Underwater Defence Technology 2020 26-28 May Rotterdam … · 2020-06-23 · Joint Cost Model (JCM), the Jointly-Owned Reference Design (JORD), the Design Specification (JODS), the

UDT 2020

Fast paced spiral development for the UK’s

SSN(R) Presentation/Panel

Underwater Defence Technology 2020

26-28 May

Rotterdam Ahoy, NL

Conference Theme - The Underwater Golden Triangle: Teamworking in the Underwater Domain.

There are many international aspects to the managing the trade-offs in design, as the Netherlands along with many other countries sees the need to work and collaborate internationally. The Netherlands policy makes clear that international cooperation is at the heart of the Netherlands development of its capabilities and in their future operational employment.

The Netherlands employs a “Golden Triangle” concept in its capability development. This approach encourages regular and institutionalised collaboration between the government, knowledge institutions and industry. UDT is a platform for the exchange of information and ideas between those working in the development and exploitation of undersea defence technology; it is the Underwater Golden Triangle.

UDT 2020



UDT 2020 - Fast paced spiral development for the UK’s SSN(R),

part of the Royal Navy’s Maritime Underwater Future Capability

Annabelle Ransome-Williams1, Craig Bland 2

1 MUFC / SSN(R) Programme Manager , Submarine Delivery Agency, UK MOD, Bristol, UK 2 MUFC & Strategy Director, BAES SYSTEMS, Barrow-in Furness, UK

The UK’s SSBN deterrent submarines is well underway. In addition, the Maritime Underwater Future

Capability (MUFC) project has been established to assess future capability requirements and develop

options to perform operations and tasks within the underwater environment when the current Astute

Class Submarines leave service. With approval to proceed with the Design Phase achieved the

programme is embarking on the early submarine design phase which takes a fast-paced design spiral

approach to accelerate the submarine procurement. A collaborative approach has been adopted which

combines the complementary capabilities and capacities of the UK Ministry of Defence, BAE

SYSTEMS as the submarine designer and manufacturer, Rolls-Royce as the designer and manufacturer

of the nuclear propulsion plant and drawing on Babcock’s as the through-life support know-how. From

the earliest point, suppliers are to be engaged fully in the design effort, with a focus on optimising the

delivery arrangements alongside availability and sustainment considerations. This paper sets out the

background delivery principles, approach and some of the aspects for leadership and management

attention in the delivery of this programme

NOMENCLATURE

DRE Dreadnaught class

Joint Cost Model (JCM), the Jointly-Owned

Reference Design (JORD), the Design

Specification (JODS), the Joint Risk and

Opportunity Register (JROR)

IMBS Integrated Master Build Schedule

LFE Learning from Experience

MoD Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)

MSTA Major System Technical Authority

MUOC Maintenance, Upkeep and Operating Cycle

NSRP Nuclear Steam Raising Plant

PDD Programme Definition and Design

SDA Submarine Design Authority

SSN(R) Ship Submersible Nuclear (Replacement)

TLC Through-life Cost

UPC Unit Price Cost

WBI Whole Boat Support Integration

WBTA Whole Boat Technical Authority

1 Background

Pre-concept MUFC work commenced in 2014.

Early wok focussed on development of Operational

Analysis and development of indicative SSN(R)

design solutions, notably the nuclear reactor plant

(NSRP). By 2017 the MUFC strategy recognised

that while SSNs remain the majority capability

solution, emerging technology offered enhanced

capabilities and led to consideration of non-SSN

capability elements. In August 18 MUFC formally

entered the Equipment Procurement Programme

with approval for year-1 of a 3-year initial concept

phase to develop SSN-options leading to the

endorsed Capability Requirement Document (under

Underwater Battlespace Capability Management

Group) in December 18.

2 Initial Concept Phase

The approach sought to involve industry in

exploring new and potentially radical

technological, operational and commercial

solutions to the challenges facing modern-day war-

fighting scenarios. In the face of sometimes rapid

technical, military and environmental changes the

challenges include:

a) Exploitation of the underwater

environment, including the challenges and

opportunities of underwater detection and

communication;

UDT 2020



b) Improving availability, flexibility,

affordability and supportability of

capability solutions;

c) Optimising the time taken from concept

phase through design and to manufacture

of solution.

