Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorWarren Seering, Eric Rebentisch and Joe Harbour.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGenta, John (John Anthony)en_US
dc.contributor.otherSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-27T15:14:36Z
dc.date.available2016-09-27T15:14:36Z
dc.date.copyright2016en_US
dc.date.issued2016en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/104387
dc.descriptionThesis: Nav. E., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 2016.en_US
dc.descriptionThesis: S.M. in Engineering and Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, System Design and Management Program, 2016.en_US
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of thesis.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (pages 143-154).en_US
dc.description.abstractSet-based design (SBD) is a relatively new complex product development method. Its use has been well researched in the automotive and aerospace industries and, although it requires an upfront investment in resources, it has been shown to reduce design cycle time, later stage rework, total ownership cost, and improve design knowledge capture. The current fiscal environment of the U.S. Government has obligated the Department of Defense to challenge each service to "do more, without more" by finding efficiencies. Since 2005, the U.S. Navy has self-identified ship design as a process improvement priority and embarked in design tool and policy changes which resulted in the "Two Pass / Six Gate" process in 2008. Subsequent U.S. Navy ship design and acquisition actions have presented an opportunity to research and analyze the amenability of SBD, and its proposed benefits, with the U.S. Navy's Two Pass / Six Gate process to realize the efficiencies sought by acquisition executives. The results of this analysis identified that Gates 2 (Analysis of Alternatives) and 3 (Capability Development Document) have the most amenability to the principles and benefits of SBD. An Analysis of Feasibility is provided as an alternative to the current Gate 2 and 3 ship design processes. Executing Gate 2 and 3 ship design activities using the set-based Analysis of Feasibility process produces preferred Cost vs Capability trade-off results while reducing design cycle time and cost. Specific policy recommendations for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) are provided to decree replacement of the current Analysis of Alternatives with the Analysis of Feasibility.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby John Genta.en_US
dc.format.extent171 pagesen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectInstitute for Data, Systems, and Society.en_US
dc.subjectMechanical Engineering.en_US
dc.subjectEngineering Systems Division.en_US
dc.subjectSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.titleUsing the principles of set-based design to realize ship design process improvementen_US
dc.title.alternativeUsing the principles of SBD to realize ship design process improvementen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeNav. E.en_US
dc.description.degreeS.M. in Engineering and Managementen_US
dc.contributor.departmentSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society
dc.identifier.oclc958164113en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record