health, 20(1).

Luthans, F., Luthans, B.C. and Luthans, K.W. (2015). Organizational behavior : an evidence-based approach. 13th ed. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.

Naval Technology. (n.d.). Gerald R Ford-class – US Navy CVN 21 programme. [online] Available at: https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/.

Naval Technology. (2009). Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier – Naval Technology. [online] Available at: https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/.

Navy.mil. (2019). NHHC. [online] Available at: https://www.history.navy.mil/.

Neely, A., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K., and Bourne, M., (1997), “Designing Performance Measures: A Structured Approach”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 17, No. 11, pp. 1131-1152.

Pickrell, R. (n.d.). US Navy still trying to figure out exactly why aircraft launch system on $13 billion supercarrier failed. [online] Business Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/navy-still-diagnosing-key-tech-on-carrier-ford-failure-cause-2020-6.

Rourke, R.O. (2016). Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress. [online] Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf.

Tanedo, C. (2021). Ford Class Maintenance Issues. 6 Aug.

Whiteley, J. (2021). Ford Class Maintenance Issues. 6 Aug.

Wickedproblems.com. (2019). Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving – Wicked Problem. [online] Available at: https://www.wickedproblems.com/1_wicked_problems.php.

www.naval-technology.com. (n.d.). Gerald R Ford-class – US Navy CVN 21 programme. [online] Available at: https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gerald-r-ford-class/

Zentz, M. (2021). Ford Class Maintenance Issues. 6 Aug.

Student Biographical Data

Donald Reinert is a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer, serving over 21 years in the Naval Nuclear Power Program. As a contractor for Gryphon Technologies, he currently works as the Maintenance Coordinator for the USS Gerald R. Ford stationed in Norfolk, Virginia. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Management from Hawaii Pacific University. His professional interests include Systems Engineering and process improvement. His personnel interests are mainly limited to golf. He is married to Olga Reinert and has one daughter, Taylor.

Reinert

The post New Age Maintenance for New Age Carriers ENMA 605 New Age Maintenance appeared first on PapersSpot.