The design vision and ambition emerged and fully

embraced the mothership concept [1]: work

packages considered off-board sensors carried

(hosted) by a manned platform, vehicles that are

independent (autonomous) and/or deployed from

manned surface and air platforms.

Presently, we are about starting the follow-on work

- Programme Definition and Design (PDD) Phase.

The purpose of this three-year initial design phase

is to create a compelling, compliant, client-owned

solution for SSN(R) Full Design and succeeding

phases, which meets Customer requirements for: (i)

Warfighting Capability; (ii) Availability on time

and through life; (iii) Whole life cost efficiency;

(iv) Enterprise and boat sustainment; and (v)

Stakeholder confidence. It must do this in a way

which retains compliance with Industry corporate,

MOD and SDA governance requirements.

3 Introduction

The PDD Strategy requires a change in mindset

from previous projects at a similar stage, learning

from experience to meet challenging strategic

objectives to optimise the sustainment of in-service

capability through 2030 and beyond. It must

concurrently: refine a submarine design until

sufficiently mature to enter the Full Design stage

and define much improved delivery arrangements.

Control of the programme must be maintained

throughout, to deliver value-for-money outcomes

which provide a sound basis for the next phase.

4 SSN(R) Delivery Principles

The approach is based on six key agreed principles:

PRINCIPLE 1: SSNR programme is to be

delivered at pace

a. The management arrangements must be

designed to empower the project teams to make

effective and swift decisions, with appropriate

escalation and arbitration mechanisms

b. To enable pace the management arrangements

and establishment (mobilisation) must consider the

hard and soft systems to ensure that custom and

practice is moved on to set new norms of behaviour

c. Supporting processes must be more

innovative especially in understanding the nature of

change, benefits and associated risk.

d. Pace is to be reflected in the design iteration

drumbeat and Whole Boat Integration review

intervals.

e. Learning mechanisms are to be established

to ensure that economies of scale and scope with

Dreadnought (re-use) and knowledge pull-through.

PRINCIPLE 2: SSNR programme decisions are

a balance of schedule, cost, capability and in-

service availability

a. The decision-making arrangements are to be

designed to allow engineering aspects to be traded

against schedule (including build drumbeat), cost

(UPC and TLC), capability and in-service

availability.

b. The management arrangements are to

establish the requisite participants and supporting

systems to ensure an emphasis on design for cost,

and, design for maintainability.

c. Wider ecosystem will need to be considered

in determining good decisions, and making

transparent the full implications - engineering being

a single component of design focus.

d. Maximum re-use and minimal (most

beneficial) change principles should be exploited to

maximum effect in the programme and design

definition. To support effective change control, a

clear integrated baseline (design, build duration

and cost) is maintained throughout.

e. Ways to future-proof components, systems

and interfaces are to be addressed in the availability

and support workstreams.

PRINCIPLE 3: SSNR programme and design

definition is to be fully integrated with the

supply base

UDT 2020



a. Programme definition is to provide a step-

change in the submarine enterprise supply chain

engagement, both existing and potential suppliers.

In doing so, the design phase is to innovate around

known problem areas.

b. Critical suppliers are to be engaged fully in

the whole boat design effort, from the earliest point

possible. Non-material aspects are to be fully

explored to identify programme benefits.

PRINCIPLE 4: SSNR programme ways of

working are fully collaborative

a. The definition phase is to be collaborative

across MOD, Tier 1s, wider supply base (Tiers 2-4)

and other stakeholders (e.g. users and other

experts), co-located at BAES-S (Barrow).

b. Key people (across the supply base) with the

requisite capability and aptitude for collaborative

working are to be seconded into the programme.

PRINCIPLE 5: SSNR Programme Integration is

a key value-adding capability

a. Programme Integration is a whole enterprise

activity centred around timely MOD decision

making in a controlled design evolution.

b. Common interfaces and standard protocols

are to be used to simplify Whole Boat Integration

and minimise complexity.

c. In-service availability is a key feature of

trade-off decision making, the programme is to

optimise the military capability against

commitments and capability coverage.

d. PDD scope of work is to be made clear

through definition of a plan comprising all

activities to deliver the outcomes and deliverables

against the Strategic Objectives. Whole Boat

Integration and Programme integration approach,

activities, scope and capability is to be defined.

