An Roinn Cosanta
Óglaigh na hÉireann
Department of Defence
Defence Forces
Value for Money Review
Naval Service Vessel Maintenance
March 2009
PRN No. A9/0498
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................................................II
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................................................................II
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................... V
1.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.
THE DEFENCE ORGANISATION .............................................................................................................................................. 1
OVERVIEW OF VALUE FOR MONEY AND POLICY REVIEW (VFMPR) INITIATIVE .................................................................. 2
REVIEW SCOPE AND TERMS OF REFERENCE .......................................................................................................................... 3
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................................................... 5
REVIEW STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
NAVAL SERVICE VESSEL MAINTENANCE OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.
PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
THE WHITE PAPER ON DEFENCE (2000) ................................................................................................................................ 8
STRATEGY STATEMENT ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
DELIVERY OF NAVAL SERVICE VESSEL OUTPUTS ............................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12
NAVAL SERVICE VESSEL MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 13
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.
TYPES OF MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 13
UNITS INVOLVED IN SHIPS MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 14
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................ 15
MAINTENANCE EXECUTION ................................................................................................................................................ 16
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE CYCLE ........................................................................................ 17
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, COSTS AND OUTPUTS ...................................................................................................... 20
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.
PLANNING, INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT UNIT (PIMM) ........................................................................... 20
FLOTILLA – SHIPS CREW ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND NAVAL DOCKYARD (MENDY) ...................................................................................... 25
WEAPONS ELECTRICAL UNIT .............................................................................................................................................. 28
CONTRACTED MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 31
INVENTORY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................................................................................................ 37
COST OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................. 38
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 39
EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................. 41
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.
MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 41
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION .......................................................................................................................... 42
BENCHMARKING ................................................................................................................................................................. 43
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 47
PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............................................................................................................................ 50
6.1
PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX 1
NAVAL SERVICE ORGANISATION .......................................................................................................... 58
APPENDIX 2
NAVAL SERVICE FLOTILLA..................................................................................................................... 60
APPENDIX 3
PROGRAMME LOGIC MODEL ................................................................................................................. 68
i
List of Figures
Figure 2.1
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 6.1
Naval Service Patrol Days 1999 – 2006 ...................................................... 11
The Maintenance Management Cycle .......................................................... 18
Maintenance Management Overview .......................................................... 19
Expenditure on Equipment Installed by WEU 2003 to 2006 ....................... 29
Contracted Maintenance Costs 2003 - 2006 ............................................... 31
Maintenance Inventory Management .......................................................... 34
Cost of Maintenance Inventory Purchased 2003 – 2006 ............................. 35
Infrastructure Upgrade Costs 2003 - 2006 .................................................. 37
Acquisition Team Process ............................................................................ 45
Revised Maintenance Management Process ................................................ 49
Recommended Performance Indicators ....................................................... 52
List of Tables
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
MMS Strength .............................................................................................. 20
Maintenance Personnel on each Naval Service Ship as June 2006 ............ 23
Maintenance Personnel Costs for each Naval Service Ship 2006 ............... 23
Personnel Costs for MENDY 2006 .............................................................. 25
Personnel Employed in WEU (2006) ........................................................... 29
Expenditure on Equipment Installed by WEU 2003 to 2006 ....................... 30
Contracted Maintenance Costs 2003 - 2006 ............................................... 32
Military and Civilian Staff Employed in Tech Stores as at June 2006 ........ 35
Cost of Maintenance Inventory Purchased 2003 – 2006 ............................. 36
Current Infrastructure Upgrade Costs 2003 - 2006 .................................... 37
Utility Costs 2003 – 2006 ............................................................................ 38
Overall Naval Service Vessel Maintenance Costs for 2006. ....................... 39
Percentage of Time Operational or Available at 8 Hours Notice ............... 42
Breakdown of Naval Service Patrol Days 2003 - 2006 ............................... 42
