Updating MIT's Cost Estimation Model for Shipbuilding

By

LTJG Matthew B. Smith, USCG

B.S., Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (2004)

United States Coast Guard Academy

Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Naval Architecture & Marine
Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
June 2008

C 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

All rights reserved

Signature of Author ....................................... ........... .....

Matthew Smith
May 9, 2008

Certified by...................... ....... ............ .............

.
Henry Marcus
Professor of Mechanical Engineering- Marine Systems
Thesis Reader

Certified by........................................ ....................

Associate Professor of the Practice of Naval Construction and Engineering
Thesis Supervisor

A ccepted by ............................. ....... ... ........... . ... . ..............

Professor Lallit Anand
~ ~ ~
I ~ ~ ~ .ICha~irman-
~ ` "
IIII Il[L

MASSAcHs IrSTR Department Committee on Graduate Students

OF TEOHNOLOGY

JUL 0 3 2008
LIBRARIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ......................................................... ......... 2

List of Figures/Tables ............................................................ 3

Acknowledgements............................................................. 4

Abstract........................................................................ 5

Introduction ................................................................... 6

Chapter 1: Basic Principles of Cost Estimation................................. 7

1.1 SWBS Groups...................................................... 8

1.2 Cost Estimating Relationships ......... ..................... .. 13

1.3 Learning Curves....................................................... 19

1.4 Life Cycle Cost, Total Ownership Cost and Whole Ship Cost...26

Chapter 2: The MIT Cost Models............................................. 38

2.1 The BMTS Cost Model.............................................39

2.2 The MIT Math Model ...................................................... 50

2.3 Combining the Two Models...................................... 64

2.4 Developing Coast Guard CERs .................................. 71

2.5 Future Program Modifications............ .............................. 74

Chapter 3: Applications and Lessons Learned.................................. 75

C onclusion........................................................................... 81

References ............................................................... .... 82

LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES

Table 1: SW BS Group Descriptions................................................................ 11

Table 2: Typical Learning Rates ....................................... 21
Table 3: Typical Learning Curve Factors........................................................... 24
Table 4: Factors Used For Outputs for BMTS Cost Model.......... ............................. 41
Table 5: Lead Ship Cost Contributors for the BMTS Cost Model .......................... 45
Table 6: Initial BMTS Cost Model Results with Incorrect SWBS 800 reference ...........46
Table 7: BMTS Cost Model Results with Faulty Learning Curve Equation .................. 47
Table 8: Cost Model Results with Corrected Learning Curve.................................. 48
Table 9: Final Outputs from Corrected BMTS Cost Model.......... ................... . 49
Table 10: Variable List for Lead Ship Cost for MIT Math Model Cost Estimation ....... 52
Table 11: KN Values as used by the MIT Math Model ....................................... 53
Table 12: Variable List for Follow Ship Cost Tab in MIT Math Model .................... 55
Table 13: Variables and Definitions for MIT Math Model Life Cycle Cost Tab..............58
Table 14: Cost Factors for Life Cycle Cost- Determining the Cost of Ships ................ 69
Table 15: Depiction of Updated Outputs Tab in Combined Cost Model ............... 71
Table 16: Sample Data provided in Coast Guard Format.........................................72

Figure 1: Relative Learning Curve Productivities Based Upon Applications of Advanced

Shipbuilding Technologies ............................................................... 22
Figure 2: Generation of Values for Cost Learning Curves ...... ................... 23
Figure 3: Graph of Typical Learning Curve Factors........................................... 24
Figure 4: NATO Ship Life Cycle Cost Hierarchy ................................................ 27
Figure 5: Trade-Off Study Between Affordability and Capability ............................ 28
Figure 6: NATO Alternate Operating and Support Cost Categories for Ships ........... 30
Figure 7: U SCGC Healy............................................................................. 32
Figure 8: NATO Ship Costing Approach................. .......................................
... 37
Figure 9: USCGC ESCANABA, Famous Class ............................................ 38
Figure 10: Output from ASSET depicting breakdown of weights by SWBS groups.........39
Figure 11: Inputs for Combined Cost M odel.......................................................66
Figure 12: Disclaimer for How to Pick Life Cycle Cost Factors...............................70
Figure 13: Coast Guard Deep Water Project Assets ............................................. 75
Figure 14: Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw (GLIB) ................................................ 77
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation and many thanks to my thesis advisor,

CDR Joel Harbour, and my thesis reader, Professor Henry Marcus, for their help

throughout this project.

I would also like to thank Mr. Martin Hecker from the Coast Guard Engineering

Logistics Center whose insight into the applications of Cost Estimation for the U.S. Coast

Guard really brought everything together for me.

ABSTRACT

This thesis project will update the MIT ship cost estimation model by combining the two

existing models (the Basic Military Training School (BMTS) Cost Model and the MIT

Math Model) in order to develop a program that can accurately determine both a ship's

acquisition cost as well as its life cycle cost. Using United States Coast Guard resources,

this project will also address various aspects of the ship design process which have a

direct effect on the cost of building a ship. This will include, but not be limited to, the

cost estimation process, determining which design decisions have the biggest impact on

the ship's total cost, common pitfalls in the design process that lead to increases in cost,

and lessons learned that have helped minimize the cost of a ship.
INTRODUCTION

This thesis project will update the MIT ship cost estimation model by combining the two

existing models (the Basic Military Training School (BMTS) Cost Model and the MIT

Math Model) in order to develop a program that can accurately determine both a ship's

acquisition cost as well as its life cycle cost. Using United States Coast Guard resources,

this project will also address various aspects of the ship design process which have a

direct effect on the cost of building a ship. This will include, but not be limited to, the

cost estimation process, determining which design decisions have the biggest impact on

the ship's total cost, common pitfalls in the design process that lead to increases in cost,

and lessons learned that have helped minimize the cost of a ship.

This paper will discuss a number of concepts that are used in the cost estimation process.

These concepts include Ship Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS) groups and how they

can be used to help with cost estimation, cost estimating relationships, the differences

between lead and follow ship costs and factors that determine them, life cycle costs and

their components, and how they tie into the big picture of Coast Guard and Navy cost

estimation. These concepts will then be revisited during the discussion of the current cost

models in use at MIT.

While the actual cost estimating relationships that are used by the programs will not be

published, the means in which they are applied will be discussed at length in order to

provide the reader with a good understanding of both the old and new cost models work.
CHAPTER 1: BASIC PRINCIPLES OF COST ESTIMATION

When calculating the cost of a vessel one must consider the costs of both labor and

construction materials in addition to any overhead costs that may be incurred during the

project. Shipyards typically have to deal with a highly variable product which makes

bidding on contracts especially difficult. With minimal profit margins and little time

available to make bids, it is crucial that reasonably accurate cost estimations are

developed. Making matters even more difficult is the fact that due to the complexity and

cost of a detailed ship design, and the large amount of time between the creation of a

preliminary design and when that design is finally seen through to completion, there are

often a significant number of design change orders which can cause dramatic increases to

the cost of the final product. (1)

New construction contracts often begin without detailed production drawings. This

makes it very important for shipyards to have a means of developing accurate cost

estimations. Shipyards typically maintain a catalog of historical costs that are tracked by

a consistent work breakdown structure (WBS). This catalog typically has a list of

common ship systems that includes hull structure, piping, electrical, paint and furnishings.

This list is further augmented by ancillary shipyard services required for production

support. The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy both use a well known WBS called the

Ship Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS). (2)

1.1 SWBS Groups

Using the SWBS system, material in a ship is broken down into seven major categories,

or SWBS groups. The sum of the weights of the seven major SWBS groups (plus the

weight of the margin) is the total lightship weight for the ship. SWBS numbers have three

digits in them which are used to define material contained in that specific group. The first

digit in a SWBS group number describes the most basic category to which a particular

piece of material belongs.

SWBS 100 (Hull Structure)- Group 100 refers to the assembled main hull body with all

structural subdivisions. This group includes shell plating, longitudinal and transverse

framing, platforms, masts, all of the interior and exterior decks, and the superstructure.

Additionally all doors and closures fall into this group.

SWBS 200 (Propulsion Plant)- Group 200 refers to those major components installed

primarily for propulsion and the systems necessary to make these components operable.

This group contains engines, turbines, boilers and energy converters, main condensers

and air ejectors, shafting, bearings and propellers.

SWBS 300 (Electric Plant)- Group 300 refers to the power generating and distribution

system installed primarily for ship service and emergency power and lighting. This

includes generators, switchboards, lighting, and cables used for power distribution.
SWBS 400 (Command and Surveillance)- Group 400 refers to all equipment and

associated systems installed to receive information from off-ship sources, to transmit to

off-ship receivers and to distribute information throughout the ship. It also refers to

sensing and data systems required for navigation and weapon fire control. This group also

includes interior communications systems as well as countermeasure and protective

systems.

SWBS 500 (Auxiliary Systems)- Group 500 refers to those systems required for ship

control, safety, provisioning and habitability. All auxiliary systems including heating,

ventilation, air-conditioning, refrigeration, plumbing, firemain, freshwater, rudders,

steering gear, winches, capstans and cranes used for anchor stowage, as well as fuel and

diesel oil filling are included in this group.

SWBS 600 (Outfit and Furnishings)- Group 600 refers to the outfit equipment and

furnishings required for habitability and operability, which are specifically included in

other Hardware Elements. Hull fittings, boats, boat stowage and handling, ladders and

gratings, nonstructural bulkheads and doors, storerooms, furnishings for living, office,

medical and dental spaces, and galley equipment are all included in this group.

SWBS 700 (Armament)- Group 700 refers to armament and related ammunition handling,

stowage, and support facilities; and cargo munitions handling, stowage, and support

facilities. Guns, their mounts and all weapons launching devices are included in this
group. The costs of expendable ordnance or attached air assets are not included in Group

700.

In addition to the seven main groups that breakdown a ship's weight, there are two other

SWBS groups that are used in the cost estimation process: groups 800 and 900.

SWBS 800 (Integration/Engineering)- The integration and engineering element refers to

the engineering effort and related materials associated with the design and development

of the ship. The work included in this group includes the development and maintenance

of drawings, production engineering, mass properties engineering, design support, quality

assurance, integrated logistic support engineering, repair planning, and preparation and

planning for special purpose items and systems.

SWBS 900 (Ship Assembly and Support Services)- The ship assembly element refers to

work associated with ship construction and testing which is not included in the

aforementioned groups. The elements in this group include staging, scaffolding and

cribbing, temporary utilities and services, molds, patterns, templates, jigs, fixtures,

special production special tools and test equipment, dry-docking, contractual and

production support services, insurance, trials, tests and inspection, and delivery.

Table 1, taken from the Advanced Naval Vehicles Concept Evaluation Final Report (3),

expands upon the contents of each of the aforementioned SWBS groups detailing a more

complete list of the material that fits into each category.

 Table 1: SWBS Group Descriptions (3)

NATO also uses a SWBS 000 group designated for General Guidance and

Administration. Group 000 contains elements which accommodate a wide variety of

11
applications. The major subgroups within Group 000 include combat capabilities,

strategic and special capabilities, operation support capabilities, ship system management,

ship system performance, subsystem characteristics, general requirements for design and

construction, integrated logistics support requirements and quality assurance

requirements. Only the costs for development and preparation of general requirements

should be carried in this group. Costs to execute ship acquisition and maintenance should

be entered in the appropriate elements of groups 100-900. (4)

Group specifications within the system increase as the level of design increases. One digit

SWBS groups pertain to very general categories as was demonstrated by the descriptions

above. The SWBS 100 group covers all of the elements pertaining to hull structure which

is a very broad grouping of material. The two digit SWBS 130 group represents all of the

elements pertaining to the hull decks and the three digit SWBS 132 group refers only to

the second deck. Similarly in the SWBS 300 group, 300 represents the electric plant, 330

the lighting system, and 332 the lighting fixtures. It is important to note that the more

specific groups (two and three digits) are all subsets of their parent groups. Everything in

the 332 group is an element of the 330 group, and likewise everything in the 330 group is

contained in the 300 group.