PRINCIPLE 6: SSNR programme outputs will

positively support MOD approvals

a. The outcome is increased certainty and more

tightly bounded risk.

b. Options must be underpinned by realism and

developed in a way that makes transparent the full

implications of any choice.

c. Programme pace is to result in a good level

of product maturity to enable an incentivised

detailed design and build contract to maximise

confidence in the customer and approvals

community

Design Tension and Scope

The PDD Phase scope can be considered as two

‘types’ whose outputs must be integrated:

a. the refinement of the Reference Design

and delivery solution to a maturity suitable to

progress to the next phase

b. investigations focussed on improving the

design or delivery solution to be taken forward,

defined in terms of benefits to resilience, pace,

sustainment, cost-efficiency, quality and Submarine

Enterprise capability

Design tension exists between the tasks in that:

a. Challenging Strategic Objectives have

been set requiring overall improvements, a % in

time and cost for platform(s) delivery

b. Need to achieve an optimum balance

between re-use with the changes necessary to

make required improvements

c. Capacity, time and cost to achieve the

definition and design outcomes is constrained

d. With some possible exceptions, the

adoptions of investigation recommendations will

require reworking of the design, hence impacting

the pace of design maturity in exchange for benefit

realisation propositions. Also, many of the benefits

themselves are in tension

These outcomes will be articulated within the key

artefacts, namely the Integrated Master (Build)

Schedule (IMBS), the Joint Cost Model (JCM), the

Jointly-Owned Reference Design (JORD), the

Design Specification (JODS), the Joint Risk and

Opportunity Register (JROR) and the Delivery

Arrangements for the future programme.

UDT 2020



5 The PDD Operating Model

The design and delivery arrangements taken

forward into the business case will be the result of

MOD decision-making, based on evidence and

proposals developed by collaborative

MOD/Industry design and focussed investigation.

During PDD, Design Authority will be held by

MOD for both the Submarine Design and the

Delivery Arrangements. The Reference Design

provided by MOD at the start of PDD has been

developed by the MOD-led Naval Design

Partnership. During Full Design, the intent is for

MOD to delegate the Technical Authority (TA)

role to Industry and therefore during PDD the 'TA-

in-waiting' will play a vital role in creating

solutions and making recommendations, gaining

deep, progressive experience and ownership of the

Reference Design. It is intended that at the end of

PDD the starting point for the next phase will be a

'Jointly Owned Reference Design' (JORD).

Figure 1: SSN(R)high level operating model

6 PDD Design Spiral Approach

To balance tensions, drive intensity and efficiency,

the approach is to adopt a fast-paced spiral

methodology. In addition, adopting enhanced

supplier engagement with particular focus on

exploring supply chain sustainability, optimisation

and capability.

Design approaches cover a number of key models:

waterfall, spiral, iterative/incremental models. The

Waterfall Model is the oldest and the most well-

known model. This model is widely used in

government projects and in many major companies.

The special feature of this model is its sequential

steps. In software and other industries, waterfall

model works well for projects where quality

control is a major concern because of its intensive,

but for submarine design the multi-functional

nature of the design problem hampers a more direct

design process to develop a design description to

such a level of detail that it can serve as the basis

for the production of a ship [2]. Also, the model is

hard to adapt for ill-defined re-use of previous

design elements and isn’t adaptable enough to

address ambiguity associated with technology

insertion and collaboration and structural aspects

leads to time and cost projection unacceptable to

the UK MOD. Iterative or incremental model

assumed that all customer capability features are

defined and that a core product is stable when

increased functionality is designed-in. The spiral

model is a development process which combines

elements of both design and prototyping in stages,

combining the advantages of top down and bottom

up design.

