What are we going to Achieve? CDRE Mark PURCELL, RAN Head Rizzo - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Rizzo Reform Program What are we going to Achieve? CDRE Mark PURCELL, RAN Head Rizzo Reform Program

Rizzo Reform Program The Vision: ‘ A rebuilt and redesigned effective Maritime Capability Management & Technical Integrity Assurance System that drives seaworthiness and preparedness. ’

Rizzo is an opportunity for Navy ‘Driving the Rizzo reforms through will require focussed leadership and commitment at all levels within Navy and represents both a challenge and a great opportunity. Reinvigorating technical integrity as a core element of our technically advanced capabilities within Force 2030 will require further cultural change. These changes are not about engineering - they are about capability management and they affect us all. ’ VADM R. Griggs, AM, CSC, RAN Australian Defence Magazine Dec 2011 / Jan 2012

RIZZO – Key Findings  Poor whole-of-life asset management;  Organisational complexity and blurred accountabilities;  Inadequate risk management;  Poor compliance and assurance;  A ‘hollowed - out’ engineering capability;  Resource shortages in system program offices (SPOs) in DMO; and  A culture that places the short-term operational mission above the importance of technical integrity.

How are we going to achieve it? RIZZO Review  An implementation team of Navy and DMO personnel has been established and is led by CDRE Mark Purcell, RAN;  This team is managing the detailed implementation of recommendations in concert with the related ANAO audit of Acceptance into Service of Naval Capability and the Strategic Review of Naval Engineering; and  An Implementation Committee, chaired by Mr Rizzo is ensuring that the agreed recommendations are being effectively implemented in a timely way.

A balancing act Capability Management End-to-End Lifecycle

How are we going to do it? HRRP R24: PMO 1 2 3 4 5 6 Capability Mgt Lifecycle Rebuild Total Cost of Seaworthiness Seaworthiness Accountability & Engineering Management Culture Management Ownership Responsibility R21: Reinstate R13: Integrated R1: Asset and R23: Confirm Cultural Importance R7: Closer Working R17: Rebuild Risk Management Sustainment Maritime of Risk Arrangements Engineering System Methodologies Resourcing Management R8: R14: R4: Plan for R2: Whole of Capability Technical Aging Life Management Compliance Vessels R9: R19: R5: Industry R22: Quantify Workforce Engineering Partnerships Maint and Planning Talent Eng Backlog R6: Remediate R10: Fleet R20: Rebuild ICT Strategic Command FSU Shortcomings Related Reform Program Reform Program R11: Mutual R15: 3rd R3: Constrain Submitted for Closure Party QA Kanimbla Obligations Dec 2011 R18: R12: Lead Recommendation Resource Information AASSPO Exchange Lead recommendations Sustainment Business provide overall structure and Model direction for work stream KPMG MSA LPA SwB R16: AINS ANAO AINS Mortimer Review report Configuration Review LPA Report Reconstruction Helmsman MGT Review & Operational AASSPO AASSPO Project Pause Fleet SUCCESS Regulatory Tech. SRNE NEWS Review Investigation 7

A deliberate, phased journey 2014+ Rizzo Reform Journey “Build High Performance Evolution Capability Management and Current Technical Integrity ” Focus Aug 2012 – Dec 2013 “Build the Foundation”  A rebuilt and Jan 2012 – Jul 2012 “Back to Basics” redesigned effective Maritime Capability July 2011 – Dec 2011 Management and Robust whole-of-life asset management  “Address Near -term and decision making Technical Integrity Simplified organisation with clear  Priorities and Establish Assurance System New policies, processes and  accountabilities and a clarified interface the Program ” that drives structured designed with between Navy and DMO implementation underway seaworthiness and Holistic, integrated risk management across  New ‘Whole of Life’ approach – preparedness Defence and DMO designed Robust and comprehensive compliance and  Clear plan for ageing vessels – assurance  Masters of the developed  Quantify large cost Rebuilt and redesigned engineering  Industry partnerships strengthened – technology we implications, including function – Near-term ICT shortcomings employ – informed quantify and assess Sufficient trained and experienced remediated  criticality of the backlog user, owner, New capability management – resources in DMO SPOs resources defined  Quick wins implemented  Long-term ICT shortcomings remediated maintainer, Components of Engineering –  A culture that balances short-term customer  Future policy and function rebuild defined operational mission needs against long- organisation requirements  Initiate culture change term asset implications and whilst determined Maritime resourcing confirmed  maintaining agreed levels of technical Full business case for end-state  Business case for ‘Back  integrity developed, including the ‘high cost’ to Basics” phase Time initiatives 8

Lifecycle Management Project 1 Life Cycle Management Project Summary Project Director: Mr. Tony Hindmarsh Mr Scott Huxtable Project Executive: Mr. Tony Hindmarsh  Rebuilt expertise in ILS  A formal, integrated and disciplined asset and sustainment management approach has been  Promulgated policy for all stages of established across Navy, DMO and CDG over Capability Life Cycle the whole of lifecycle, ensuring seaworthiness  Project Governance board covers through and preparedness and optimised Total Cost of life support Ownership  Efficient contracting mechanisms support  Efficient and effective allocation of sustainment broader and longer term contracts that build resources occurs as capabilities age deeper and continuing industry  Increased maturity is evident in Defence's relationships, whilst retaining competitive process including the application of asset tension management and LEAN methodologies  Navy, DMO and industry are collocated  when purchasing an asset whole of life where possible with common goals, metrics decisions are made taking into account all the and shared information systems enablers that contribute to the sustainment of  An ICT system that provides decision an asset over life of type. makers with more reliable, timely  detailed configuration baselines exist for all information about materiel states, driving ship/submarines. more effective maintenance and better operational & SPO level engineering  Data integrity is improved and is more available for reporting, analysis and control

Capability Management Accountability and Responsibility Project 2 Capability Management Accountability and Responsibility Project Summary Project Director: CAPT Simon Woolrych Project Executive: RADM Alan DuToit  Navy is more aware of its materiel needs  A performance management framework for and DMO is more aware of how materiel the MSA that appropriately incentivises both – requests support Capability this Navy and DMO to adhere to their improved working relationship drives responsibilities, ensuring improved collaboration and better strategic engineering support and more effective outcomes in design, engineering support, maintenance  Strengthen capability management resources policy, maintenance and supply performance to assess the state of the fleet against the MSA including increasing resources available  through improved Materiel to the capability manager Sustainment Agreement (MSA)  Effective workforce better aligns skills to reporting position requirements, driving improved  clarified responsibilities between performance at the operational and support Navy and DMO level and more effective maintenance  SPO directors are empowered to  Fleet Command has greater capacity to deliver performance levels in the ensure the operational preparedness of MSA platforms, across both materiel and personnel  MSAs with clearly defined obligations of elements Navy and DMO supported by performance measures and a reporting framework minimise duplication of effort and „gaps‟ in the materiel sustainment process to drive improved engineering support and more effective maintenance