This classification system is convenient because it is system based, and this is preferred

by engineers. The SWBS classification system provides a format by which a shipyard can

collect and organize historical data to determine costs. These costs can then be used to

estimate the pricing of new work. Both of the cost models used at MIT use SWBS groups
as a means of breaking down a ship's weight in order to ultimately produce cost estimates.

These models and their applications will be covered at greater length in a later chapter.

1.2 Cost Estimating Relationships

A series of Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs) are used in conjunction with the SWBS

groups to produce cost estimates. CERs are an extremely useful tool as they provide a

basic means for estimating costs despite dealing with a number of material products, parts

and components in addition to multiple labor processes and support services. Costs can

be estimated both at very high levels (such as during concept stages of design) and at

very low levels (such as from detail bills of material). Therefore CERs must come in

many different levels of detail. There are also CERs available that can provide greater

accuracy than possible from available design information alone, but without the precision

of what might be obtained after detail design and engineering has been completed. (2)

A CER is a formula that is able to relate an item's cost to its physical or functional

characteristics. It can also be used to relate an item's cost to the cost of another item or

group of items. Examples of how CERs are set up include representing the cost of labor

for steel block assembly in terms of man hours per ton, the material cost for piping in

terms of dollars per meter, or the labor hours spent on shipyard services as a fixed

percentage of the total production hours. (2)

CERs are typically developed directly from a measurement of a single physical attribute

for a given shipbuilding activity, and that activity's cost. Some CERs may be developed

for a number of physical attributes. CERs may also be developed to determine a variety

of costs and cost-related parameters. These include estimates for labor hours, material

costs, overhead, number of items, and weight.

Most CERs are defined in terms of simple linear relationships such as 25 man-hours per

long ton of an individual SWBS group, or 20 dollars per foot of cable laid on a ship.

There are other CERs that can contain far more complicated formulations. High-level

CERs can exhibit non-linear relationships to accommodate the costs across a wide range

of applications and a variety of detail requirements. An example of a more complicated

CER is represented below.

S'te lCost= 0.00255 A0 99

This section will discuss five different types of CERs: Manual CERs, Calculated CERs,

Predictive CERs, Empirical CERs and Standard Interim Product CERs. Manual CERs are

developed using external information that can be provided by vendor or subcontractor

quotations. Calculated CERs are determined from a set of return cost data from a single

ship that is based on an actual cost expenditure and its associated measurable parameter.

An example of this is labor hours per square feet of painted area. Predictive CERs are

derived from return costs from multiple ship sets, or from the costs collected from a given

manufacturing process where costs might exhibit a pattern of change over time. The
predictive CER is the trend value of unit cost expected to apply for the given contract

application. (2)

Empirical CERs are developed by collecting a number of physical attributes for a given

shipbuilding activity as well as their associated cost. These attributes can include ship

type and size, part weight, part area, part perimeter, joint weld length, number of

processes applied and/or the number of parts involved. If this data is collected for a

number of ships built in the same shipyard, a statistical analysis may then be used to

determine the statistical significance of the parameters. This allows for the development

of equations with coefficients and exponent values for the activity CER. The equation

coefficients and exponent values generated are shipyard-dependent and will reflect the

level of productivity for the activity for that shipyard alone. (2)

The final type of CER is the Standard Interim Product CER. An interim product is

defined as any output of a production work stage that can be considered complete in and

of itself. It can also be presented as an element within any level of a product work

breakdown structure (PWBS). As shipyards move towards adopting standard interim

products as the primary basis for building ships, interim products themselves can form

the means for developing high-quality cost estimates. The interim product cost estimate

package consists of a set of cost items and/or cost item CERs, each describing labor

and/or material costs. The labor costs may be broken down into the product's sequence of

manufacturing and its assembly stages. They may also include indirect cost efforts such

as project supervision and material handling as well as related direct costs such as testing.
The interim products can be defined at any level of the PWBS. The higher the level, the

more ship type-specific they are likely to be. These interim products effectively become

complex high level CERs because they can include any number of cost items and these

cost items may be parametric to any number of different defining characteristics. The use

of the standard interim product as a means for cost estimation is sometimes referred to as

a "re-use package" that can operate within a variety of applications. The package can be

used repeatedly if needed when developing a project cost estimate. (2)

Cost estimators face the challenge of determining what type of CER is appropriate at any

given stage of the design process. Detail CERs are of little value when few details are

known. Similarly, high-level CERs are not feasible when their assumptions are no longer

applicable to a particular problem. Furthermore, the CER must be able to identify the cost

driver for the scope of the work being estimated. The cost driver is the controllable ship

design characteristic or manufacturing process that has a predominate effect on cost. The

real problem becomes determining where one obtains the necessary data used to develop

realistic or appropriate CERs that can be meaningfully applied at any given time during

the design evolution process. (2)

A cost estimate is only as good as the information that supports it. For shipyards,

historical cost information is invaluable for developing cost estimates for new work.

Historical information needs not only to be accurate, but it must also be collected in such

a way that it can be effectively used in the cost estimating process. For example, if a

certain shipyard uses modular blocks as a primary means of construction, there will be
significant problems if historical costs cannot be collected in such a way that is able to

identify modular block costs. As a result, there will be a relatively high degree of risk in

the accuracy and validity of the estimate. It is crucial that a shipyard have a cost planning

and data collection system in place that is capable of organizing costs in such a way that

they correlate directly to the cost estimating processes that are used by that particular

shipyard.

Shipyards must collect both labor costs as well as material costs when compiling data for

their catalogs. Labor costs, which are directly related to labor hours, are collected from

time charges to production work orders. Material costs are collected from purchase orders

and from stock transactions when applicable. Shipyard work orders are generally

organized around work type and stage of construction, while material is often catalogued

by ship system. The correlation of material to work orders can be obtained from issues of

material to work orders or the requisitioning of bills of material to the PWBS. (2)

In order to benefit the cost collection process, work orders should identify the scope or

the physical (material throughput quantity for which the work is being done). For

example, a work order might prescribe a budget of a hours to assemble b material items

that are constructed with an average size of c. The labor hours and material costs can then

be summarized through the PWBS. The units of measure at a given level of the PWBS

will be the most meaningful and therefore the cost driver for that level. The unit of

measure for steel fabrication might be based upon the joint weld length, while the unit of
measure for block erection might be best described in terms of the total number of parts

or the total weight of the entire block.

Despite the fact that high-level CERs broken up by ship systems are required for concept

and preliminary design estimating, modem ship production methods no longer allow

costs to be collected directly by ship systems. Production management software systems

that are utilized by many shipyards are now only able to develop CERs by measuring

actual costs against known work order throughput parameters (meter of weld, square

meter of plate, number of pipe spools, etc.). Many of these shipyard systems have little or

no means to transform these product- and process-oriented CERS into the desired high

level, ship systems and mission oriented CERs. (2)

With so many different components, ships are complex products to say the least and they

are normally designed system by engineered system. However, manufacturing does not

maximize its cost efficiency and schedule performance if the work is planned and

executed by system. Group technology and zone sequence scheduling are examples of

executing work by interim product (units, blocks and modules) and by stage (fabrication,

assembly and erection). These examples of work objectives transform the SWBS into a

parallel PWBS. The transformation occurs when the systems-oriented ship design

information is processed for necessary work instructions by production engineering. (2)

In order for a shipyard to provide accurate production cost data that is SWBS-oriented,

some reverse transformation is required. Some of the shipyard production management

systems have the capability to transform product- and process-oriented work orders so

that ship systems costs are able to be collected. Methods have been devised for allocating

or distributing costs that are effective, although somewhat approximate. One approach

used is to allocate costs based upon a planned breakdown of budget by ship systems

involved in the work order. When time charges are entered, they are then distributed

automatically on a pro-rated budget basis back to the applicable ship systems. Typically

such work orders are restricted to a single type work process. As a result the allocation

can be a fair and reasonable representation of the actual work performed on each system.

A second approach used is having the estimator compile and analyze detailed production

data and then correlate the resulting costs to functional characteristics of the ship. For

example, the electrical costs can be summarized and related to the ship-wide electrical

load, measured in kilowatts. A CER such as this may be directly useful for estimating

cost at the concept and preliminary stages of design. A third approach is to develop

systems-based CERs from shipyard work standards applied to the ship system's bill of

material. (2)

1.3 Learning Curves

Once the CERs are determined and in place it becomes necessary to look at the cost of a

ship in several respects. First, how much is it going to cost to build the initial ship in a

given class (the lead ship)? Then, once the construction of the first ship is completed,

how much is it going to cost to build subsequent ships of the same class (the follow
ships)? It is often accepted that the production of multiple products benefits from a

learning curve. This means that for a series of ships being built, each subsequent ship

labor cost should decrease due to continued improvements introduced over time in the

build strategy and the manufacturing processes and refinements used in production.

Additionally, the use of blocks, modules and other standard interim products used in

construction as well as increased specialization decreases the average construction cost as

more similar vessels are produced. As a result the CERs that are used for the original

vessel have to be modified to take into account the effects of learning as a series of

vessels of the same class are constructed in sequence.

Each process that is performed is affected by learning to different degrees. The degree

varies depending on a number of factors that include a system's complexity, the

manufacturing technology being used on the system, and the time between the

completion of one ship and the start of construction on the next. Low skill level processes

tend to exhibit low levels of learning as there is little or no reduction in the amount of

labor despite repeated performance of the task. Highly automated operations also tend to

experience little or no reduction in efficiency because machines are unable to increase

their productivity through experience. Innovative production processes such as

modulization and the PWBS are able to increase a shipyard's efficiency and decrease

costs, but this is not necessarily attributed to learning effects. The major area where

learning has a significant influence is in tasks that involve highly skilled manual labor.

This is due to the fact that skilled manual labor significantly improves its efficiency

through experience and repetition. Table 2 shows how different manufacturing activities
may exhibit different slopes in their learning rates. The slopes listed are measured in

percentages. A slope of 100% means that there is no learning involved in the process, and

therefore the efficiency cannot be improved upon through learning.

Manufacturing Activity Typical Slope

Electronics 90-95
Machining 90-95
Electrical 75-85
Welding 88-92

Table 2: Typical Learning Rates (1)

If in a particular operation there is a three to one ratio between manual and automated

labor, a slope in the vicinity of 80% is common. If the ratio between manual to automated

labor is one to one, the slopes are typically in the 85% region. If the ratio is three to one

in favor of automated labor, it will generally result in the learning rate being in the 90%

region. It becomes clear when examining the trend exhibited by the three ratios that as a

particular shipbuilding operation becomes more and more automated, there is less and

less of a learning curve.

Figure 1 shows learning curves from the 1970s and how they compare with learning

curves from the 1990s. The plot shows that the 1990s learning curves are much flatter

with slopes much closer to 100%. This corresponds with the fact that technology in the

shipbuilding industry greatly improved over those two decades. Automated processes

have become more prevalent in ship construction and as a result the slope of the learning

curve has shifted closer and closer to 100%.

