PROPULSION GUIDE
(Continued from page 72)
4 (Bottom right, page 72) is the fuel
oil system showing piping 50mm
and larger. Machinery unitization
and packaging was not heavily
emphasized during this particular
design, as vendor relationships
were still being formed. The team
felt, though, that this would be an
eventual source for pushing
advances in machinery packaging
and unitization.
Process
At the beginning of the design
process the team had already
reached the "Norming" stage of the
four stages of team development —
"Forming, Storming, Norming and
Performing." As the team was still
developing there were many occa-
sions where the team would
regress to the storming stage.
During this phase of the project the
team was continuing to work as
individuals with an increasing
transfer of information between
the individuals as the design pro-
gressed. Although the team was
working effectively, the high syner-
gistic output levels that are charac-
teristic of a true IPPD team did not
occur during the SSD#1 design.
This level of teaming was to be
expected, in that traditionally
teams experience a six-month
learning curve to reach the 'per-
forming' stage. Near the end of
this first design, the team had
reached the performing stage
although they had not yet matured
to being a 'self-directed' team.
Many of the team processes that
the team would embrace at the end
of the project had their foundation
laid during this period.
Tools by which team progress
could be developed, referred to as
"metrics," were developed during
the SDM process. This area, more
than any other, remained a bone of
contention between the Steering
Committee and core team through-
out the entire design effort.
The team decided to divide
process metrics into two categories,
the first being a set of team dynam-
ics measures and the second relat-
ed to the design process itself.
The team dynamic measures of
equal team participation, clear
understanding of the deliverables,
basic team process development,
rapid decision making, good listen-
ing skills, mutual respect, commit-
ment to making the team work,
technical skills and open-minded
spirit, were used in a team analysis
format with decent results.
The actual design process metrics
devised to assess how well the
design process was performing
became a nagging sore point with
the team.
These metrics consisted of: value-
addedability, repeatability, useabil-
ity, definability, adaptability, vali-
dateability, fundability and sanc-
tionability. Primarily because these
metrics were subjective in nature
and that the team had no basis for
comparison other than the design
process through which they were
constructing, these metrics were
never used on SSD#1. The product
metrics developed during the SDM
process were: affordability, pro-
ducibility, reliability, performabili-
ty, maitainability, flexibility, avail-
ability, and operability. Although
these metrics appeared on the sur-
face to be easily measured, the
application to SSD#1 divided the
team and was a significant prob-
lem between the team and the
Steering Committee.
Design Process
During the design of SSD#1, the
basic design processes for the pro-
ject were developed. As a first step
the team reviewed the processes
used at each of the participating
shipyards. The basic approaches
were similar for the foreign and
domestic yards. One significant
difference was that the foreign
shipyards all started from a base-
line design with customer require-
ments and operational and produc-
tion improvements added to
enhance the competitive nature of
the design.
Throughout the project, chief
engineers from Maersk Lines and
Crowley Marine were part of the
team on a two-week rotating basis.
Their input throughout the design
process was invaluable in introduc-
ing characteristics that consider-
ably improved the life cycle" cost as
well as the operational and mainte-
nance aspects of the SSD#1 design.
Early in the design, it was realized
that the best product could only be
created if it were an improvement
over a truly operational world-class
ship. Therefore, the team selected
MA/ Betelguese, a Brazilian
designed RoRo/LoLo convertible
ship, as the baseline because the
design details were readily avail-
able, the horsepower was similar to
the COM 20 requirements and it
was a state-of-the-art, competitive
design. The team retained the use
of the PD-337 hull envelope. The
first phase of the process (a two-
week period) was to select the main
engine and develop the system con-
cepts. The second phase of the pro-
ject (a one-week period) was the
development of multiple engine
room arrangements. These
arrangements were developed by
hand sketching on 2D computer-
generated plans and elevations.
The first step was locating the
main engine and generators. The
second step was the identification
of the major volume drivers. This
included the engine control room,
workshop, purifier room, air com-
^—.1
Digital Wave Publishing