Fleet Days Lost Due to Unscheduled Maintenance ..................................... 42
ii
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
A-Team
AMOS
ATCA
ATCP
BSC
CBM
COS
CPVs
D COS (Sp)
DFHQ
DoD
EAG
EAM
ERI
ESDP
FOCNS
FSG
FSL
GMES
GOC
GPMG
HMG
HPV
HQ
IMO
IMS
IRCG
ISPS Code
LE
LIMES
MARISS
MARPOL
MENDY
MEO
MIF
MINS
MLC
MMS
MMT
MMU
Acquisition Team
Automated Maintenance on Ships
Aid to the Civil Authority
Aid to the Civil Power
Balanced Score Card
Conditioned Based Maintenance
Chief of Staff
Coastal Patrol Vessel
Deputy Chief of Staff (Support)
Defence Forces Headquarters
Department of Defence
Efficiency Audit Group
Enterprise Asset Management
Expenditure Review Initiative
European Security & Defence Policy
Flag Officer Commanding the Naval
Service
Fleet Support Group
Fleet Support Limited
Global Monitoring for Environment &
Security
General Officer Commanding
General Purpose Machine Gun
Heavy Machine Gun
Helicopter Patrol Vessel
Headquarters
International Maritime Organisation
Inventory Management System
Irish Coast Guard
International Ship & Port Facilities
Security Code
Long Éireanach
Land & Sea Integrated Monitoring for
European Security
Maritime Security & Surveillance
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
Mechanical Engineering Naval Dockyard
Mechanical Engineering Officer
Management Information Framework
Marine Internal Navigation System
Maintenance & Logistics Command
Maintenance Management Section
Maintenance Management Team
Maintenance Management Unit
iii
MOU
NDY
NESU
NS
NSC
NSL
OC
OIC
OPVs
PDF
PIMM
PMS
PPM
RDF
RFA
RN
RPII
SLA
SMC
SMI
SOLAS
UCM
UNCLOS
USCG
VFM
VFMPR
VFMPRCSC
WMEC
Memorandum of Understanding
Naval Dockyard
Naval Engineering Support Unit
Naval Service
Naval Support Command
Northwest Ship Repairers and
Shipbuilders
Officer Commanding
Officer in Charge
Offshore Patrol Vessel
Permanent Defence Force
Planning, Inspection and Maintenance
Management Unit
Personnel Management System
Planned Preventative Maintenance
Reserve Defence Force
Royal Fleet Auxiliary
Royal Navy
Radiological Protection Institute of
Ireland
Service Level Agreement
Strategic Management Committee
Strategic Management Initiative
International Convention for Safety of
Life at Sea
Unscheduled Corrective Maintenance
United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea
United States Coast Guard
Value for Money
Value for Money and Policy Review
Value for Money and Policy Review
Central Steering Committee
Medium Endurance Cutters
iv
Executive Summary
The Naval Service provides the maritime element of the State’s Defence Forces. The Naval
Service has an authorised strength of 1,144 and operates a flotilla of eight ships that are
based in the State’s single Naval Base at Haulbowline in Co. Cork.
This Review examines all of the vessel maintenance activities required for vessels to
achieve operational readiness and deployment targets, including maintenance of hulls,
weapons, electrics, electronics and machinery. The Review encompasses the period 2003 –
2006 inclusive.
Each of the terms of reference is now taken in turn and the key findings outlined:
TOR 1.
Identify Naval Service vessel maintenance objectives.
TOR 2.
Examine the current validity of those objectives and their compatibility
with the overall strategy.
The objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance is:
“to preserve Naval Service vessels in a determined state or condition1, or to restore Naval
Service vessels to a determined state or condition, in order to meet operational readiness
and deployment targets.”
The Steering Committee found that the objectives of Naval Service vessel maintenance are
clearly specified, remain valid and are directly linked to overall strategic goals.
TOR 3.
Define the outputs associated with Naval Service vessel maintenance
activity and identify the level and trend of those outputs.
The Steering Committee found that although quantifiable in a broad sense, detailed
information relating to the outputs of military and civilian personnel in each of the Units
involved in maintenance was unavailable. This lead to specific difficulties in assessing the
efficiency of personnel involved in conducting maintenance tasks. The Steering Committee
found that the recording of staff time spent on specific maintenance tasks was not in
operation for military personnel. Although a job-card system was in operation for civilian
maintenance personnel working in the Dockyard in practice multiple jobs were frequently
aggregated into a single job number, which prevented the benchmarking of specific
maintenance tasks with standard times utilised for such tasks by comparative organisations
or equipment manufacturers.
The Steering Committee noted that the Naval Service are currently addressing these issues
through refining the usage of job cards and the introduction of the Enterprise Assets
Management (EAM) module of the Management Information Framework (MIF). Whilst
1
Relates to the standard of vessel maintenance the Naval Service set which is informed by the standards set
down by International Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) and prevention of Marine Pollution
(MARPOL) that are appropriate to the Naval Service.
v
the refined usage of job-cards will yield immediate results, the introduction of EAM is
currently being piloted and although it is anticipated that EAM will address the issues
outlined above, this will not be confirmed until the pilot project is evaluated.
TOR 4.
Examine the extent that Naval Service vessel maintenance objectives
have been achieved, and comment on effectiveness.
The Steering Committee found that maintenance outputs are meeting the objectives of
Naval Service vessel maintenance. This was confirmed by the fact that operational
readiness and deployment targets are being achieved to a high level and a low incidence of
unscheduled maintenance resulting in lost patrol days.
The Steering Committee agreed that the current maintenance management structures in the
Naval Service provide a sound basis for effective maintenance management.
Implementation of the recommendations requiring improvements to management
information is critical to improving the performance management of the maintenance
function.
The Steering Committee agreed that co-ordination at a higher level of all available
maintenance resources coupled with improved performance measurement data will
significantly improve the effectiveness of maintenance management in the Naval Service.
The Steering Committee recommends the re-configuration of the current system into a
dedicated maintenance management team (MMT), with responsibility for the centralised
co-ordination of maintenance execution.
TOR 5.
Identify the level and trend of costs and staffing resources associated
with Naval Service vessel maintenance and thus comment on the
efficiency with which it has achieved its objectives.
Each of the units involved in undertaking activities that contribute to Naval Service vessel
maintenance were identified and costed. These costs include personnel pay costs, inventory
costs, infrastructure costs and the cost of contracted maintenance.