 Learning Curve

1,200

1.000

O.-aw

0000

0200

2 $3 4 5 6 7 8
Ship Nmber

Figure 1: Relative Learn:ing Curve Productivities Based Upon Applications of Advanced

Shipbuilding Technologies (5)

In Figure 2, a series of equations is shown documenting the process in which a follow

ship cost is developed from a lead ship cost with a given learning curve slope. It should

be noted the slope is constant every time the number of products is doubled. Therefore

given a 90% learning curve slope, the cost of the first follow ship constructed (ship #2)

will be 90% of the cost of the lead ship (ship #1) while the cost of the sixth ship will be

90% of the cost of the third ship. The math proving this is also shown in Figure 2.
 For unit #1
Y1 = A(1P = A (First Unit Cost) and

For unit #2
Y = A(2)b = Second Unit Cost

So,
Y2 = A*(2)' = 2 a Constant. or "Slope"
Y1 A

Slope = 2 b, and, Log Slope = bLog2

Therefore, b = Losg Slope

Log2
For a 90% "Slope,"

b= Log ,9 = -0.152
Log 2

If we assume that A = 1.,0 then the relative cost between any units can be computed.

Y =(3)4~.2 = 0.8462
Y6= (6)4-2 = 0.7616

Note that:

Y6= .7616 = 0.9

Y3 .8462

Figure 2: Generation of Values for Cost Learning Curves (5)

Using the equations in Figure 2, a table has been generated that shows the data for two

distinct learning curves (Table 3). The first represents a learning curve with a slope of

90%, and the second represents a learning curve slope of 95%. The table demonstrates

how the impact of learning can affect the overall cost over a span of the construction of

20 ships. The results show the effects to be quite significant. A 5% difference in the slope

of the two curves results in nearly a 20% difference in the cost of the 2 0 th ship. Figure 3

shows a plot of the data provided in Table 3.

 Percent Percent
Ship Labor Hours Labor Hours
No. Lead Ship Lead Ship
95% slope 90% Slope
1 100.0 100.0
2 95.0 90.0
3 922 84.6
4 90.3 8 1.0
5 88.8 78.3
6 87.6 762
7 86.6 74.4
8 85.7 72.9
9 85.0 71 ,6
10 84.3 70.5
11 83.7 69.5
12 832 68.5
13 82.7 67.7
14 82.3 67.0
15 81,8 66.3
16 81.5 65.6
17 81 1 65.0
18 80.7 64.4
19 80.4 63.9
20 80,1 63.4

Table 3: Typical Learning Curve Factors (5)

Cost Learning Curves

0 120.0
10o.o
S 100.0

-- 95% slope
-- 90% Slope
l 40.o

20.0
& I*
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ship Number in Series Ship Construction
Program

Figure 3: Graph of Typical Learning Curve Factors (5)

There are certain instances that will occur in the ship design process where using learning

curve correction factors is not an appropriate action. These situations include times when

ship construction is sporadic, during the construction of custom products where the types

of functions performed are inconsistent with those of previous models, when work is

highly automated and the production rate cannot be increased any further, when there are

rules and regulations in place that limit the overall production rate, and when production

quantities are small. (1)

Whether due to a low level of orders or labor issues, sporadic production can result in a

notable decrease in overall production efficiency. Delays that cause production to be

interrupted can also cause a step increase in the overall cost. Other instances where

similar cost increases can occur include major upgrades to facilities and changes to

production processes. Laborers require a certain amount of time in order to become

accustomed to new facilities and production methods. In instances where this occurs, cost

increases in the short run are generally unavoidable. Significant design changes and

technological upgrades to a class of vessels can also result in a loss of learning because

the production process will be inherently different from one version to the next. (1)

Production costs will typically decrease from ship to ship, but some shipyards will

actually experience an increase in engineering costs for the second ship in a series. This is

an indication that the prototype engineering used was likely less successful and that a

renewed effort is needed to get the series program on a more efficient footing. All of this

means that the CERs used by the Coast Guard and the Navy for ship cost estimating must
be used with caution because there are a larger number of factors along the way that can

result in significant variations between the predicted and the actual costs.

While the aforementioned learning curves indicate a gradual cost reduction per ship in a

series, examining cost reductions for standard interim products and manufacturing

processes across all types can realize the same experience. As shipyards introduce

standard interim products as their primary means for designing and building ships, the

effects of learning become a less important consideration. This is a good indication that

the cost reductions are gained not by an actual learning experience, but more by a

diminishing of expensive rework that could have been prevented and should not have

occurred in the first place. Besides the benefit of learning curve effects upon labor costs,

multiple ship contracts can also have a positive effect upon material costs. It has been

estimated that the promise of a larger order backlog can elicit as much as a 15-20% cost

reduction from vendors and suppliers. Busy shipyards can gain lower material costs

simply because their suppliers can rely upon these shipyards with long-term business

opportunities. (1)

1.4 Life Cycle Cost, Total Ownership Cost and Whole Ship Cost

In addition to Lead and Follow Ship Costs, the cost to maintain a ship over its life span

must also be taken into consideration. Figure 4 shows the NATO Ship Life Cycle Cost

Hierarchy. As seen in the diagram, the Whole Life Costs includes the Program Life Cycle

Cost (PLCC), the Total Life Cycle Cost (TLCC), and the Total Ownership Cost (TOC).
 __

PLUSs

ITEM S WeT
ALECTED By
XU TI CE
IS !
SMirORWUASlr

* MILITARY
ACADIMIES
SCERIZM ONIAL

SSM8$ 9M$AS
* xesUZrEALS

* NAVYSTArr

WHOLE LIFE COSTS (TOC *NON.LINKED)

Figure 4: NATO Ship Life Cycle Cost Hierarchy (4)

Life Cycle Costs (LCC) include design and acquisition (production) costs as well as

operations and support (O&S) costs throughout the life of the product. Life cycle costs

have often been a major consideration for commercial shipowners who must look at the

bottom line for profit and a return upon their investment. If the cost of design and

construction, including the cost of money, cannot be recouped within a reasonable

amount of time, the ship will not be built. Similarly, if the operating and maintenance

costs exceed the operating revenues this will also cause the ship not to be built. (4)

Coast Guard ships do not have a bottom line commercial profit consideration. These

ships are put into service only to satisfy a national security commitment to its citizens.
 This does not mean they escape financial concerns during construction. As limited

government funds address an ever-widening array of government responsibilities which

has led to an increase in the Coast Guard's mission requirements, ship designs now must

be developed with an increasing focus on getting "the biggest bang for the buck" (4). In

short what this means is that mission effectiveness and capabilities must be maximized

without increasing a ship's cost. Design and engineering trade-off studies can minimize

costs without sacrificing these mission capabilities. Often these studies result in increased

mission capabilities without an increase in cost.

E
ity
0 7

Figure 5: Trade-Off Study Between Affordability and Capability (4)

The life cycle of a ship is divided into essentially four main stages: The
Conception Stage,
the Acquisitions Stage, the In-Service Stage and the Disposal Stage. These stages are

described on the next page.

Conception Stage: All activities necessary to develop and define a means for meeting a

stated requirement. For ships and equipment, this normally includes research and

development, design, contract specifications, identification of all support necessary for

introduction of funding required and managerial structure for the acquisition.

Acquisitions Stage: All activities necessary to acquire the ship and provide support for

the ship and equipment identified in the conception stage.

In-Service Stage: All activities necessary for operation, maintenance, support and

modification of the ship or equipment throughout its operational life. The in-service stage

is normally the longest stage.

Disposal Stage: All activities necessary to remove the ship or equipment and its

supporting materials from service.

In order to determine the overall life cycle cost for a ship, costs must be estimated for

each of the above stages.

When viewing the life cycle cost breakdown, only about 25% of the costs are directly

related to the ship's acquisition. This means that the remaining 75% of the total cost

comes from operation, support and disposal. These costs are made up of personnel,

consumables, direct maintenance, sustaining investment, other direct costs, and indirect

costs. Figure 6 shows the NATO cost categories for ships. For naval ships the largest of
these costs is the cost of personnel which is roughly 37 percent of the total O&S cost.

This is followed by the maintenance cost which accounts for 21% of the total O&S cost.

NATO Alternate Operating & Support

Cost Categories for Ships

Figure 6: NATO Alternate Operating and Support Cost Categories for Ships (4)

Due to the fact that personnel costs are by far the largest contributor to operating

expenses, this should be one of the first areas studied in an attempt to reduce overall costs.
The personnel category contains the cost of pay and allowances for personnel assigned to

the ship. It includes the personnel required to meet combat readiness, training and

administrative requirements, and covers base pay, allowances, and contributions by the

government to federal social security and retirement funds. Costs are based on manning

levels and skill categories rather than cost per hour. There are two basic approaches to

reducing manpower requirements. The first is to increase the efficiency of the personnel

onboard and the second is to aid the personnel by creating more automation so that the

same tasks can be done with fewer people.

When working with new designs that propose to reduce crew requirements by amounts

between 50 and 75 percent, the design strategy might be to incrementally upgrade each

successive ship as new approaches and systems prove themselves. The design concept

should also have a provision to retrofit previous editions, as these systems become

workable. Research needs to be done in order to determine what can be done to first

reduce manpower requirements with existing systems or with minor upgrades to these

systems. Simple improvements in management practices, increased personnel training,

and efficient system monitoring and reporting procedures can result in reduced

manpower requirements. At more of an extreme, overall efficiency must be a prerequisite

to the use of increased automation. Some interim systems modifications may be

necessary before adopting a fully automated structure.

 The Coast Guard has already started the process of moving towards ships with smaller

crew sizes in an attempt to decrease life cycle costs. The Coast Guard Cutter Healy

(WAGB 20), a 420' long icebreaking platform actively commissioned in 2000, has a

crew complement of 85 including 19 officers and 66 enlisted. Its predecessors, the

USCGC Polar Sea and USCGC Polar Star, have crews of 141 (15 officers and 126

enlisted). This is significant because the Polar Class icebreakers are also smaller than

Healy measuring 399' in length. This is largely due to an increase in automation on board

the Healy which has allowed the ship to conduct the same operations with fewer people.

Figure 7: USCGC Healy (6)

The recently constructed National Security Cutter (WMSL), a part of the Coast Guard's

Deepwater Project, also takes advantage of upgrades in technology that will allow it to
carry a smaller crew complement than its predecessor as well. The 378' Hamilton Class

High Endurance Cutter, constructed during the 1960s, has a larger crew by nearly 20

people despite being 40 feet shorter than its replacement.

Increased automation can result in sizeable manpower reductions, but there are two

important factors to consider. First, a smaller number of personnel on board usually

means there is less crew backup capacity, both in terms of physical presence and more

than likely in technical knowledge as well. The risk of this is that it may lead to reduced

safety and operational ability for the ship. Any new design should consider the potential

(and the related costs) to add personnel as a contingency measure and should develop a

design layout that allows for additional living quarters and systems for additional users.

Second, it must be considered that automation may have an overall negative effect on

maintenance and modernization costs. The goal behind having a ship become more

automated is to reduce the overall costs for the ship. If the savings in personnel cost lead

to subsequent overages in the maintenance and acquisition budgets, then the process is

not helping.