With express intent to accelerate the capability

timeline, the SSNR design phase has designed- into

the governance a 4-month spiral drumbeat and

builds on agile delivery methods. Empowered

cross-functional teams will work in parallel

workstreams, solving known problem and building

on opportunities using many sources of innovation

and novelty. The design and programme will be

integrated and (re)balanced at regular intervals to a

fixed governance drumbeat. Using a problem and

benefit focused activity, identifying solution

strategies aligned the strategic benefits against the

customer capability requirements. In this way the

approach combines naval architecture and systems

engineering [3] approaches in a complimentary

way, deriving the optimised requirement within the

programme time and cost parameters [4].

To increase programme pace, PDD strategy looks

to break the traditional separation of stages and

Phases to include preliminary design, system

design (functional and spatial). The phase is to be

cost and time constrained, against candidate key

user requirements which will be defined through

the design process, therefore, the only variable is

the maturity of system design.

UDT 2020



Fig 2: PDD straddles the consecutive phases and

Stages in the submarine design

With significant variables a modern design for all

submarine functions and specifically considering

operational analysis necessitating aspects of

mothership core design [1] a rapid design spiral

with early design choices is essential. Design

decision logic mapped to the timeline will drive

focus and pace throughout the iteration drumbeat.

The staring position is to understand the extent of

previous design re-use to leverage economies of

learning, scale and scope with Dreadnought in

particular. With the input of a MOD owned

reference design the design work will focus on

delivering better value product with minimal

change and where change is benefit led approach

is adopted to understand what risk and reward is

expected. This process is designed to allowed

rapid progress of the design where it matters most,

capitalising on re-use where appropriate – see

Figure 2.

Figure 3: Design The spiral model (adapted for

submarine design)

7 The key aspects for implementation

A number of key aspects for management attention

during the implementation are summarised.

1. Scope of Work and Planning: the core design

development tasks, the re-use of existing design

and technologies, and benefits led assessment of

the areas for innovation and change. Sequencing

the areas for major change upfront allows the

design to be constrained early

2. Benefit and Risk Analysis: a process to identify

areas that matter most for design prototype solution

and design choices and trade-off space. Then to

determine work prioritisation (combination of risk,

investment and benefit trade-off) and order or

sequencing with dependencies identified.

3. Whole Boat Integration: the system and

functional aspects of the product are produced in

stove-piped teams, along with the testing and

recommendations. Every quarter the design is

brought together to look at the whole boat and

programme implications, seeking to balance the

design and find the conflict and trade-space

forming early good quality customer and supplier

decisions to lock down the variables and drive

design maturity.

4. Programme Integration (Evaluation) Phase: This

allows all parties to evaluate the programme

implications, specifically the P (design maturity,

safety and performance against capability

requirements/aspirations), T (time for platform

construction and fleet force projection) and C (unit

cost and whole life costs) parameters. This

understanding drives the focus and planning in the

next spiral.

Fundamentally important to the success of the

approach is collaboration and teamwork.

MOD with the two primary Industry Participants,

BAES – Submarines and Rolls Royce -Submarine

under a commercial Collaboration Agreement. A

tripartite framework commercially ties each party

to working together with the PDD phase

Contract(s) to which it is a party, to deliver the:

PDD Phase Strategic Objectives;

PDD Phase Outcomes;

PDD Phase Deliverables.

In working together to deliver the Collaborating

Parties agreed to:

act openly and in good faith;

make decisions under this Agreement to

achieve what is Best for SSN(R) Project

and the wider Submarine Enterprise;

11

SSN-R Programme Definition Phase Architecture

1 2 3 5 6 74A. Requirements and Targets

B. Programme Design & Definition

C. Approvals and Assurance

D. Procurement and Supply Chain

E. Build and Drumbeat

F. LFE & Capability Improvement

G. WB Design Maturity:

- WB Transversal & Standards

- Ship Systems

- Platform Systems

- NSRP

- Secondary Systems

- Ship Control

- Ocean Interface

- Combat Systems

- Cross Thematic Areas

H. Plat. Availability Improvements

I. Team Devel. & Improvements

Workstreams

12

Overview* 1-3 year duration PDD Phase* Define end-state targets for PDD and each year*Define focus and targets for each workstream; annual and each PI Block* Allocate £ per workstream per block but estimate per W/S total and each year*Define Control Account who holds ring for PCT & risk, and manage within timelines (CAM does not equal W/S)* Each W/S has PC/PM/BS & tech supt for toolsets

Go-live

Year 1Apr 20 Apr 21 Apr 22 Year 2 Year 3

OBC 2 LSD

8 129 10 11

2* Programme

Leadership Board (Q’ly)

1* Programme Management Board (Monthly)

2 * Leadership ALB

AMBSEDR

NED Challenge Function?