The Steering Committee found that the staffing levels remained relatively constant over the
Review period. Costs for 2006 are outlined below:
vi
Maintenance Costs
2006
Staff Costs
PIMM
Flotilla
MENDY
- Military (FSG)
- Civilian
WEU
Tech Stores
- Military
- Civilian
€646,800
€3,151,523
€2,153,850
€2,743,891
€1,753,080
€299,845
€329,553
Equipment, Contracted Maintenance &
Inventory
WEU Equipment installed
Contracted Maintenance
Inventory
Infrastructure
Current
Utility Costs
€289,665
€2,960,347
€3,006,583
€14,386
€58,873
€17,408,396
Total
As previously outlined, the Steering Committee found that detailed information relating to
the outputs of military and civilian personnel in each of the Units involved in maintenance
was unavailable. This lead to specific difficulties in assessing the efficiency of personnel
involved in conducting maintenance tasks
The Steering Committee recommends that the capture of staff time on maintenance
activities and the introduction of standard times for all maintenance tasks be introduced for
all maintenance personnel involved in vessel maintenance in the Naval Service both
military and civilian. This will facilitate better performance management of personnel
resources. In the interim period whilst EAM is being piloted, job cards should be
introduced for military personnel.
The Steering Committee found that data that isolated inputs such as inventory or contracted
services, on a ship-by-ship basis, was difficult to access. The Steering Committee noted
that assigning costs to the relevant cost centre would significantly improve the accessibility
of maintenance costs on a ship-by-ship basis. The Steering Committee noted that this issue
is currently being addressed in the context of the implementation of Phase II of the MIF.
The Steering Committee found that military maintenance personnel in both FSG and WEU
Unit were also tasked with performing sea relief duties and other military tasks. The
Steering Committee accepts that such requirements are unavoidable but recommends that
the Naval Service critically review the management of such taskings with a view to
vii
improving planning certainty for the availability of maintenance personnel when
scheduling major maintenance activities.
In light of the unavailability of performance information to assess efficiency, the Steering
Committee recommends that an ongoing review of Naval Service vessel maintenance be
conducted as implementation of review recommendations occurs and such information
becomes available.
TOR 6.
Evaluate the degree to which the objectives warrant the allocation of
public funding on a current and ongoing basis and examine the scope
for alternative policy or organisational approaches to achieving these
objectives in a more efficient and / or effective basis (e.g. through
international comparison).
As outlined above, the objectives of Naval Service Vessel Maintenance are clearly
specified, remain valid and are directly linked to Strategic Goals. The Review examined
practices in the US Coastguard and Arklow Shipping and recommendations arising from
this examination have been outlined above. The Steering Committee recommends that the
Naval Service should continue to investigate, identify and implement the most cost
effective and efficient means of vessel maintenance available including contracting out of
maintenance tasks where appropriate.
TOR 7.
Specify potential future performance indicators that might be used to
better monitor the performance of Naval Service vessel maintenance.
Appropriate performance indicators that complement the Naval Service’s Balanced
Scorecard system were identified and agreed with the Naval Service.
viii
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Defence Organisation2
The mission of the Department of Defence and Defence Forces is:
“To provide for the military defence of the State, contribute to national and international
peace and security and fulfil all other roles assigned by Government”3
The Department of Defence comprises civil and military elements with a total of 650
personnel. Of this number 380 (whole time equivalents) are civil servants and 270 are
military personnel. The military personnel constitute Defence Forces Headquarters
(DFHQ). In addition, in the order of 850 civilian employees are employed throughout the
Defence Forces. These civilian employees provide a range of general operative, trades and
other services in military installations.
The primary role of the Department is to support the Minister as Head of the Department,
in particular by providing policy advice and support on Defence matters. This includes
assistance with policy formulation and the implementation of policy as directed by the
Minister. The Secretary General is the Minister’s principal defence policy advisor and the
Chief of Staff (COS) is the Minister’s principal military adviser.
Defence Forces
The Defence Forces are organised on conventional military lines providing a sufficiently
flexible structure to carry out all the roles assigned by Government. The Defence Forces
consist of a Permanent Defence Force (PDF) and a Reserve Defence Force (RDF).
The Permanent Defence Force consists of the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service.
The authorised Permanent Defence Force strength is 10,500.
Naval Service
The Naval Service provides the maritime element of the State’s Defence Forces. The Naval
Service has an authorised strength of 1,144 and operates a flotilla of eight vessels that are
based in the State’s single Naval Base at Haulbowline in Co. Cork. The organisational
structure of the Naval Service is outlined in Appendix 1.
1.1.2 Roles of the Defence Forces
The roles of the Defence Forces, which are set out in the White Paper on Defence (2000),
are:
The terminology used in this report is as follows: the term “defence” is used to refer in a broad sense to
defence provision in Ireland comprising civil and military elements; “Defence Organisation” refers to the
civil and military organisation; the “Defence Forces” refers to the military organisation.
2
3
Department of Defence and Defence Forces Strategy Statement 2008 - 2010
1
to defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency, preparations for its
implementation will depend on an ongoing Government assessment of the security and
defence environment;
to aid the civil power (meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána,
who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the
internal security of the State);
to participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief
operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional
security missions authorised by the UN;
to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State’s obligations as a
member of the EU; and,
to carry out such other duties as may be assigned to them from time to time, e.g. search and
rescue, air ambulance service, Ministerial air transport service, assistance on the
occasion of natural or other disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of
essential services, assistance in combating oil pollution at sea.
1.2 Overview of Value for Money and Policy Review (VFMPR)
Initiative
The Government’s Expenditure Review Initiative (ERI) was launched in May 1997 and is
part of the broader change process, which was framed by the Strategic Management
Initiative (SMI). The SMI is a key catalyst in public sector management reform and
modernisation.
