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

7

SRNE NEWS Report AASSPO LPA SwB report

Review LPA Operational Pause SUCCESS Tech. Investigation Fleet Regulatory Review

ANAO AINS Sustainment Business Model Mortimer

Configuration MGT Review & Project

Helmsman KPMG MSA Review

Reconstruction AASSPO

Strategic Reform Program

HRRP

R24: PMO

Lifecycle Management

R5: Industry Partnerships R6: Remediate ICT Shortcomings

Rebuild Engineering

R14: Technical Compliance R19: Engineering Talent R20: Rebuild FSU R17: Rebuild Engineering R13: Integrated Risk Management System R21: Reinstate Cultural Importance

• f Risk

Management

Seaworthiness Management Seaworthiness Culture

R2: Whole of Life R1: Asset and Sustainment Methodologies

Lead recommendations provide overall structure and direction for work stream

1

Capability Mgt Accountability & Responsibility

R8: Capability Management R9: Workforce Planning R10: Fleet Command R11: Mutual Obligations R12: Information Exchange R7: Closer Working Arrangements

2 3

Total Cost of Ownership

R4: Plan for Aging Vessels Submitted for Closure Dec 2011 R23: Confirm Maritime Resourcing

4 5 6

R15: 3rd Party QA R18: Resource AASSPO Lead Recommendation R3: Constrain Kanimbla R22: Quantify Maint and Eng Backlog R16: AINS Related Reform Program

How are we going to do it?

A deliberate, phased journey

8

Evolution

July 2011 – Dec 2011 “Address Near-term Priorities and Establish the Program” Jan 2012 – Jul 2012 “Back to Basics” Aug 2012 – Dec 2013 “Build the Foundation”

Time

• Quantify large cost

implications, including quantify and assess criticality of the backlog

• Quick wins implemented
• Future policy and
• rganisation requirements

determined

• Business case for ‘Back

to Basics” phase

• New policies, processes and

structured designed with implementation underway – New ‘Whole of Life’ approach designed – Clear plan for ageing vessels developed – Industry partnerships strengthened – Near-term ICT shortcomings remediated – New capability management resources defined – Components of Engineering function rebuild defined

• Initiate culture change
• Maritime resourcing confirmed
• Full business case for end-state

developed, including the ‘high cost’ initiatives

• Robust whole-of-life asset management

and decision making

• Simplified organisation with clear

accountabilities and a clarified interface between Navy and DMO

• Holistic, integrated risk management across

Defence and DMO

• Robust and comprehensive compliance and

assurance

• Rebuilt and redesigned engineering

function

• Sufficient trained and experienced

resources in DMO SPOs

• Long-term ICT shortcomings remediated
• A culture that balances short-term
• perational mission needs against long-

term asset implications and whilst maintaining agreed levels of technical integrity

Rizzo Reform Journey

Current Focus

2014+ “Build High Performance Capability Management and Technical Integrity ”

• A rebuilt and

redesigned effective Maritime Capability Management and Technical Integrity Assurance System that drives seaworthiness and preparedness

• Masters of the

technology we employ – informed user, owner, maintainer, customer

• Rebuilt expertise in ILS
• Promulgated

policy for all stages

• f

Capability Life Cycle

• Project Governance board covers through

life support

• Efficient contracting mechanisms support

broader and longer term contracts that build deeper and continuing industry relationships, whilst retaining competitive tension

• Navy, DMO and industry are collocated

where possible with common goals, metrics and shared information systems

• An ICT system that provides decision

makers with more reliable, timely information about materiel states, driving more effective maintenance and better

• perational & SPO level engineering
• Data integrity is improved and is more

available for reporting, analysis and control

Life Cycle Management Project Summary

• A formal, integrated and disciplined asset and

sustainment management approach has been established across Navy, DMO and CDG over the whole of lifecycle, ensuring seaworthiness and preparedness and optimised Total Cost of Ownership

• Efficient and effective allocation of sustainment

resources occurs as capabilities age

• Increased maturity is evident in Defence's

process including the application of asset management and LEAN methodologies

• when purchasing an asset whole of life

decisions are made taking into account all the enablers that contribute to the sustainment of an asset over life of type.

• detailed configuration baselines exist for all

ship/submarines. 1

Project Director: Mr. Tony Hindmarsh Project Executive: Mr. Tony Hindmarsh Mr Scott Huxtable

Lifecycle Management Project

Capability Management Accountability and Responsibility Project

• Navy is more aware of its materiel needs

and DMO is more aware of how materiel requests support Capability – this improved working relationship drives collaboration and better strategic

• utcomes in design, engineering support,

policy, maintenance and supply performance

• through

improved Materiel Sustainment Agreement (MSA) reporting

• clarified responsibilities between

Navy and DMO

• SPO directors are empowered to

deliver performance levels in the MSA

• MSAs with clearly defined obligations of

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

• A performance management framework for

the MSA that appropriately incentivises both Navy and DMO to adhere to their responsibilities, ensuring improved engineering support and more effective maintenance