Some factors to consider when attempting to reduce the crew requirements of a ship

include potentially higher acquisition costs for on board systems, a greater need for

redundant or backup systems, higher training costs for the trainers, trainees and

maintenance, higher repair costs, higher costs in salary, benefits, and incentives to help

reduce turnover of highly skilled personnel, and recruitment costs for acquiring skilled

personnel.
The second largest operation and support expense is maintenance. The maintenance

category covers the cost of personnel, material, contractual services required to perform

maintenance or modification of the ship, ships system, components and support

equipment at government or industry repair facilities or on site by repair teams or at

intermediate repair activities whether ashore or afloat. A key consideration is identifying

the factors that drive these costs. In specifying materials and/or equipment, the first

things to consider are the initial costs. This includes the cost of acquisition and

installation, durability, suitability, as well as long-term maintenance costs. During the

early development cycle, design decisions should balance production costs against

ownership costs. Maintenance costs must be computed in several different formats

depending upon the type of material and/or maintenance activity. Costs for other

maintenance activities include dry-docking, cleaning, and temporary service hook-up, etc.

These costs can be derived on the basis of ship length, displacement, or cubic number in

conjunction with the number of maintenance cycles in service. Maintenance costs for

items such as steel and piping must be computed by using a sum of repair CERs for tasks

that will include sandblasting, painting, plate renewal, and pipe renewal. The CERs for

items such as these can be detailed and specific, but they also can be derived on the basis

of the ship's general characteristics such as light ship weight or some other general

design parameter. (4)

The consumables category of the O&S cost contains the costs of energy required for

peacetime operations, the costs of material consumed in the operation, maintenance and

support of the ship, and the costs of expendable stores consumed in the training of the
crew. It includes items such as the following: petroleum, oil, lubricants, additives,

batteries, nuclear power, commercial and field electricity, stores materials, supplies,

ammunition, sonobuoys, pyrotechnics, etc.

The sustaining investment category covers the replenishment of the inventory of spares

and repair parts that are retained in stock, the costs of modifying ship platform or payload

systems and support and training equipment used to achieve acceptable safety levels,

overcome capability deficiencies and improve reliability. It also includes mid-life

conversions and refit programs.

The "other direct costs" category covers other significant logistic or operating and

support costs for items not specifically included in another O&S category. Included are

the costs of equipment, services, information, helicopter O&S costs, trainers, simulators,

and second destination transportation, etc.

Finally, the "indirect costs" category applies to costs that are required during the service

life of the ship but are not directly related to a particular ship or subsystem. These costs

include installation support, personnel, medical and dental personnel, personnel support

(operations maintenance and permanent change of station), personnel acquisition and

training (recruiting and basic and technical schools). (4)

Total Ownership Cost (TOC) is a holistic approach to understanding all of the costs that

are affected by the existence or introduction of a naval program or project and is a key
affordability assessment and decision-making tool. Although national experience,

definitions, opinions and approaches can vary widely, the concept of TOC is considered

by many nations to be an important method and the "way of the future" towards

identifying all affected costs as a consequence of a program decision. TOC analysis helps

with balancing near-term acquisition phase affordability constraints with the long-term

life cycle cost objectives. The goal is to reduce the cost of ownership with the long-term

life cycle cost objectives and thereby free up funding for modernization and

recapitalization of weapon systems, e.g. ships. The name used to describe the sum of all

costs attributed to a program is the phrase "Total Ownership Cost."

TOC consists of all elements that are a part of the life cycle cost plus the indirect, fixed

and linked costs. The latter of these may include items such as common support

equipment, common facilities, personnel required for unit command, administration,

supervision, operations planning and control, fuel, and munitions handling. TOC

represents all costs associated with the ownership of a system except non-linked fixed

costs that are related to the running of the organization. TOC is used for budgeting

purposes, determining the use of services between systems, for optimization purposes and

for financial analysis. (4)

Whole Life Cost (WLC) consists of all elements that are part of the TOC plus indirect,

fixed and non-linked costs. These latter may include items such as family housing,

medical services, ceremonial units, basic training, headquarters and staff, academies, and

recruiters. In WLC, all costs or expenses that are made by the organization are attributed
to the systems or products they produce. As WLC represents the total budget provision

including such elements as headquarters cost, it allows the visibility of the complete

allocation of funds. WLC is used for a strategic view and high level studies.

Figure 8 shows a model for NATO's Ship Life cycle Costing broken down into four parts:

Program Phases, Cost Models, Cost/Work Breakdown Structure and Hierarchy.

* U

zJ ,i

COST MODELS

ish ,,
M NOW s.....
E l, .
Prexsafit NATO
so-war
h4 .
F-- sa+-
ne-- SHIP LIFE CYCLE
Prmoduca and Support
OeDIga
CL
SH e
Lkjioa EACOSTINGH

HIERARCHY

V,
WI'
a

Figure 8: NATO Ship Costing Approach (4)

CHAPTER 2: THE MIT COST MODELS

At present, there are two different cost models for MIT students to use when developing

preliminary cost estimates for a particular ship design: the BMTS Cost Model, and the

MIT Math Model. Each of these models has its own advantages and disadvantages. As a

result, it was determined to be beneficial to combine the two individual models into one

working model to provide continuity in cost estimation for the 2N program, and to

develop a model with fewer flaws than the two parent programs. Additionally, data on the

270' Famous Class Coast Guard Cutter (shown in Figure 9) was obtained to allow for the

creation of CERs that would not be specific to Naval Combatants, thus expanding the

capabilities of the program even further.

Figure 9: USCGC ESCANABA, Famous Class (6)

 2.1 The BMTS Cost Model

To understand the process of combining the two models, it is beneficial to first take a

look at each of them individually. The BMTS Cost Model is a weight based cost

estimation model. To use it there are several required inputs. The most significant of

these inputs are values for the one digit SWBS group weights measured in long tons.

These values can easily be pulled off of ASSET's design summary report which is shown

below in Figure 10..The fact that the information needed is so easily accessibly makes it

an easy model for MIT students to use during the early design stages of ship design.

LIGHTSHIP WEIGHT 1450.9

LOADS 376.1
FULL LOAD DISPLACEKEIT 1827.0
FULL LOAD KG: H 5.5
HILITARY PAYLOAD UT- HTON 115.9
USABLE FUEL WT - HTON 197.9

Figure 10: Output from ASSET depicting breakdown of weights by SWBS groups

In addition to the SWBS group weights, the weight of the design margin is also required.

This value must also be determined in terms of long tons and not as a percentage of the
ship's weight. ASSET's design summary report also provides the user with the margin

weight. There are six other primary inputs: The percentage of allowable change orders for

both the lead ship and the follow ships, the percentage of profit to be generated by the

shipyard from the project, the slope of the learning curve that the shipyard experiences

between construction of subsequent ships, and the total number of ships being built.

These inputs are then applied to the cost estimating relationships that are provided in the

model. These relationships are located on the FACTORS tab. The BMTS Cost Model has

CERs for labor hours and for the cost of material, both as they pertain to weight. The

CERs are broken down by the SWBS groups that the user is required to input numbers

for. The CERs provided in this program only go as far as one digit SWBS groups making

it a very general cost estimation program. It is possible to develop more detailed CERs to

go into the two or even three digit SWBS numbers, but given the purpose of this program,

it is not necessary to have a model with that level of detail. In addition to the list of CERs

the FACTORS tab also includes another list of factors used to generate the outputs. The

complete factors tab is shown below in Table 4.

The Lead Ship Cost and the Follow Ship Cost are generated on separate spreadsheets by

the BMTS Cost Model. These spreadsheets take the inputs and CERs to deliver the

resulting Lead Ship and Follow Ship Costs. The calculations used to determine the lead

ship cost will be examined first. Each SWBS group receives cost contributions from 4

different areas: Direct Labor, Overhead, Material, and Material Overhead. The equations

used to determine the associated costs are listed as Equations 2-5.

 Table 4: Factors Used For Outputs for BMTS Cost Model

Prior to implementing these cost equations, the program uses the Labor CERs to

determine the overall amount of hours of shipyard labor spent on each SWBS group.

(LN(Learnin gCurve
LaborHours=SWBSweight-LaborCER-NumberLeadShips (CLN(2)) )

Equation 1: Determining Labor Hours for an Individual SWBS group

The SWBSweight variable is the weight in long tons of a particular SWBS group while

the LaborCER variable is the coinciding cost estimating relationship. NumberLeadShips

is the amount of Lead Ships designated by the user (this number needs to be 1), and

LearningCurve is the slope of the learning curve for the shipyard between subsequent
projects. The resulting number of labor hours is then used to determine the overall cost of

labor and the labor overhead.

LaborCost = LaborHouIrs-LaborRate

Equation 2: Labor Cost Equation for Lead Ship

The Labor Rate is predetermined on the FACTORS tab. The Rate for SWBS groups 100-

700 and 900 all fall under the same rate while the SWBS 800 group has a unique rate of

its own.

OverheadCost= LaborCost Overheado

Equation 3: Overhead Cost Equation for Lead Ship

The Overhead Percentage is listed on the FACTORS tab. Similar to the labor rate, SWBS

groups 100-700 and 900 have the same overhead percentage while the SWBS 800 group

has a separate rate.

Mate rialCost= S WBSweight MaterialCER

Equation 4: Material Cost Equation for Lead Ship

The Material CER is a relationship relating the weight of a SWBS group to material cost.

It is given in terms of dollars per long ton.

Ma Ovhd CostI = MaterialCost MatlOvhd%

Equation 5: Material Overhead Cost Equation for Lead Ship

The Material Overhead Cost is calculated in a similar manner to the Overhead Cost. The

Overhead Cost relates labor cost to overhead percentage while the Material Overhead

Cost relates material cost to material overhead percentage.

The sum of these four costs is calculated for the SWBS 100-700 groups. The equations

are slightly different for the SWBS 800 and 900 groups. Unlike the SWBS 100-700

groups, the SWBS 800 and 900 groups are not associated with a weight. Instead to get the

labor hours, the labor percentages for these two groups (located on the FACTORS tab)

are multiplied by the labor hours calculated for lightship weight (sum of the labor hours

for the SWBS 100-700 groups plus the labor hours determined for the margin).

Lab orHourss an dsoo = SW BSL a borPercentage-Lightsh ip Weight Lab o rHours

Equation 6: SWBS 800 and 900 Labor Hours Calculation for Lead Ship
The calculation for Material Cost is also slightly different for SWBS groups 800 and 900

as once again percentages designated on the FACTORS tab are used in place of weight as

in the case of the other SWBS groups. This percentage is then multiplied by the sum of

the material cost for SWBS groups 100-700 and the material cost of the Margin.

Mate rialCostsooandgo= S WBSMaterialPercentage-LightshpMaterialCost

Equation 7: Material Cost for SWBS 800 and 900 for Lead Ship

Labor Hours for the Margin are determined by taking the ratio of the Margin Weight to

the SWBS 100-700 weight and then multiplying it by the Total Labor Hours used for the

SWBS 100-700 groups.

Margin Rat(Margi n We i gh t)
M argin Rati o =
(S W BSloo 0-700 Weig ht)

Equation 8: Margin Ratio as applied to Costs for Lead Ship

The overall cost for the SWBS groups 100-700 is then added to the overall cost of the

margin to form the cost of the lightship weight. This value is subsequently added to the

cost of SWBS groups 800 and 900 to produce the Target Cost. The Target Cost is then

multiplied by the profit factor inputted by the user to determine the profit made by the

shipyard for the project, and the Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM) percentage
provided on the FACTORS tab is multiplied by the Total Direct Labor Cost. The sum of

these three values equates to the Basic Contract Price for the Lead Ship.