The objectives of an expenditure review are to analyse Exchequer spending in a systematic
way and to provide a basis on which more informed decisions can be made on priorities
within and between expenditure programmes. In 2006, the ERI was revised and expanded
by Government. Reviews conducted under this expanded scheme are now called Value for
Money and Policy Reviews (VFMPR) and include other Policy Reviews whether
conducted internally or commissioned externally, that impact on value for money. VFMPR
are overseen by the VFMPR Central Steering Committee.
Each Government Department is required, in consultation with the Department of Finance,
to identify suitable VFM reviews for inclusion in each round of the VFMPR cycle. Each
Department is then responsible for conducting their VFM reviews, usually under the
auspices of a steering committee with relevant expertise. In addition, each VFM review is
now quality assessed by an external independent evaluation expert, drawn from a panel,
which was established by the VFMPR Central Steering Committee. This quality assurance
process ensures that VFM reviews are subjected to rigorous independent scrutiny prior to
finalisation and publication and this enhances the objectivity of each review. The Review
of Naval Service Vessel Maintenance was approved by Government as part of the 2006 –
2008 round of reviews.
2
1.2.1 VFM Reviews in the Department of Defence
Topics for inclusion in the programme of VFM and policy reviews are identified by the
Strategic Management Committee (SMC). This high level civil/military committee
comprises the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, the Chief of Staff (COS) of
the Defence Forces, the two Assistant Secretaries of the Department and the two Deputy
Chiefs of Staff. The Flag Officer Commanding the Naval Service (FOCNS) and General
Officer Commanding (GOC) the Air Corps attend meetings of the SMC when matters
relating to their services are discussed.
The management of the VFMPR process is the responsibility of an Assistant Secretary of
the Department of Defence. Reviews are conducted under the auspices of an appointed
civil/military steering committee with relevant expertise. A representative from the
Department of Finance is invited to participate on the steering committee.
The terms of reference for each review are drafted by the steering committee and submitted
to the Department of Finance for observations. The Secretary General of the Department of
Defence, who is the Accounting Officer for all Defence Expenditure, approves final terms
of reference.
The vessel maintenance function expends a significant proportion of Subhead J, of the
Defence Vote, which is devolved to the Naval Service. In addition to this devolved
expenditure the majority of expenditure on vessel maintenance relates to staff costs of both
civilian and military personnel drawn from Subheads B and F of the Defence vote. The
selection of Naval Service vessel maintenance as a review topic, was also intended to
complement and further inform the implementation of Phase II of the introduction of the
MIF in Defence. This phase of MIF was to see the development of costing methodologies
and the development of enhanced performance management information within the
Defence Organisation. The focused review of a complex maintenance function requiring
detailed planning, personnel management, procurement and inventory management,
involving both military and civilian personnel, provided an ideal opportunity to identify
and disseminate best practices across the Defence Forces. Whilst the scope of this Review
is confined to Naval Service vessel maintenance, it was anticipated that the lessons learned
will and must have wider organisational benefits.
1.3
Review Scope and Terms of Reference
The maintenance of Naval Service vessels is conducted by military personnel at sea and
ashore, civilian employees at the Naval Base and external contractors. The vessel
maintenance function is focussed on ensuring that the flotilla meets operational readiness
targets and specified patrol day deployment targets as per the roles and tasks assigned to
the Naval Service. The objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance is:
“ to preserve Naval Service vessels in a determined state or condition, or to restore Naval
Service vessels to a determined state or condition, in order to meet operational readiness
and deployment targets.”
This Review examines all of the vessel maintenance activities required for vessels to
achieve operational readiness and deployment targets, including maintenance of hulls,
3
weapons, electrics, electronics and machinery. The Review encompasses the period 2003 –
2006 inclusive.
1.3.1 Terms of Reference
The terms of reference for the Review are consistent with the generic terms of reference for
Value for Money reviews supplied by the Department of Finance and were approved by the
Secretary General of the Department of Defence. The terms of reference are as follows:
1. Identify Naval Service vessel maintenance objectives.
2. Examine the current validity of those objectives and their compatibility with the
overall strategy.
3. Define the outputs associated with Naval Service vessel maintenance activity and
identify the level and trend of those outputs.
4. Examine the extent that Naval Service vessel maintenance objectives have been
achieved, and comment on effectiveness.
5. Identify the level and trend of costs and staffing resources associated with Naval
Service vessel maintenance and thus comment on the efficiency with which it has
achieved its objectives.
6. Evaluate the degree to which the objectives warrant the allocation of public funding
on a current and ongoing basis and examine the scope for alternative policy or
organisational approaches to achieving these objectives in a more efficient and / or
effective basis (e.g. through international comparison).
7. Specify potential future performance indicators that might be used to better monitor
the performance of Naval Service vessel maintenance.
1.3.2 Membership of Steering Committee
A civil-military Steering Committee was established in 2006. The membership of the
Steering Committee is:
Mr. Robert Mooney4, Principal Officer, Department of Defence (Chairman)
Colonel Paul Pakenham5, Director of Administration, DFHQ.
Ms. Eilís O’Connell6, Principal Officer, Department of Defence
Captain Paul Keaney (NS), OIC Naval Support Command, Naval Service.
