Combat System overhauls add to the complexity of surface ship availabilities because of the high level of system testing that is required. In keeping with this complexity, shipyard test programs must be solidly based in systems test theory in order to achieve test integrity and ensure combat system readiness at the end of the availability.
All too often, the ship systems are not ready for post availability trials. Evidence indicates that in many cases system test principles are either not used or not well understood. This is not surprising when we consider that, in the ship repair industry, a system is defined as a collection of equipments rather than as a process, as it is in the aerospace industry. The sense of continuity encouraged by the idea of a process is missing from the idea of a collection.
This paper defines a system in an abstract way. Relationships are defined in terms of system state, its inputs, and its outputs. Controllability and observability are defined in a way that is useful to the test engineer. Both axiomatic and heuristic definitions are presented in order to provide a basis for test philosophy. These concepts are then examined for principles that can be applied to system testing.
Having established an abstract system as a process, both definitions and principles are applied to surface ship combat systems with the intention of reshaping the idea of what a system is and how it must be tested.
Finally, the paper offers a list of definitions appropriate to the ship repair industry that will tie its test programs to the language and ideas of system testing that are held in the aerospace industry and in the systems manufacturing world.
Because of the redefinition of national defense needs and the reduction of defense budgets, the management of complex combatant repair is more imperative than ever. To this end, the US. Navy is calling for Total Quality Leadership (TQL) strategies from its agencies and contractors. These strategies are derived from well known initiatives of quality management, such as those of Deming. They define the basis of any quality program.Quality methodologies have proven highly effective in the manufacturing sector, but many remain unproven or tentative in service and repair industries. The authors believe that TQL methods can be effective in the repair industry also, but must be developed or adapted to suit the unique characteristics of that industry: high skill, non-rote crafts, with continual .customer interface at all levels of operation.In establishing a direction for TQL development, the authors have chosen two elements. The first is the-Malcolm Baldrige Quality Improvement Program, which provides guidelines for direction. The second is the Master Ordnance Repair (MOR) Program, which provides the management vehicle. From its beginning in 1983, MOR has been a program of management. The task is explicit in its charter, NAVSEAINST 8000.2, which requires that a MOR contractor manage combat system work and testing.Quality management methods are applied to the MOR program to achieve MOR objectives using Baldrige measurements. Methods are presented which deploy the quality function across the organization. Techniques are provided to improve the company's ability to control its processes and the robustness of its product. These include methods of process analysis that determine added value, ownership, and internal customer. Stress is placed on in-process verification rather than on end-of-process inspection.The recommendations of this paper require no extraordinary skills or costs, but do require a formal and systematic approach to quality issues. The authors believe that with TQL methods in place, continuous improvement will follow.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.