Final

Workstream Rules

- Within Sprint box, full autonomy

- No deviation outside box

- If < Target Maturity, allow 1 month

after WB/Prog Review to mend

- PM /PCE can redirect W/S if they

signal divergence from overall direction

Termly/4 monthly Month long Cross-W/S Integration

Programme Increment

(PI)

Pro

gra

mm

e /

P C

on

tro

ls (

Dri

vin

g th

ing

s in

rig

ht

way

)

Monthly

Sprint Cycles

PI and Sprint Cycle sets formal governance rules:

- Whole Prog Annual 2* review

- Termly 2*/1*

- Monthly 1*/

PM/PCE

Inte

grat

ive

Spri

nt

– P

rogr

amm

e w

ide

reba

lan

cing

, inc

l WB

Re

view

. Upd

ate

MD

AL,

Ris

ks,

Cos

t M

odel

. R

etro

spec

tive

an

d r

edir

ect.

Sta

rt e

ach

PI B

lock

afr

esh!

Ou

tco

me:

PC

T a

nd

Ris

k

Ou

tco

me:

PC

T a

nd

Ris

k d

efi

ne

d f

or

wh

ole

pro

gra

mm

e

1098

Inte

grat

ive

reba

lanc

ing

– P

rogr

amm

e W

ide

incl

udin

g W

hol

e B

oat

Rev

iew

. R

etro

spec

tive

, an

d re

dire

ct.

Star

t ea

ch P

I Blo

ck a

fres

h!

Incentives

Align incentive proposal around

hitting target maturity at end of

each year. If not, allow 3

months to recover, but then

incentive falls away quickly

Plat

form

Inte

grat

ion

Programme Increment

(PI)

Programme Increment

(PI)

PDD

UDT 2020



work on an Open Team basis;

encourage co-operative behaviour between

themselves and their suppliers;

operate in accordance with the PDD Phase

Values and Delivery Principles.

All parties agree to carry out the following

activities:

fulfil their roles under the Collaboration

Agreement, and actively participate in the

Governance and Design Management

Arrangements;

work with the wider supply chain to help

sustain key skills, support innovation and

promote collaborative working where

necessary or conducive in the supply chain

and in accordance with law;

work together to make available such

facilities as may reasonably be required

develop the Project processes on an

ongoing basis to optimise scarce resources

8 Challenges

Designing future military capabilities including

submarine programmes requires increased

teamwork between platforms, industry participants

and inclusion of wider sector / non-sector expertise

to stimulate new ways of doing in a traditional

design and delivery environment with the

introduction of increasingly unmanned systems, the

programme approach to stimulate development of

technology and concepts to advance man/machine

teaming will be key to operational success. To this

end, programme approaches need to adapt to be

inclusive, adaptable and agile in how they employ

the best people in design and delivery and maintain

underwater military capability.

It is still early days for the programme; progress

made so far is extremely encouraging but not

without effort in some key areas:

Leadership and Culture. Developing a business

case and contract that in many ways goes against

the learnt behaviours is challenging. Seniors Leader

change leadership and advocacy on internal

approvals process and governance is required.

Strong leadership and middle management is

required to champion the aspects of a time-boxed

working enhanced collaboration and tolerance with

ambiguity, whilst ensuring the core competence of

submarine design is safeguarded and nurtured to

stretch capabilities.