The cost of the lead ship goes beyond just the basic contract price though. Other factors

contribute as well and are listed on the OUTPUTS tab.

Table 5: Lead Ship Cost Contributors for the BMTS Cost Model

The factors used to generate these additional costs are either listed on the FACTORS tab,

as in the case of Plan Costs, Electronics Costs, Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E)

Costs, Other Costs and Ordnance Costs, and on the Inputs tab in the case of Change

Orders Cost. The given factors (which are provided as percentages) are then multiplied

by the Basic Construction Cost to generate the tabulated results. The output is given in

thousands of dollars and is set to fiscal year 2005 so in order to get a present day estimate,

an inflation factor must be applied to the end result.

The Follow Basic Construction tab contains all of the calculations for the follow ship cost.

The equations for developing the cost of the subsequent ships are very similar to the lead

ship equations with a few exceptions. Before discussing the equations in depth, several

errors in the formulas for follow ship construction cost were discovered and they shall be

addressed first.

These errors were discovered when using test values of 1 lead ship and 1 follow ship so

as to be able to examine the data and trends from one ship to the next. The first error

occurs in the references of the Group 8 Engineering line. Initially the program references

incorrect values for labor cost and overhead as it uses the values for the SWBS Groups

100-700 and 900 instead of those for the SWBS 800 group. With the incorrect references

in place, it appears as though the learning curve is being applied to the follow ship cost

seen below in Table 6.

i I I

Table 6: Initial BMTS Cost Model Results with Incorrect SWBS 800 reference
Once the correction is made, it becomes clear that the learning curve is not being factored

in to the Basic Construction Cost as the only costs that change are the plan costs and the

change orders cost, and these only change because there are specific references that differ

between the lead ship and following ships.

111 01 11,l

Table 7: BMTS Cost Model Results with Faulty Learning Curve Equation

Upon a closer review of the equations used to determine follow ships costs, the reason

that the learning curve does not factor in when the number of follow ships is set to 1 can

be seen clearly in equation 9.

(L
(e hrnin gRataa))

LaborHours=SWBSweight-LaborCER-NumberFollowShips ( LN(2))

Equation 9: Faulty Labor Hour Calculations for Follow Ship

The problem becomes apparent when the number of follow ships is equal to 1 because

this eliminates the contributions of the exponent and thus negates the effects of the

learning curve. To correct this error, the variable needs to account for the number of total

ships produced and not just the number of follow ships. Adding the value of the number

of lead ships produced to the equation prevents the program from not taking into account

the learning curve for the first follow ship by the shipyard. Equation 10 below reflects

this change and Table 8 shows the resulting costs with the corrections made.

LaborHours=SWBSweight-LaborCER-NumberTotalhips ( (2))

Equation 10: Corrected Learning Curve Equation for Follow Ship Cost Estimation

ON A
14-
59IR"Mm"
K
IN
'g 11NIIIRIM

Table 8: Cost Model Results with Corrected Learning Curve

There is one other error in the calculations for Follow Ship Cost and it occurs in the

equation generating Plan Costs for the Follow Ship. The equation listed in the BMTS
Cost Model has unnecessary extra terms when it should be the same as the equation for

Plan Costs for the Lead Ship, only with a different multiplier designated on the

FACTORS tab. Once this is corrected, the final corrected costs are shown below in Table

9.

Table 9: Final Outputs from Corrected BMTS Cost Model

The BMTS also provides the user with the operations and support cost per year for the

ship. This is a very rough estimate as it calculates only the O&S cost, and does not take

into account any specific factors that may affect. Therefore, whether or not the ship has

1000 people on board, or only 100 people on board, the difference is not reflected in this

particular model. Instead it is merely calculated as a fixed percentage of the Basic

Construction Cost of the lead ship.

While the model does not provide a very good approximation of the life cycle cost, it

does offer a very good model for the lead ship and follow ship costs. The model is also

very easy to use as all of the inputs are located in one place and additionally it is easy to

adjust the CERs if a user did not want to use the data provided by the program itself.

2.2 The MIT Math Model

The MIT Math Model is set up a bit differently than the BMTS Cost Model. Like the

BMTS Model, it is a weight based cost estimation model. The user is once again required

to input the weights for the SWBS 100-700 groups, but this program additionally requests

several other pieces of information. This includes Total Brake Horsepower, the weight of

the SWBS 420 and 430 groups, the average deck height, the Ordnance Weight (including

helicopter ordnance) and the weight and number of helicopters.

The MIT Math Model also requires the user to input crew complement. Three separate

inputs are listed: officer, chief petty officer (CPO) and enlisted. The values of these three

variables are then summed up to produce the total crew size.

The MIT Math model, like the BMTS Cost Model, does calculations for both the lead

ship and the follow ship cost on separate spreadsheets. To compute the lead ship cost, the

user is required to provide six more inputs. The inputs are Ship Service Life (in years),

Year of Initial Operational Capability (Year), Total Ship Acquisition (number of ships),

Ship Production Rate (How many ships are built per year), Base Year (year) and Average
Inflation Rate (%). The Average Inflation Rate is subsequently used to determine the

Inflation Factor.

Below the inputs are a significant number of variables. These are listed in Table 10. The

format for the MIT Math Model is much different as the cost breakdown does not factor

in labor costs independently of material costs. There is simply one relationship for each

SWBS group designated KN. Costs are determined for 9 SWBS groups (100-900), and

the summation of these costs generates the Total Lead Ship Construction Cost. Unlike the

BMTS Cost Model where each of the SWBS groups operated uses identical formulas

with the exception of the CERs specific to their group, the MIT Math Model uses

different equations for each SWBS group. The KN factors are listed in Table 11 and the

equations (11-20) they are applied in are listed below them using the variables defined in

Table 9.

Each of the equations listed generates a number in millions of dollars. Several variables

occur in the equations that are not designated in Table 10. These are F1 (the inflation

factor), WM24 (future growth weight margin) and WLS (margined lightship weight).

The sum of these costs, as stated earlier determines the Total Lead Ship Construction

Cost. This cost is then added to the profit the shipyard makes on the ship. To determine

the profit value, the profit factor is inputted by the user on the Lead Ship Cost tab. The

profit factor is then multiplied by the Total Lead Ship Construction Cost to determine the

profit. These numbers are then added together to determine the Lead Ship Price. The
Lead Ship Price is then added to the price of change orders to determine the Total

Shipbuilder Portion of the cost. The price of change orders is calculated in a similar

fashion as the profit. The Change Order Factor is inputted by the user and multiplied by

the Lead Ship Price thus producing the cost of Change Orders.

1Li ~I 1~I CLI1IIr

VAmIACLt NAM-t
II C1~ - - -- -- -- - -
VAKIASLt USCGRIPTION
CL1D SWBS 100 Cost
CL2D SWBS 200 Cost
CL3D SWBS 300 Cost
CL4D SWBS 400 Cost
CL5D SWBS 500 Cost
CL6D SWBS 600 Cost
CL7D SWBS 700 Cost
CL8D SWBS 800 Cost
CL9D SWBS 900 Cost
CLCC Total Lead Ship Construction Cost
CLCORD Change Orders
CLEND Total End Cost
CLGOV Total Government Cost
CLHMEG HM&E GFE (Boats, IC)
CLM Margin Cost
CLMPG Ordnance and Electrical GFE (Military Payload GFE)
CLOTH Other Support
CLOUT Outfitting Cost
CLP Profit
CLPMG Program Manager's Growth
COF Change Order Factor
CSB Total Shipbuilder Portion
CSCER Combat System GFE CER
FPROFIT Profit Factor
HC Helo Cost
HMEGFEF HM&E GFE Factor
KN1 SWBS 100 Cost Factor
KN2 SWBS 200 Cost Factor
KN3 SWBS 300 Cost Factor
KN4 SWBS 400 Cost Factor
KN5 SWBS 500 Cost Factor
KN6 SWBS 600 Cost Factor
KN7 SWBS 700 Cost Factor
KN8 SWBS 800 Cost Factor
KN9 SWBS 900 Cost Factor
DCF Outfitting Cost Factor
DSF Other Support Factor
PL Lead Ship Price
PMGF Program Manager's Growth Factor
'SAC PSA Cost
'SACF Post Delivery Cost (PSA) Factor
-LSAC Total Lead Ship Acquisition Cost
NMP Weight of Costed Military Payload

Table 10: Variable List for Lead Ship Cost for MIT Math Model Cost Estimation
 KN Table
KN1 0.55
KN2 1.2
KN3 1
KN4 2
KN5 1.5
KN6 1
KN7 1.13
KN8 10
KN9 2

Table 11: KN Values as used by the MIT Math Model

CL1D= 0.3395-F IKN1 (W Ti)O 772 (11)

8 0s 8 )
CL 2 D = 0.00186-F1 -KN2 -BrakeHorse Power. (12)
91
N (WFT3)
CL 3 D= 0.07505-F1 -KN3 (13)
17
CL 4 D = .10857-F 1 KN4- (WT4)0.6
(14)

CL 5 D= .09487-F I KVNs (Wr Ts) 82

(15)

S (WT 6 ) 84
CL 6 D = .09859- F1 -KI6 (16)

CL 7 D = .00838 -F1- KN7 (W T7 )9 8 7 (17)

CLM=
C(WM W
24) (CL1D+CL2D+CL3D+CL4D+
CLsD+C L6D+CL7D)
(WLS - WM24)
(18)
CL D = .034 -KNs -(CLi D+CL2D+CL3 D+CL4 D+CLsD+CL D+CL7 D+CLM)'1 0 99

(19)
8 3s 9
7 D+CLM)A
6 D+CL
CL 9 D= 0.135 -KN 9 -(CLI D+CL2D+CL3 D+CL4D+CLD+CL

(20)

Equations 11-20: MIT Math Model Basic Construction Cost Contributers

Once the Shipbuilder Portion of the Cost is calculated, the MIT Math Model moves on to

calculate the Total Government Cost. To do this, a series of factors and CERs are

provided in the spreadsheet: the Other Support Factor, the Program Manager's Growth

Factor, the Combat System GFE CER, the HM&E Factor, and the Outfitting Cost Factor.

The user is required to input the Program Manager's Growth Factor, but all of the other

terms are given. This section of the spreadsheet also provides helicopter cost and

weighted cost of military payload (in long tons). The Sum of the Other Support Cost, the

Program Manager's Growth Cost, the Ordnance and Electrical GFE (Military Payload)

Cost, the HM&E GFE (Boats, IC) Cost and the Outfitting Cost equals the Total

Government Cost. Equations for these terms are listed below (For Variable Descriptions,

See Table 10).

CLOTH= OSF-PL (21)

CLPMG=PMGF-PL (22)

CLMPG=F1 .(CSCER. WMP+NHELOHC) (23)

CLHMEG= HMEGFEF-PL (24)

CLOUT= OCF-PL (25)

Equations 21-25: Costs to Determine Total Government Cost for MIT Math Model

The Helicopter Terms in the determination of the Ordnance and Electrical GFE (Military

Payload GFE) do not affect the lead ship cost. The variable NHELO is set in the program,

but it carries explicit instructions: "Leave this set to 'zero'. Helicopter cost should not be
included in lead ship cost." Therefore the helicopter does not impact this cost and this

term is not required.