Mr Frank Griffin7, Department of Finance
Ms. Patricia Troy8, Assistant Principal, Department of Defence, Secretary
4
Mr. Robert Mooney replaced Mr. Jim Blighe
Colonel Paul Pakenham replaced Colonel Bob Fitzgerald.
6
Ms. Eilís O’Connell replaced Mr. Brendan Coghlan
7
Mr. Frank Griffin replaced Ms. Eileen Dalton (Department of Finance).
8
Ms. Patricia Troy replaced Mr. Robert Mooney
5
4
1.4
Methodology
The maintenance of Naval Service vessels involves a variety of units in the Naval Base,
each with inputs, activities and outputs. The aggregation of each of these unit’s efforts,
constitutes the overall maintenance output for Naval Service vessels. The relationship
between each of these unit’s inputs activities and outputs was identified and expressed in
programme logic format, which provided the evaluation framework for this Review.
The Review focussed on each of the unit’s activities and identified and costed inputs
utilising a variety of methodologies.
(a)
Pay costs were extracted utilising the MIF system, cost centre codes and payroll
analysis. The proportion of time available for vessel maintenance activities was
derived through analysis of the military Personnel Management System and
through existing job card analysis for civilian employees.
(b)
Material costs and contracted services were identified by the Naval Service
utilising the MIF system and historical data.
The Review then focussed on the identification and quantification of activities for each of
the units and their contribution to the overall maintenance effort.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The utilisation of job card data allowed for the broad quantification of civilian
maintenance employee’s activities. Civilian support staff costs were apportioned
based on the proportion of civilian maintenance staff time engaged in Naval
Service vessel maintenance.
The activity of stores and procurement staff was quantified through the
examination of orders placed and inventory issued. Inventory management was
examined through analysis of inventory turnover levels.
The maintenance activity of military personnel is not captured via job cards and
their contribution towards the maintenance effort, although identified in broad
terms, could not be precisely quantified. The Working Group intended to utilise
maintenance standard times for United States Coast Guard (USCG) Medium
Endurance Cutters (similar to LE Eithne) to project overall maintenance effort
required for this type of vessel and utilise this as a “best estimate” of military
staff effort. The Naval Service were unable to perform such a projection.
The Review Group utilised a variety of methodologies in order to examine efficiency. The
identification of a direct military comparator proved problematic due to variances in the
specifications, capabilities, fleet size and age of vessels.
The Review Group decided to undertake focussed benchmarking on specific ship
components that require significant maintenance activity. The Review Group approached
engine suppliers Wartsila Ireland Ltd, who agreed to supply standard times for major
routine maintenance for their equipment. The USCG supplied detailed maintenance
information, including standard times, for their Medium Endurance Cutters (WMEC),
which are similar to LE Eithne. These were compared with:
(a) Maintenance of Wartsila W 26 engines on LE Niamh and LE Roisin.
5
(b) Selected Maintenance routines for LE Eithne.
In order to examine alternative approaches to ships maintenance, the Review Group
examined both private sector and public sector approaches. Members of the Working
Group were given a comprehensive overview of maintenance management and execution
in Arklow Shipping, an Irish commercial shipping company. Members of the group also
examined the USCG approach to vessel maintenance and the initiatives being undertaken
to improve this function.
The Review was assessed by an independent evaluator, in line with the quality assurance
process required by the Value for Money and Policy Review Central Steering Committee.
1.5
Review Structure
Chapter 2 examines the objectives of Naval Service vessel maintenance and their
compatibility with overall strategy.
Chapter 3 describes the Naval Service maintenance organisation, including the types of
maintenance, the units, maintenance execution, maintenance management systems, and the
maintenance cycle.
Chapter 4 examines maintenance costs, activities, outputs, and comments on efficiency.
Chapter 5 examines and comments on effectiveness.
Chapter 6 examines performance measurement, outlines the Naval Service Balanced
Scorecard (BSC) and includes suggestions for performance indicators for the maintenance
function.
6
2.
Naval Service Vessel Maintenance Objectives
This chapter addresses terms of reference 1 and 2 of the Review, which are:
1.
2.
2.1
Identify Naval Service vessel maintenance objectives.
Examine the current validity of those objectives and their
compatibility with the overall strategy.
Programme Objectives
The Naval Service define the objectives of Naval Service vessel maintenance as:
“To preserve Naval Service vessels in a determined state or condition, or to restore Naval
Service vessels to a determined state or condition, in order to meet operational readiness
and deployment targets.”
The Naval Service maintains its vessels to allow it achieve its operational deployment and
readiness targets, and to ensure the safety of its crews and minimise harm to the
environment. As for all Navies, there are no recognised international Naval/Military
standards laid down to cater for vessel maintenance. The civilian standards applied in this
area are ratified by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), a subsidiary body of the
UN, in the International Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) and prevention
of Marine Pollution (MARPOL). While warships and troopships are generally exempt
from SOLAS & MARPOL, this exemption has an important caveat:
“The present Convention shall not apply to any warship. However, each party shall ensure
by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing the operations or operational
capabilities of such ships owned or operated by it, that such ships act in a manner
consistent, so far as is reasonable and practicable, with the present convention”.