• Strengthen capability management resources

to assess the state of the fleet against the MSA including increasing resources available to the capability manager

• Effective workforce better aligns skills to

position requirements, driving improved performance at the operational and support level and more effective maintenance

• Fleet Command has greater capacity to

ensure the operational preparedness of platforms, across both materiel and personnel elements

Capability Management Accountability and Responsibility Project Summary

2 Project Director: CAPT Simon Woolrych Project Executive: RADM Alan DuToit

Rebuild Engineering Project

Rebuild Engineering Project Summary

3

• A Seaworthiness Management System that

provides CN transparent, rigorous and independent assurance of Safety, Operational Effectiveness and Environmental protection across fleet

• An Engineering , Maintenance and Supply

Support System that is adequately resourced to support platforms in the various stages of the

• perational cycle defined in the FOC.
• A program of building engineering talent that

enhances the available pool of capable personnel to ensure technical integrity of the Fleet

• The capability of the Fleet Support Units is rebuilt,

and the FSU has a significant formal role in the provision of maintenance support to platforms and repairable items.

• Navy Engineering has authority and clear

accountability to ensure technical integrity of the fleet

• Navy inspects and surveys ships, providing

greater confidence in the technical integrity of the fleet

• Rigorous

and recurring 3rd party quality assurance of platform seaworthiness, providing independent assessment of technical materiel integrity, generating greater confidence that ships and submarines are fit for service

• As is the case with Submarines, the material

condition

• f

surface ships will be certified/assessed prior to proceeding to the next stage of employment under the FOC in order to provide the FC with assurance that minimum material standards have been met.

Project Director: CDRE Keith Malpress Project Executive: RADM Michael Uzzell

Total Cost of Ownership Project Summary

4

Project Director: CAPT Ljiljana Bradley Project Executive: RADM Allan du Toit

• An agreed baseline of the resources

(workforce) required to adequately operate and maintain materiel for the next 10

• years. This includes:
• Choules, New Submarines, LHD,

AWD, AASSPO

• rebuilt Navy Engineering
• removing the engineering and

maintenance backlog across the fleet

• improving capability management

in the groups, whilst not slowing down the DCP

• remediation for certification,

configuration and safety case baselines

• New Asset and Sustainment

Methodologies

• A joint usage and upkeep plan between

Navy and DMO

• utlines

the future engineering and maintenance costs for aging vessels providing decision makers with the information necessary to make trade-offs when managing materiel (including the mitigation of “Bathtub” effects)

• The maintenance and engineering backlog

across the fleet is accurately quantified and costed via an independent audit. Recovery action reduced the backlog and remediate any consequences

• f

maintenance or engineering that was not conducted when required.

Total Cost of Ownership Project

Integrated Risk Management Project

• An integrated risk methodology for maintenance of

maritime capability emphasises the vertical link between risk appetite at the enterprise level and its application at the workface; and the horizontal processes necessary to capture the full risk-benefit trade-off. The integrated risk management system has:

• Enhanced business discipline and internal controls

promoting a culture of ethical and accountable behaviours

• Reduced reactive management time spend on “fighting

fires” through a more consistent early notification of risk threshold alerts

• A more structured approach to quantifying the overall

risk and uncertainty from all factors across the DMO maritime programs and all stages of the program lifecycle

• A heightened awareness and transparency around

material risks and efforts to manage them

Project Director: CAPT Paddy Hodgman Project Executive: RADM Michael Uzzell

Seaworthiness Management Project Summary

5

Seaworthiness Culture Project Summary

Seaworthiness Culture Project

14

DATE

• A culture exists in Navy and DMO that

recognises technical integrity as a key enabler of capability.

• Operational demands are balanced against

maintaining technical integrity

• Technical integrity is improved across the fleet

6

Project Director: CAPT Michael Sander Project Executive: RADM Trevor Jones

A structured approach

Change Management Approach

What are we addressing and what will it benefit?

Seaworthiness Total Cost

• f

Ownership Preparedness

Capability

Process Organisation Information Technology

• Acting as “capability manager”
• End-to-end Asset and

Sustainment methodologies, processes and tools

• Risk management codified into

day-to-day operations

• Assured authorised

engineering organisations

• Clarified organisational

interface between Navy and DMO

• Rebuilt and redesigned Navy

engineering function and people capabilities with strengthened accountability

• Clear reporting and

information flows across the organisations

• Informed trade-offs

across both the near and long-term

• Assured, fit-for-service

Maritime platforms

• Right tools to support

decision making

The reforms will assist with Enterprise Risk Management

Fight & Win at Sea Deliver Capability to Government Attract & Retain

• ur Workforce

Achieve public confidence and trust in Navy’s Capabilities Continuously Improve

A Navy that Confidently Goes to Sea

QUESTIONS

"It is the capacity for maintenance that is the best test for the vigour and stamina of a society. Any society can galvanise for a while to build something, but the will and the skill to keep things in good repair, day in and day out, are fairly rare.“ (Eric Hoffer)