Once the Total Government Cost is computed, it is added to the Total Shipbuilder's

Portion to determine the Total End Cost. The Final Step is for the user to input the Post

Delivery Cost (PSA) Factor to generate the PSA Cost. This PSA Factor is multiplied by

the Lead Ship Price to produce the PSA Cost. When the PSA Cost is added to the Total

End Cost, it produces the Total Lead Ship Acquisition Cost. The next step is to calculate

the follow ship cost. Similar to the lead ship cost tab, there are a substantial number of

variables. Table 12 below shows the variables and their descriptions.

VARIABLE NAME VARIABLE DESCRIPTION

CF800C Integration/Engineering Cost
CF800E Integration/Engineering Follow Ship Exponent
CF800F Integration/Engineering Follow Ship Factor
CF900C Ship Assembly and Support Cost
CFA Total Follow Ship Acquisition Cost
CFBCC Follow Ship Basic Construction Cost
CFCC Total Follow Ship Construction Cost
CFEND Total Follow Ship End Cost
CFM Follw Ship Margin Cost
CFPSA Follow Ship PSA Cost
CFPSAF Follow Ship PSA Cost Factor
CFSB Total Follow Ship Cost Shipbuilder Portion
CLPMG Program Manager's Growth
COC Change Order Cost
FCGOV Total Follow Ship Government Cost
FCHMEG Follow Ship HM&E GFE Cost
FCMPG Follow Ship Ordnance and Electrical GFE Cost
FCOUT Follow Ship Outfitting Cost
FHMEGFE Follow Ship HM&E GFE Factor
FOCF Follow Ship Outfitting Cost Factor
FPMG Follow Ship Program Manager's Growth Cost
FPMGF Follow Ship Program Manager's Growth Factor
FPROFIT Profit
FSCOF Follow Ship Change Order Factor
FSCSCER Follow Ship Combat System GFE CER
FSOC Follow Ship Other Cost
FSOCF Follow Ship Other Cost Factor
LRF Learning Rate Factor
LRF Learning Rate
PF Total Follow Ship Price

Table 12: Variable List for Follow Ship Cost Tab in MIT Math Model
Calculations for the follow ship cost are slightly different than the calculations for the

lead ship cost. Unlike the lead ship cost, the follow ship cost is impacted by the Learning

Rate Factor. The user is required to input the Learning Rate Factor which is used to

calculate the Learning Rate. Equation 26 shows how the Learning Rate is generated from

the Learning Factor.

LR= 2-LRF- 1

Equation 26: Derivation of Learning Rate from Learning Rate Factor

The Learning Rate is then applied to the SWBS group 100-700 Costs, the Margin Cost

and the SWBS group 900 Cost to produce the Follow Ship Basic Construction Cost, the

Follow Ship Margin Cost, and the Ship Assembly and Support Cost. For the SWBS 800

group, new factors are provided in the Follow Ship Cost tab: The Integration/Engineering

Follow Ship Factor (CF800F), and the Integration/Engineering Follow Ship Exponent

(CF800E). Equation 27 shows how these terms generate the Integration/Engineering Cost.

(c oo 0 E)
C Feoo C = C Feoo F -(C FBCC C- CFM)

Equation 27: Integration/Engineering Cost for Follow Ship from MIT Math Model
This cost is then added to the three previously calculated costs on this tab thus generating

the Total Follow Ship Construction Cost. The profit factor designated in the Lead Ship

tab is then applied to the Total Follow Ship Construction Cost to determine the shipyard's

earnings. When this value is then added to the Total Follow Ship Construction Cost it

gives the user the Total Follow Ship Price. The next step is to take the Follow Ship

Change Order Factor (designated by the user) and multiply it by the Total Follow Ship

Price. The Change Order Cost is then added to the Total Follow Ship Price to produce the

Total Follow Ship Cost Shipbuilder Portion.

As in the case of the Lead Ship Cost spreadsheet, the next step is to determine the

government portion of the follow ship cost. The equations for this portion are the same as

the ones for the lead ship cost, with just the factors changing. The Follow Ship Other

Cost, the Follow Ship Program Manager's Growth Cost, the Follow Ship Ordnance and

Electrical GFE Cost, the Follow Ship HM&E GFE Cost, and the Follow Ship Outfitting

Cost are summed together to determine the Total Follow Ship Government Cost. This

value summed with the shipbuilder's portion of the cost produces the Total Follow Ship

End Cost. Finally, the Follow Ship PSA Cost Factor is multiplied by the Total Follow

Ship Price to generate the Follow Ship PSA Cost. This summed with the Follow Ship

PSA Cost Factor produces the Total Follow Ship Acquisition Cost.

While the lead and follow ship spreadsheets for the MIT Math Model are cluttered and

not particularly user friendly, the model does have a very good spreadsheet for generating

life cycle costs. Table 13 shows the variables used on this spreadsheet and their
accompanying definitions. The Life Cycle Cost generated by the MIT Math Model takes

into account costs from several areas: Research and Development, Investment, and

Operations and Support. It also takes into account the Residual Value of the Ship over

time. These four values are summed together to generate the total life cycle cost of the

program, that is to say the cost of all of the ships constructed through the duration of their

service life.
VARIABLE NAME VARIABLE DESCRIPTION
ASCF Average Ship Cost Factor
ASFCM Average Ship Cost Factor for Maintenance
ASFCO Average Ship Cost Factor for Operations
BSDDF Basic Ship Construction Design and Development Factor
BSTEF Basic Ship Construction Test and Evaluation Factor
CAVG Average Ship Cost
CFE CPO and Enlisted Cost Factor
CFO Officer Cost Factor
CFUEL Fuel Cost
CINV Total Investment Cost
CISS Cost of Spares and Repair Parts
CLIFE Total Life Cycle Cost (Undiscounted)
CMSP Cost of Major Support
CMTC Total Maintenance Cost
CNRG Total Fuel Cost
COAS Total Operating and Support Cost
COPS Cost of Operations
CPAY Cost of Pay and Allowances
CPERS Total Cost of Personnel
CRD Total Ship Research and Development Cost
CREP Replenishment Spares Cost
CSDD Ship Design and Development Cost
CSPE Cost of Ships
CSSE Cost of Ship Support Equipment
CSTE Ship Test and Evaluatoin Cost
CTAD Cost of TAD
FCONV Fuel Conversion
FRATE Fuel Rate
H Number of Operating Hours Per Year
MCF1 Maintenance Cost Factor 1
MCF2 Maintenance Cost Factor 2
MHCF Maintenance Hours Cost Factor
MPGCF Government Follow Ship Military Payload Cost Factor
MPSDDF Government Military Payload Design and Devleopment Factor
MPSTEF Government Military Payload Test and Evaluation Factor
MSF1 Major Support Factor 1
MSF2 Major Support Factor 2
MSOHF Major Support Operating Hours Cost Factor
OCF1 Operations Cost Factor 1
OCF2 Operations Cost Factor 2
OHCF Opreating Hours Cost Factor
RES Residual Value
RVCF Residual Value Cost Factor
SDDF Ship Design and Development Factor
SEF Support Equipment Factor
SRPF Spares and Repair Parts Factor
STEF Ship Test and Evaluation Factor
TADF TAD Factor

Table 13: Variables and Definitions for MIT Math Model Life Cycle Cost Tab
The Total Ship Research and Development Cost is the sum of the Ship Design and

Development Cost, and the Ship Test and Evaluation Cost. The equations for the two

costs are listed below.

CSDD= (1+SDFF)-(BSDDF.-
.(CFSB) +MPSDDF-CLMPG
1
S(L R) )(28)

CSTE= (1+STEF).(STEF (C ) MPTEF(29)CLMP

Equations 28-29: Research and Development Cost Components

The bulk of the factors for these equations are provided in the Life Cycle Costs tab. The

only variables are the Total Follow Ship Cost Shipbuilder Portion, the Ordnance and

Electrical GFE (Military Payload GFE), and the Learning Rate. All of the other variables

are fixed in the spreadsheet.

The Total Investment Cost is the sum of the Cost of the Ships, Cost of Ship Support

Equipment, and the Cost of Spares and Repair Parts. The equations for these terms are

listed below.
 (CFA) N ( KL NC2 ) (30)

CSSE= SEF-CSPE (31)

CISS= SRPF-CSPE (32)

Equations 30-32: Total Investment Cost Components

The equation for Total Ship Cost presents a problem. If the Total Ship Acquisition is one,

meaning one lead ship and no follow ships, then the cost of the ship should be the lead

ship cost. This is not the result when these values are applied to this model. The Total

Follow Ship Acquisition Cost divided by the Learning Rate does not equal the Total Lead

Ship Acquisition Cost. To fix this, the equation for the Total Ship Cost must be modified.

This fix will be addressed in the merger of the two models so that the Total Ship Cost

equals the sum of the Total Lead Ship Acquisition Cost and the sum of all of the Total

Follow Ship Acquisition Costs.

The remaining costs in the Investments column depend on factors given in the program.

The Support Equipment Factor is used to determine the Cost of Ship Support Equipment

while the Spares and Repair Parts Factor is used to calculate the Cost of Spares and

Repair Parts. Each of these factors is multiplied by the Cost of Ships to determine their

corresponding values and the sum of the three costs in this column provide the user with

the Total Investment Cost.

The Operations and Support Cost has far more components than the costs previously

discussed. Operations and Support is broken down into the Total Cost of Personnel, the

Cost of Operations, the Total Maintenance Cost, the Total Fuel Cost, the Replenishment

Spares Cost and the Cost of Major Support. These values are all summed together to

provide the user with the Total Operating and Support Cost.

The Total Cost of Personnel is a combination of the Cost of Pay and Allowances for both

officers and enlisted members and the Cost of Temporary Assigned Duty (TAD)

personnel. As expected, over the lifespan of the ship, the cost of TAD personnel is fairly

insignificant. To determine the cost of pay and allowances, the following equation is used:

CPAY = F .(CFO.NO+(CFE.(NCPO+NE))).NS-LS

Equation 33: Cost of Pay and Allowances for Personnel

As shown in the equation the inputted numbers of officers and enlisted (enlisted members

being a combination of chief petty officers and enlisted crewmembers) are multiplied by

their corresponding factors provided in the spreadsheet. The total is then multiplied by

the inflation factor calculated on the Lead Ship Cost tab. Finally these are multiplied by

the total number of ships constructed during the acquisition and the ship service life.

The TAD cost is calculated in a slightly different manner. The equation below shows that

there are not individual factors for officers and enlisted, just a blanket TAD factor that is
multiplied by the crew size. Once the factor is applied, this number is again subject to

being multiplied by the number of ships, the ship service life, and the inflation factor.

CTAD= F 1 -(NO.N CPO.NE)-NS-.L TADF

Equation 34: Cost of TAD Personnel

The next factor is the Cost of Operations. The Cost of Operations requires the Number of

Operating Hours per Year to be inputted by the user. There are five factors that affect the

overall cost of operations: Operations Cost Factors one and two, the Operating Hours

Cost Factor, The Average Ship Cost Factor for Operations, and the Government Follow

Ship Military Payload Cost Factor. Equation 35 shows how these factors are applied to

determine the Cost of Operations.

COPS= NS.LS.(FI..001 .(OCFI +OCF'.(NO+NCPO+N#)-H.OHCF)+CA VG.AS+FO+FCMPG.MPGCF)

Equation 35: Cost of Operations

The Total Maintenance Cost is the next to be determined. There are four Cost Factors that

determine the Total Maintenance Cost: Maintenance Cost Factors one and two, the

Maintenance Hours Cost Factor, and the Average Ship Cost Factor for Maintenance.