Irish Naval Service Vessels are maintained throughout their life with a view to ensuring a
level of safety and environmental protection that is at least equivalent to SOLAS and
MARPOL. Ships are subjected to a programme of regular inspections by Classification
Society representatives in order to provide independent assurance of the level of safety,
environmental protection and overall vessel sea worthiness. In essence, the civil regime, in
so far as is reasonably practical for naval vessels, is used as a minimum standard
benchmark for vessels of the Naval Service with respect to safety, prevention of pollution
and to minimise adverse effects on the environment.
In addition, Naval Service vessels are maintained to ensure they can meet their operational
targets. The configuration of Naval Service vessels is militarily focussed with systems that
significantly differ from civilian vessels. As military vessels, the breadth of maintenance
differs from civilian vessels and includes maintenance of weapons systems, electronics,
communications, boarding craft and surveillance and monitoring equipment.
When Naval Service vessels conduct overseas visits, regional agreements and requirements
of the host port State must be fulfilled. For example, host States like Canada or the USA
may demand compliance with the local environmental and/or safety provisions, or the
7
presentation of MARPOL certificates. This is set out in the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The operational readiness and deployment targets for the Naval Service are grounded in
Defence policy as outlined in the White Paper on Defence and in the delivery of outputs as
outlined in the Department of Defence and Defence Forces Strategy Statement 2008 –
2010, the Defence Forces’ Annual Plan, and the Defence Annual Output Statement 2008.
2.2
The White Paper on Defence (2000)
The White Paper on Defence (2000) sets out the policy framework for Defence over the
period to end 2010. It outlines the requirement for the Naval Service to provide for
contingent and actual maritime defence requirements.
Fishery protection was identified as being the primary activity of the Naval Service on a
day to day basis, accounting for over 90% of Naval Service operations9. In addition, the
Naval Service’s ability to undertake tasks at sea, led the Government to decide that:
“the emphasis will be on utilisation and development of the Naval Service to contribute to
the maximum to all of the State’s requirements in the maritime domain”10.
Analysis of the Defence and Security environment in 2000 led the Government to decide
that:
“..the Naval Service will be developed around the provision of a modern 8 ship flotilla.
There will be a process of continuous investment and vessel replacement to ensure that the
flotilla is capable of meeting military and other requirements. Ireland does not face a
maritime-based threat for which the huge costs of warships could be justified. The military
requirements of the Naval Service are largely of a contingent nature and the general
approach will be to ensure an appropriate level of retained capability. The requirement is
for a flexible force with the capacity to deploy vessels at sea quickly and to sustain as many
days on patrol as possible. While a major alteration in the level and type of vessel provided
is not contemplated, there is the potential to maximise capabilities, within the broad
available financial envelope. This can be achieved by a range of efficiency and
effectiveness measures designed to achieve more patrol days and to utilise existing
manpower and other resources in a better way…”11.
The special review of the Naval Service, which reported in 1998 under the auspices of the
Efficiency Audit Group (EAG), led to specific recommendations to improve efficiency and
effectiveness in the Naval Service. The White Paper on Defence (2000) outlines the
principal elements of a plan to implement these efficiency and effectiveness
recommendations made by Price Waterhouse. Principal elements of this plan provided for:

A new organisational structure based on operations and support divisions with an
overall manpower level of around 1,144.
9
White Paper on Defence (2000) para 4.11.1
White Paper on Defence (2000) para 4.11.8
11
White Paper on Defence (2000) para 4.11.5
10
8

A planned approach to sea / shore rotation of personnel on a two year period of
commitment to sea going duties followed by a two year period away from such duties.
Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with principal clients such as the Department of the
Marine and Natural Resources.
Regular recruitment and other measures such as schemes for the commissioning of
enlisted personnel to address personnel shortfalls.
Enhancement of the Naval Service College and development of proposals for a joint
initiative with Cork Institute of Technology, in order to meet changing needs and keep
pace with the increased demand for maritime education and training responses.
Continuation of a programme of investment at the Naval Base to improve the buildings
and other infrastructure.
Enhancement of information technology infrastructure to maximise information
gathering and utilisation in line, inter alia, with EU requirements.12





The Review of White Paper Implementation (2007) acknowledged that this plan had been
achieved.
2.3
Strategy Statement
Department of Defence and Defence Forces Strategy Statement, 2008 – 2010
The Strategy Statement articulates the mission of the Defence Organisation, which is:
“to provide for the military defence of the State, contribute to national and international
peace and security and fulfil all other roles assigned by Government.”13
The Strategy Statement outlines four high level goals as follows:
1. To provide for the defence of the State against armed aggression, by maintaining
and developing appropriate military capabilities.
2. To contribute to on-island security and stability by providing, on request, aid to the
civil power (ATCP), aid to the civil authority (ATCA) and other emergency and nonemergency services.
3. To contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security through
participation in approved UN-mandated peace support, crisis management and
humanitarian relief operations.
4. To provide the best possible defence policy advice and military advice to the
Minister in order to support management of all aspects of defence provision and
facilitate planning for future needs.
These goals are supported by four programmes, which are outlined in the Defence Annual
Output Statement 2008. The Naval Service contributes to all of these goals and
programmes.
12
13
White Paper on Defence (2000) para 4.11.10
Department of Defence and Defence Forces Strategy Statement 2008 - 2010
9
2.3.1 Programme 1 - Contingent Capabilities
The Naval Service provides the maritime element of the State’s contingent Defence
capabilities. The organisation, fleet, staffing and training of the Naval Service are focussed
toward the delivery of a wide variety of naval capabilities including joint operations with
both the Army and the Air Corps. The eight-vessel configuration provides the platform
from which both military and non-military outputs are delivered as required by
Government.