New ways of working need to be enshrined through

new process development, new people are required

to bring forward wider experience and galvanise

development. a

Balance of Investment across Re-Use and

Change. The balance of re-use and change is

fundamentally important. Moreover, the ability to

make the most important change decision upfront

and in a well-informed way is imperative to drive

tight spiral of submarine design maturity to achieve

pace and efficiency. Re-use or pull through from

existing programmes is imperative to exploit Non-

reoccurring costs, optimise the economies of scale

and scope for consistency at a component level

(supply chain), training and operator knowledge

(operator and operations benefits) The change

needs to be minimal and focussed where it matters

most to enhance military capability whilst

optimising the cost of ownership. Early and robust

challenge panel on appropriate methods of

constraining change from the outset and

maintenance of position is an intrinsic part of the

process.

Balance of focus between Product and Delivery

Arrangements. Our submarine products are

complex – a great deal of systems, suppliers and

interfaces. The focus on delivery and the key areas

of tension, including critical dependencies needs as

much, maybe more, attention as the product design

– these are the areas that are sometimes left later in

the design cycle and can cause delay. They are

inherently difficult to identify and manage without

concerted effort and a wider variety of skills to

understand the interrelations, and, develop ways of

minimising and overcome. The team stricture was

developed to create dedicated teams outside main

system teams to maintain focus on key areas of

build strategy, cost of ownership, acceptance,

supply chain value etc, and multifunctional teams

executed beneficial activities

Decision making. In PDD programme decisions

are a balance of schedule, cost, capability and in-

service availability. The decision-making

arrangements are to be designed to allow

engineering aspects to be traded against schedule

(including build drumbeat), cost (NRE, UPC and

TLC), capability and in-service availability. The

management arrangements are to establish the

requisite players and supporting systems to ensure

an emphasis on design for cost, and, design for

maintainability – a healthy tension in this stage of

the lifecycle. To support effective change control,

UDT 2020



a clear integrated baseline has been established and

will be used from the start of PDD to build a

mature jointly owned design, cost model and

master Design and Build (D&B) schedule. PDD

will analysed potential opportunities for build

duration and drumbeat compression to deliver the

full scope of the customer requirements at an

affordable cost. To this end, the phase outputs

including Platform and NSRP design maturity,

Build Strategies, a fully resourced Integrated

Performance Management Baseline (IPMB)

including cost assurance, and coherent and

effective management arrangements including

those to deliver design, acceptance and support

arrangements. Ways to future-proof components,

systems and interfaces are to be addressed in the

availability and supportability.

9 Concluding Remarks

Identifying the range of supply chain parties to be

involved and specific delivery and design

challenges is fundamental. Alignment of strategic

intent and programme and objectives needs to

follow, alongside the understanding of the focus of

design iteration and extent of re-use. The vision

must we set and believed to stretching but

achievable. Also, a benefit led approach is

essential to galvanise the collective will to

overcome inevitable points of tension. Pragmatic

delivery principles need to be flowed down

throughout the organisation to set the climate for

success. Fostering positive relationships,

encouraging open communication and embedding

supportive behaviours means project members and

parent organisations can change and flex to meet

inherent challenges without breaking down

In summary, the combination of vision, design and

planning and collaboration behaviours across non-

traditional and diverse skills establish a powerful

force for capability generation.

References

[1] R G Pawling and D J Andrews, A SUBMARINE CONCEPT DESIGN – THE SUBMARINE AS AN UXV

MOTHERSHIP Warship 2011 - Naval Submarines and UUVs. Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 2011. 1.

Web.

[2] Nordin, Mats. "A Novel Submarine Design Method - Based on Technical, Economical and Operational

Factors of Influence." (2014): 2014. Web

[3] Van Griethuysen, W. J., Marine design – can systems engineering cope? CMDC, 2000.

[4] Andrews, D. J., Marine Requirements Elucidation and the Nature of Preliminary Ship Design, pp. A23-A39,

Transaction of RINA 153, Part A1, London, 2011

Biographies

Craig Bland

Annabelle Ransome-Williams Annabelle is an established and experienced delivery lead and P3M

professional, with experience of private, public and third sectors. Annabelle has a track record delivering

strategically important programmes and projects, closing the gap between strategy, capability and capacity

through transformational results.

Documents

Underwater Defence Technology 2020 26-28 May Rotterdam … · 2020-06-23 · Joint Cost Model (JCM), the Jointly-Owned Reference Design (JORD), the Design Specification (JODS), the