These factors are utilized in an equation similar to the one used to calculate the Cost of

Operations which is shown below.

CMTC= NS LS- (F1 -0.001 (M CF 1 +MCF 2 (N O+N CP O+NE) - H-MHCF) +CA VGASF CM)

Equation 36: Cost of Maintenance

The next component of the Total Operating and Support Cost is the Total Fuel Cost. This

requires two more user inputs in order to be calculated. The user must input the fuel cost

in dollars per gallon, and the fuel consumption rate in long tons per hour. This leads to

the equation for Total Fuel Cost.

CNRG= NS-LS-CFUEL- (H( (FRATE)

.(FCON V) 1000

Equation 37: Total Fuel Cost Equation

The Replenishment Spares Cost is determined using variables and factors already present

in the program so no new factors are added. The Replenishment Spares Equation is listed

below.

CREP= CISS- (LS-4)

Equation 38: Replenishment Spares Cost

The final component of the Total Operating and Support Cost is the Cost of Major

Support. There are four factors that influence this cost: Major Support Factors one and

two, the Major Support Operating Hours Cost Factor, and the Average Ship Cost Factor.

These factors are applied in the equation below to give the Cost of Major Support.

CMSP= NS-LS- MSF +MSF -(NO+NCPO+NE)-

2 OHF) I+ASCF-CAVG
(M lSN(MSOH-P5 1000

Equation 39: Cost of Major Support

These components all add up together to form the Total Operating and Support Cost.

There is one final value to be considered, and that is the Residual Value. This takes into

account money that the ship is worth at the end of the life cycle, thus taking money away

from the Total Program Life Cycle Cost. The Residual Value Cost Factor is inputted by

the user and then applied to the following equation to determine the residual value.

RBS= RVCF-CSPE. ( 1- ( 2.)

Equation 40: Residual Value Equation

This is the last component needed to calculate the Total Life Cycle Cost of the Program.

This gives the total cost of the lead ship, all of the following ships over their entire

lifespan.
2.3 Combining the Two Models

Having reviewed the components of each program it becomes clear that each program

offers certain advantages. The BMTS Cost Model is far more user friendly. All of the

inputs are located one tab as opposed to spread throughout the program. Additionally, all

of the significant outputs are located in one place making it easy to find the results once

the data has been put into the program. Ultimately, the organization as a whole is far

superior to that of the MIT Math Model. Additionally, the BMTS Cost Model has a better

model for Lead and Follow Ship Cost. It has separate CERs for both Labor Hours and

Material Cost, and these CERs are easy to alter should the user so desire. The MIT Math

Model, on the other hand, has a much stronger model for Life Cycle Cost. As opposed to

the BMTS Model where the O&S cost per year is determined based solely on a

percentage of the Basic Construction Cost, the MIT Math Model goes into great detail

taking into account the cost of fuel, of personnel, of research and development and in

short does a much better job of covering the many facets that make up the life cycle cost.

Because each of the models has different strengths and weaknesses, it is beneficial to

merge the two models. The best way to do this is to use the template set forth by the

BMTS Cost Model and maintain its spreadsheets for calculating the lead and follow ship

costs. The Life Cycle Portion of the program will then be eliminated and replaced by the

Life Cycle Portion of the MIT Math Model. Because the MIT Math Model requires

inputs that are not required of the BMTS Cost Model, the inputs tab would be adjusted
expanding the amount of variables the user is required to input. The new inputs page for

the Combined Cost Model is shown below in Figure 11.

~ji~qi8~aa~j~---------r--r-r~i-i-i-;--;-;-;-I
? ~
r

.......
......
...
.............................
...........
...

j
. . .l._....i..ii....~~.~_..._.~dl,,,
. i
___ i
.............
........

~..~~~~~~........ .i-~
.........
............ ........

Figure 11: Inputs for Combined Cost Model

With the addition of the inputs on the right hand side of the page, the user now is able to

input all of the information that the program requires in order to generate life cycle cost

in the Combined Cost Model. The next step in combining the models was adjusting the

tabs that the Life Cycle Cost tab references when doing its calculations. To do this,

values for the outputs from the BMTS Cost Model replaced values for the various lead
and follow ship costs in the MIT Math Model. To test whether or not this was successful,

the values for Total Lead Ship Cost and Total Follow Ship Cost on the Output tab needed

to match the Total End Cost and Total Follow Ship End Cost generated. With this

complete, the issue of the aforementioned inaccurate calculations for the Cost of Ships

can be addressed.

The problem with the equation in the initial model was that it did not produce accurate

results. If only one ship is built, then the value for the Cost of Ships should be equal to

the Total Lead Ship Acquisition Cost. Subsequently, if two ships are built, the Cost of

Ships should be equal to the Total Lead Ship Acquisition Cost plus the Total Follow Ship

Acquisition Cost. Referring back to equation 30 shown below, it can be seen that this

equation does not take into account the Total Lead Ship Acquisition Cost at all.

N(2))
(L)
((C PA))s( *LRFD
(30)

In place of the Total Lead Ship Acquisition Cost is the Total Follow Ship Acquisition

Cost divided by the Learning Rate. This equation does not return the Total Lead Ship

Acquisition Cost. The learning curve for the shipyard does not cause a constant reduction

in the cost of the ship between lead ship and the follow ships. The reason for this is the

learning curve only applies to portions of the cost that are directly affected by labor hours.

The reduction in labor hours due to learning creates a reduction in some of the costs

however it does not affect the material costs or the material overhead costs. The total
change is therefore not a constant from ship to ship. As a result a new equation needed to

be designed to take into account the fact that only a portion of the costs would experience

the learning curve reduction, while others would remain fixed. Additionally this program

would also have to accurately sum values of each follow ship. The following equation

was developed after reviewing the relationships between lead ship cost and follow ship

cost.

CSPE= 1.33[(CostFactor- 1)-(VaryingA + VaryingB+ YaryingProf)+(NS- 1) -(Fixed+FixedProf)]+ TLSAC

Equation 41: Cost of Ships Equation Developed for Combined Cost Model

Several new variables had to be created for the development of this equation. When it

was realized that there were certain costs that varied and certain costs that were fixed,

these values were split up into two separate categories referred to as fixed and varying.

The varying costs would be affected by the learning curve, while the fixed costs would be

constant for every ship of its class being built. The varying costs included the total cost of

labor, the cost of labor overhead, as well as the percentage of profit and FCCOM

generated as a result of the varying costs. As the FCCOM is directly related to labor cost,

it does not affect the fixed costs. The fixed costs are the total material cost and overhead,

and the percentage of the profit accrued as a result of the fixed portion of the total cost.

The next step was to determine how the learning curve affects the varying cost so that

they could be summed together. Ultimately a table was generated with values for the Cost
Factor, a value indicating how much the varying costs would change. The data is shown

below in Table 14.

1 1.000 21 1.6.270 41 29.508 61 41.967 81 53.939

2 1.920 22 16.960 42 30.146 62 42.575 82 54.527
3 2.796 23 17.646 43 30.782 63 43.183 83 55.115
4 3.643 24 18.328 44 31.416 64 43.789 84 55.702
5 4.467 25 19.007 45 32.049 65 44.395 85 56.288
6 5.273 26 19.683 46 32.680 66 44.999 86 56.873
7 6.064 27 20.355 47 33.309 67 45.602 87 57.457
8 6.843 28 21.025 48 33.937 68 46.204 88 58.041
9 7.610 29 21.692 49 34.563 69 46.805 89 58.624
10 8.368 30 22.356 50 35.187 70 47.404 90 59.206
11 9.118 31 23.018 51 35.811 71 48.003 91 59.787
12 9.860 32 23.677 52 36.432 72 48.601 92 60.367
13 10.594 33 24.334 53 37.053 73 49.198 93 60.947
14 11.322 34 24.988 54 37.671 74 49.794 94 61.526
15 12.044 35 25.640 55 38.289 75 50.389 95 62.104
16 12.760 36 26.290 56 38.905 76 50.983 96 62.682
17 13.472 37 26.937 57 39.520 77 51.576 97 63.258
18 14.178 38 27.583 58 40.134 78 52.168 98 63.834
19 14.880 39 28.227 59 40.746 79 52.759 99 64.410
20 15.577 40 28.868 60 41.357 80 53.349 100 64.984

Table 14: Cost Factors for Life Cycle Cost- Determining the Cost of Ships

To use this table, the user must merely find the number of total ships being built (left

hand column) and plug the corresponding CostFactor value into the block marked Life

Cycle Cost Factor on the inputs tab. Without a learning curve the cost of building one

ship is the cost of one lead ship, the cost of two ships is the cost of two lead ships and so

on and so forth. However, when a learning curve is a applied this table shows that the

costs will decrease as more units are built. While the lead ship will not see any sort of

cost reduction, a 92% learning curve makes the cost of two ships is equal to the value of

1.92 lead ships. Three ships can then be made for the price of 2.796 and the reductions

can be seen as it continues down the table. Values are provided for the production of up
to 100 ships. It is important to note though that this only impacts the varying costs, hence

why the cost factor is only applied to that portion of the overall cost.

As all subsequent costs (HM&E, Electronics, Other, etc.) are related to the total cost of

Basic Construction by means of a percentage, these percentages could be added up into

one big multiplier to determine their impact on total cost. This factor does not change

from follow ship to follow ship as these percentages are applied to the entire cost of basic

construction, and not exclusively the varying or fixed portions. This explains the

multiplier 1.33 at the front of the equation. Finally, a value of 1 is taken away from the

cost factor and from the total number of ships so that when the number of ships is one

(subsequently making the cost factor equal to 1), the entire term goes to zero making the

Cost of Ships equal to just the Total Lead Ship Acquisition Cost. The following

instructions have been added to the inputs page to inform the user on how to pick a value

from the table.

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS FOR GENERATING LIFE CYCLE

COST: ONCE THE LEARNING CURVE PERCENTAGE HAS
BEEN ENTERED, AND THE NUMBER OF TOTAL SHIPS (LEAD
SHIP UNITS PLUS FOLLOW SHIP UNITS) HAS BEEN
DETERMINED, SELECT THE CORRESPONDING LIFE CYCLE
FACTOR FROM THE TABLE BELOW AND ENTER IT INTHE
BLOCK MARKED LIFE CYCLE COST FACTOR. THESE
FACTORS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF UP TO
100 SHIPS).
to Pick Life Cycle Cost Factors
Figure 12: Disclaimer for How
Figure 12: Disclaimer for How to Pick Life Cycle Cost Factors
 With the program now functioning, the newly updated outputs tab shows the desired

results from both programs producing accurate lead ship and follow ship costs, as well as

a life cycle cost for the overall program.

"i
...................
........................
..........................
..............
.................
... ................................
....
... ..................
.........................
...
. ...........................................
..... ......................................
. ............
...............................
...
...................
...

'....
.......
......................
... ........
..........
..
.............
....... .....................
...................
.. ....
....
..................
........ ............
............... ..................
...
. .....................
..........