The armament and crewing of each vessel is outlined in Appendix 2.
2.3.2 Programme 2 – On Island Security and Support to Other Agencies.
In line with the Government decision to utilise and develop the Naval Service to contribute
to the maximum to all of the State’s requirements in the maritime domain, Naval Service
vessels operate in a multi-tasking capacity. This ensures the optimal utilisation of Naval
Service assets and maximises value for money.
The Naval Service continues to direct approximately 90% of its patrol day output towards
fishery protection. A draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) is currently being progressed
with the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency. This SLA will formalise output targets for the
Naval Service with respect to fishery protection.
In addition to fishery protection, the Naval Service also deliver a range of outputs on behalf
of and to other State agencies and non Government organisations such as the Department
of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Irish Coastguard (IRCG), Met
Éireann, the Marine Institute and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII).
These include providing a search and rescue response, pollution surveillance, dive support,
training and advice, escort duties, meteorological readings and wildlife monitoring. A SLA
was finalised with the IRCG in December 2008, which details the service to be provided to
the IRCG by the Naval Service. Also in December 2008 a SLA was finalised with the
Marine Institute regarding the provision of surveys, training and information sharing
between the Naval Service and the Marine Institute. Other SLAs are being progressed with
Met Éireann, Medico-Cork/Health Service Executive and the Central Fisheries Board. In
addition, the Naval Service is provided for in SLAs the Department is establishing with the
RPII and the Air Accident Investigation Unit (AIIU) in the Department of Transport.
The Naval Service provides expertise to the Department of Transport, Maritime Safety
Directorate for the implementation and continuing evaluation of response to the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code), as it applies to Irish Ports.
The ISPS Code applies to port security and came into force worldwide in July 2004. In
addition, the Naval Service is represented on the National Maritime Security Committee.
The Naval Service participates in EU security initiatives such as Global Monitoring for
Environment and Security (GMES), Land and Sea Integrated Monitoring for European
Security (LIMES), and Maritime Security and Surveillance (MARISS)
The Naval Service also undertakes tasks in ATCP and in ATCA. As part of the Joint Task
Force on drug interdiction at sea, the Naval Service with An Garda Síochána and
Revenue’s Custom Service collaborate to prevent the illegal smuggling of drugs. The Naval
10
Service also performs security duties, as requested, for major high profile events in Ireland
such as visits by foreign dignitaries. The unique characteristics of Naval Service vessels
and crew have also provided the State with the capacity to pursue and detain vessels
engaged in other potentially high risk illicit activities such as the illegal movement of
weapons and ammunition. Naval Service vessels have also assisted in developing trade
and cultural links with other countries through foreign visits.
2.3.3 Programme 3 - International Peace and Security
Naval Service vessels have supported the Defence Forces deployed on overseas peace
support operations through deployment, re-supply and recovery tasks. Naval Service
personnel also regularly serve on overseas peace support operations. In addition, the Naval
Service provides military advice, where required, with respect to European Security and
Defence Policy (ESDP).
2.3.4 Programme 4 - Policy and Military Advice.
The FOCNS provides military advice in respect of Naval and maritime issues. Naval
Service personnel are also assigned appointments in Defence Forces Headquarters in the
Department of Defence. The FOCNS attends meetings of the high level civil/military
Strategic Management Committee when issues relating to the Naval Service are being
discussed.
2.4
Delivery of Naval Service Vessel Outputs
Since 2000, in line with the White Paper Goal, there has been a phased increase in Naval
Service ship patrol day output, with current patrol day output more than 50% higher than
1999 output. Figure 2.1 highlights the patrol day trends over the period 1999 – 2006.
Figure 2.1
Naval Service Patrol Days 1999 – 2006
Naval Service Patrol Days 1999 - 2006
Patrol Days
1800
PATROL DAYS
1600
1400
1200
1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
The Naval Service patrol day target is currently 1,680 patrol days each year. This equates
to 210 patrol days per vessel each year. To meet this target the Naval Service must ensure
11
that vessels are properly maintained in order to perform the multiple tasks that may be
required.
The Defence Forces’ Annual Plan 2008 requires that the Naval Service fleet is deployed or
maintained at a readiness level of 8 hours notice or less, 90% of the time throughout the
year. In essence, this means that in addition to providing for the targeted patrol day
requirements, the Naval Service fleet must also be “available” for deployment if required.
Currently, this readiness state is primarily directed towards possible requirements arising
from Programme 2, as previously outlined at 2.3.2.
2.5
Conclusion
The Steering Committee are satisfied that the objectives of Naval Service vessel
maintenance are clearly specified, remain valid and are directly linked to overall strategic
goals.
12
3.
Naval Service Vessel Maintenance Overview
This chapter provides an overview of Naval Service vessel maintenance. It outlines the
types of maintenance undertaken, the Naval Service Units involved with vessel
maintenance and how maintenance is conducted. The chapter also describes the differing
levels of maintenance and maintenance management.
