IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v10y1980i6p20-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Naval Ship Production: A Claim Settled and a Framework Built

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth G. Cooper

    (Pugh-Roberts Associates, 5 Lee Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

Program overruns, contract disputes, and legal confrontation between defense contractors and the government escalated seriously over the 1970's. The author led the development and application of a computer simulation model to resolve a $500 million shipbuilder claim against the US Navy. By using the model to diagnose the causes of cost and schedule overruns on two multibillion-dollar shipbuilding programs. Ingalls Shipbuilding quantified the costs of disruption stemming from Navy-responsible delays and design changes; in June 1978, the Navy agreed out of court to pay $447 million of the claim. Use of the model (which was the basis for at least $200--300 million of the settlement) broke new legal ground, providing the defense and legal communities with a means by which adversary relationships can be avoided and equitable settlements of contract cost disputes achieved.Ingalls Shipbuilding (a division of Litton Industries, Inc.) now has extended the model to aid strategic decision making in managing its shipyard operations. Each phase of several shipbuilding programs---acquisition and utilization of manpower, scheduling and performance of work, and managerial decisions throughout the program---can be accurately simulated. Executives find it valuable as a test bed for evaluating the consequences of alternative policies in bidding and marketing, contract management, program work scheduling, resource management, and cost forecasting. Also, it provides a needed technique in the avoidance of contractor claims.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth G. Cooper, 1980. "Naval Ship Production: A Claim Settled and a Framework Built," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 10(6), pages 20-36, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:10:y:1980:i:6:p:20-36
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.10.6.20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.10.6.20
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.10.6.20?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. George P. Richardson, 2014. ""Model" teaching III: Examples for the later stages," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(4), pages 291-299, October.
    2. Williams, Terry & Ackermann, Fran & Eden, Colin, 2003. "Structuring a delay and disruption claim: An application of cause-mapping and system dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 192-204, July.
    3. Edward Godlewski & Gregory Lee & Kenneth Cooper, 2012. "System Dynamics Transforms Fluor Project and Change Management," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 17-32, February.
    4. Qian, Yanjun & Xie, Min & Goh, Thong Ngee & Lin, Jun, 2010. "Optimal testing strategies in overlapped design process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 131-143, October.
    5. Repenning, Nelson P. (Nelson Peter), 1998. "The transition problem in product development," Working papers WP 4036-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    6. S Howick & C Eden, 2004. "On the nature of discontinuities in system dynamics modelling of disrupted projects," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(6), pages 598-605, June.
    7. S Howick, 2003. "Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: can the modelling purposes be met?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(3), pages 222-229, March.
    8. Williams, Terry, 1999. "Towards realism in network simulation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 305-314, June.
    9. Lin, Jun & Chai, Kah Hin & Wong, Yoke San & Brombacher, Aarnout C., 2008. "A dynamic model for managing overlapped iterative product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 378-392, February.
    10. T Williams, 2003. "Learning from projects," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(5), pages 443-451, May.
    11. Howick, Susan, 2005. "Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 239-250, April.
    12. Joglekar, Nitin R. & Ford, David N., 2005. "Product development resource allocation with foresight," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(1), pages 72-87, January.
    13. Yasaman Jalili & David N. Ford, 2016. "Quantifying the impacts of rework, schedule pressure, and ripple effect loops on project schedule performance," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 82-96, January.
    14. Ford, David N. & Sterman, John., 1997. "Dynamic modeling of product development processes," Working papers WP 3943-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    15. Liu, Shiyong & Triantis, Konstantinos P. & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2010. "A framework for evaluating the dynamic impacts of a congestion pricing policy for a transportation socioeconomic system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 596-608, October.
    16. Thomas Walworth & Mike Yearworth & Laura Shrieves & Hillary Sillitto, 2016. "Estimating Project Performance through a System Dynamics Learning Model," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 334-350, July.
    17. Daniel Kasperek & Daniel Schenk & Matthias Kreimeyer & Maik Maurer & Udo Lindemann, 2016. "Structure‐Based System Dynamics Analysis of Engineering Design Processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 278-298, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    project management; simulation;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:10:y:1980:i:6:p:20-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.