$ 296,035,728
$ 966,301,810
$ 1,959,394,515
$ (48,783,851)
$ 3,172,948,201

Table 15: Depiction of Updated Outputs Tab in Combined Cost Model

2.4 Developing Coast Guard CERs

The final modifications to the program also include the development of Coast Guard

specific CERs to replace the given CERs provided and linked to Naval Combatants. The

new CERs were developed by examining the weights of various SWBS groups for the

270' Famous Class Cutter. Data was provided by the Coast Guard for each three digit
SWBS group for the first four Famous Class Cutters (USCGC Bear, USCGC Tampa,

USCGC Harriet Lane and USCGC Northland). The data provided three key components

needed for cost estimation: the weight of the SWBS group, the number of labor hours

spent on the construction of that SWBS group, and the material cost for that SWBS group.

A sample of how the data provided is shown below in Table 16. It should be noted that

these are not the actual values, just a means of showing how the data was formatted.

Labor (MH) Material Cost

SWBS Weight (LT)
Hull 1 Hul 2 Hull 3 Hull 4 per Hull
111 15.00 12,000 11.040: 10,157: 9,344 $ 25,000
114 20.00 4,000 3.680i 3,386 3,115 $ 15,000
116 23.00 5,000 4,600 4.232: 3,893 $ 10,000
120 26.00 4,000 3,.680i 3,386 3,115 $ 23,000
130 21.00 2,500 2,300: 2,116[ 1,947 $ 50,000
150 50.00 1,600 1,472 1,354; 1,246 $ 30,000
152 49.00 1.300 1.1961 1,100 1,012 $ 12,000
123 20.00 1,500 1,380 1,270 1,168 $ 9,000
131 59.00 1,800 1,656: 1,524 1,402 $ 40,000
136 43.00 2,100 1,932i 1,777 1,635 $ 30,000
141 39.00 5,200 4,784; 4,401: 4,049 $ 25,000
151 50.00 2,300 2,116 1,947. 1,791 $ 40,000
152 12.00 8,000 7.360: 6,771 6,230 $ 23,000

Table 16: Sample Data provided in Coast Guard Format

With this data, it now became possible to develop cost estimating relationships in terms

of labor hours per long ton, as well as material dollars per long ton. Because the newly

combined cost model is set up to receive one digit SWBS inputs, the three digit values

provided by the Coast Guard were combined into their respective one digit SWBS groups

so the resulting CERs were based on the entire number of labor hours and the overall

material cost per long ton of each of the main SWBS categories (100-700). A total of

fourteen CERs were then generated using the information that was provided. These CERs
would then replace the Naval Combatant CERs listed on the FACTORS tab of the

program. It should be noted that the data provided could have been used to generate two

or three digit SWBS group CERs if the user wanted a more specific cost estimate.

A quick comparison was made to ensure that the new cost estimating relationships

seemed reasonable. At first glance the only CER that appeared to be incorrect was for the

SWBS 400 (Command & Surveillance) group. While most of the CERs were within a

factor of one or two of the Naval Combatant values, the value for the Coast Guard SWBS

400 group was on the order of a factor of ten larger than the same group for a Naval

Combatant. Because there was no logical reason for Coast Guard systems to be

significantly more expensive than the Navy systems, this led to throwing out this value

and using the Naval Combatant CER for the Coast Guard model instead. This was

determined to be an acceptable modification because as technology continues to progress,

cost estimating relationships based on weight are becoming less and less accurate for the

SWBS 400 group. The data provided for the Famous Class Cutter is from over 20 years

ago so the discrepancy is likely due to the fact that technology has brought about drastic

changes in the cost estimating relationships for computer-type technology.

Once the adjustments to the model were completed, it was tested using the ASSET data

for a Coast Guard medium endurance cutter (WMEC). With this data inputted, a value of

approximately $280 million dollars was determined to be the lead ship cost. This cost

was compared against the funds allocated for the replacement WMEC, the Offshore

Patrol Cutter (OPC). The Offshore Patrol Cutter is estimated to cost in the vicinity of
$300 million dollars. (9) It makes sense that the value would be slightly larger due to the

fact that the OPC is estimated to be slightly bigger (320 feet versus 270 feet). However,

as the prices are in the same vicinity it stands to reason that this model is accurate enough

to be considered a valid cost estimation tool for the purposes in which it might be used at

MIT.

2.5 Future Program Modifications

The Navy model has had its CERs updated to account for inflation through 2008, thus

eliminating the need to factor in inflation between 2005 (when the model is set for) and

present day. There are still some questions that could be addressed in future versions

though. The inputs for crew and manning specify determining the number of chief petty

officers in addition to the number of enlisted members. However, in all of the equations

involving the crew impacts on cost, the chief petty officers have the same value as the

enlisted. This hardly seems likely so research could be done to determine if there is a

significant difference. Additionally, research could be done to determine the origins of

the factors provided to see how they were in fact determined and whether or not they

need to be modified. Finally, as improvements are made in generating cost estimating

relationships based on more than solely weight based models, this too can be added to the

program.
CHAPTER 3: APPLICATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

The United States Coast Guard has reached a pivotal point in its history. Many of its

current assets are reaching, or have already gone beyond their expected service life. This

presents a number of problems for the Coast Guard. A consequence of operating aged

assets is the limitations resulting from the old, and in many cases obsolete, technology

inherent in those assets. In addition to hindering operational performance, antiquated

technology ultimately increases operating and maintenance costs. As a result of its aging

fleet, the Coast Guard developed a 25-year program designed to recapitalize the service's

aircraft, ships, logistics, and command and control systems called The Deepwater Project.

Figure 13: Coast Guard Deep Water Project Assets (6)

Three major classes of cutter are scheduled to be developed during this project, the Fast

Response Cutter (FRC- a replacement for the Island Class Patrol Boat), the Offshore

Patrol Cutter (OPC- a replacement for the Coast Guard's medium endurance cutters), and

the National Security Cutter (NSC- a replacement for the Hamilton Class High

Endurance Cutters). With shipbuilding a major priority for the Coast Guard right now,

and with the Deepwater Project experiencing a number of unexpected problems, the

ability to design ships at the cost estimated suddenly becomes very important to the Coast

Guard.

One of the major contributing factors to increases in cost during the design process is the

number of change orders that can come up during the construction process. Change

orders can have a dramatic effect on the cost of a ship, rapidly inflating an acquisition

cost. One of the temptations that leads to going over the allotted change orders in the

budget is the desire to have the newest technology on board the ship. There is generally a

good amount of time between when the designs are initially drawn up, and when the ship

is finally built. The top-of-the-line technology included in the initial design might not be

the best available by the time the ship goes to construction. The problem becomes that it

is rarely as simple as replacing piece A with piece B. Parts come in different sizes, and

depending on when the change comes along during the design process, this can cause

significant rework leading not only to increases in cost, but to delays in production as

well. Keeping change orders to a minimum is imperative in order to ensure a ship is

delivered on time and on budget. The Coast Guard Great Lakes Ice Breaker (GLIB, see
Figure 14) project is a good example of a ship not undergoing significant change orders

and therefore meeting its expected delivery date without any significant issues. (7)

Figure 14: Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw (GLIB) (6)

The Deepwater Project has also shown that estimating cost on the basis of weight alone

does not always deliver results. The FRC-A project was originally intended to be built

with a composite hull. While the lighter composite hull materials would be cheaper than

the steel typically used, the amount of money that it would cost in terms of assembly and

maintenance would ultimately cause the price to skyrocket. (7) Similar results have been

found with aluminum. While aluminum is much lighter and therefore cheaper to obtain, it

requires much a more skilled labor force work with it. Thus once again it leads to higher

costs overall.
Another weight related issue was already touched on briefly is the fact that it is no longer

practical to estimate costs for SWBS 400 group or the SWBS 700 group based on their

weights. Improvements in technology have allowed for equipment such as computers and

guidance systems and weapons to be made lighter and smaller, but this does not equate to

them being any cheaper. In many cases, the lighter, smaller equipment in these groups

will cost even more than the big, heavy equipment. Because of this, various groups are

working on developing a new means of conducting cost estimates based on density or

complexity of a system. The more dense or complex a system is, the more it costs to

construct. For the purpose of the student models used at MIT these methods aren't

practical, but in the actual shipbuilding industry, they are being explored to see if they are

in fact better approximations.

In addition to developing good cost estimates, and doing everything possible to meet the

desired acquisition budget there are things that can be done to reduce the overall life

cycle cost of the ship. As was stated earlier in the paper, a majority of the life cycle cost

is tied up in O&S costs. Therefore the number of personnel allocated to a ship can

become a significant cost issue. Wherever possible, measures should be made to have

smaller crew sizes. That being said, it is not as simple as just cutting out half of the crew

and replacing them with automated machinery. Tradeoff studies must be done in order to

ascertain what the most efficient way to do business is. Cutting costs in one area and

increasing costs in another does not help reduce the overall cost of the ship. Reducing the

size of a crew causes a need for more highly skilled personnel with far more diversity in

their training. The cost to train these personnel must also be factored into the equation to
determine whether or not it is truly beneficial to go in that direction. It is imperative that

when conducting tradeoff studies in areas such as these that all facets are considered so

educated decisions can be made.

Another significant tradeoff study is in the propulsion plant. While a bigger engine may

result in a great acquisition cost, it could save money in the long run because it operates

more efficiently at the ship's transit speed. Close attention needs to be paid to fuel

efficiency curves when picking out an engine to ensure that the engines selected can

operate efficiently in the operating parameters specified for the ship. Again, it is

imperative that a lot of effort goes into the trade-off study so that the mission

effectiveness, acquisition cost and life cycle cost are all optimized. The new and

improved MIT Cost Model can assist in these trade-off studies.

Factoring in maintenance is important as well. Little things like ensuring there is

significant overhead space when designing a ship to allow for piping and cabling and

auxiliary machinery can go a long way to reduce costs in the long run. Not only is it

cheaper and easier to install equipment when there is more space, but upon a ship's

completion, it is also much easier to do maintenance on equipment when there is easy

access to it. This is principle behind the aforementioned density cost estimating

relationships that are currently being studied. While this may increase costs in the short

run because it causes the ship to be bigger and heavier, in the long run, a great deal of

money can be saved on O&S costs. But once again, this is an area that needs to be

carefully optimized.
All of these things can impact the cost of a ship significantly, so it cannot be overstated

how important it is to look at all of these tradeoff studies early in the design process to

allow for building the best ship possible for the amount of money available.
CONCLUSION

The Combined Cost Model developed in this thesis project is a significant upgrade to

both of the models currently in use by MIT students. This new model has not only

repaired several errors inherent in the original programs but it has taken the best aspects

of each program and combined them to allow it to be able to determine both acquisition

and life cycle costs. As shown in the paper, the life cycle cost cannot be ignored when

developing a ship design. To merely select a ship design on the cost of its acquisition

alone may cause a ship that is not the optimal design to be built ultimately costing a lot

more money than needed to be spent. Having a program that produces accurate life cycle

costs as well as acquisition costs should improve the quality of cost estimations in the 2N

program.
REFERENCES

1) Estimation of Ship Construction Costs, Aristides Miroyannis, MIT, 2006.

2) Ship Design and Construction, Thomas Lamb, SNAME, 2003.

3) Advanced Naval Vehicles Concept Evaluation (ANVCE), Final Report, CNO (OP-96),

December 1979.

4) Allied Naval Engineering Publication (ANEP) 41 Edition 3: Ship Costing, NATO

International Staff, December 2003

5) Shipyard Cost Estimating, SPAR Associates Inc.

6) www.uscg.mil

7) Interview with Mr. Martin Hecker, USCG, ELC023

8) An Approach for Developing Preliminary Cost Estimating Methodology for USCG

Vessels, Mark Gary, MIT, June 1989