3.1
Types of Maintenance
Maintenance is carried out on all vessels under the following broad headings:
3.1.1 Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM)
This is maintenance that is carried out on shipboard equipment to prevent failure of
machinery, thereby ensuring continuous availability. PPM is carried out according to
either running hours e.g. 100Hrs, 250Hrs, 500Hrs, 1000Hrs, 3000Hrs, 5000Hrs, 10,000Hrs
or time e.g. daily, weekly, monthly, three monthly, six monthly, annually, bi-annually etc.
All machinery onboard a vessel has a maintenance plan. This approach also allows for
planning and management of resources e.g. finance, personnel, spare parts, tools.
3.1.2 Condition Based Monitoring (CBM)
This consists of maintenance routines designed to monitor and assess the performance of
machinery. Without carrying out invasive maintenance inspections, CBM can indicate the
condition of machinery and help to highlight when overhauls are required. CBM utilises
performance measurement criteria, spectrographic oil analysis, trend analysis and surveys.
CBM is used to reduce the maintenance burden and increase the time between overhauls.
CBM is carried out on a continuous basis e.g. hourly, daily, as well as on a planned basis
e.g. monthly, or three monthly.
3.1.3 Unplanned Corrective Maintenance (UCM)
This category encompasses maintenance activities that occur as a result of equipment
failure. Failure can occur due to factors such as the environment in which machinery is
operated (e.g. rough weather, vibration, and heat), age of the equipment, manufacturing
faults, etc. This type of maintenance is difficult to pre-empt and can result in extended
down time of machinery as spare parts, personnel etc. may not be readily available.
UCM is the area of maintenance that presents the greatest threat to a seagoing vessel
through unscheduled down time. As it is difficult to cater for, particularly with older
equipment, UCM can adversely affect the operational profile of a vessel for an extended
period of time. UCM, by its very nature generally requires immediate action to address.
This diverts resources and focus away from the other maintenance activities. Through its
approach and maintenance policies, the Naval Service attempts to minimise the amount of
UCM by adhering to a robust maintenance regime of PPM and CBM.
13
3.2
Units involved in Ships Maintenance
3.2.1 Naval Support Command (NSC)
NSC is tasked with the support of the Naval Service afloat and ashore. As part of this role,
Officer Commanding NSC is responsible for Naval Service vessel maintenance and has a
number of units / sections under command in order to fulfil this responsibility. The
individual functions of these units are elaborated in this section.
3.2.2 Planning, Inspection and Maintenance Management section (PIMM)
Maintenance of Naval Service vessels is planned by a dedicated central shore based unit
called PIMM. This unit schedules planned preventative maintenance, monitors the
completion of maintenance tasks and provides central support with respect to unplanned
corrective maintenance. This unit is also responsible for conditioned based monitoring of
Naval Service machinery, primarily through lubricating oil analysis.
3.2.3 Ships Crew
Each vessel has dedicated maintenance personnel who perform watch-keeping duties and
perform specified PPM and CBM routines. In addition vessels have the capability to
perform UCM, depending on the nature of the unplanned event, inventory held on board
and maintenance expertise required.
Whereas most crew members engage in general ships husbandry tasks (routine cleaning,
chipping and painting), crew members with appropriate qualifications undertake technical
maintenance tasks.
3.2.4 Mechanical Engineering Naval Dockyard Unit (MENDY)
This unit is comprised of two discrete elements:
Naval Dockyard and Fleet Support Group (FSG).
3.2.4.1 Naval Dockyard
The Naval Dockyard is mostly staffed by civilian personnel with overall management by
Naval Service officers. The Dockyard undertakes the more technically demanding PPM on
Naval Service vessels. This is generally scheduled for completion during a vessel's annual
re-fit period. The Dockyard also undertakes UCM that requires their level of technical
capability or infrastructural support.
3.2.4.2 Fleet Support Group (FSG)
FSG is staffed by Naval Service personnel with maintenance qualifications. The Naval
Service operates a policy of two years sea going duties and two years land based duties for
its ship’s crews. FSG personnel are the ship’s maintenance personnel who are on land
based duties.
14
FSG personnel are utilised to support the maintenance effort. They are used to provide
additional support to ships’ crews and/or the Dockyard, as required. FSG also undertake all
maintenance tasks on Naval Service Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs), which are utilised for
boarding operations, a critical operational capability for the Naval Service.
3.2.5 Weapons Electric Unit (WEU)
The WEU comprises three Sections; Electric/Electronic Section, Communications
Technical Section, and Ordnance Section. WEU is also staffed by Naval Service personnel
with technical qualifications and like FSG these personnel are generally ship’s crews on
shore rotation. WEU conducts weapons maintenance and electrical and electronic
maintenance support. WEU also performs upgrade works on these vessel’s systems.
3.2.6 Logistics Unit
The Logistics Unit provides logistic support for all of the Naval Service. From a
maintenance perspective, the key element of this unit is the Main Technical Stores, which
procures maintenance goods and services and receipts and issues the majority of
maintenance inventory. Each of the units involved in performing maintenance can
requisition inventory from the Logistics Unit.
3.3
Maintenance Management Systems
The Naval Service currently manages its maintenance through three IT systems.

Excel Spreadsheet System. This is the traditional or older system and consists of
spreadsheets containing a planner, master plan, maintenance schedules,
weekly/monthly routines and quarterly return reports. It is in use on six of the vessels.

Automated Maintenance on Ships (AMOS). This is an “off the shelf” computer based
system running from a shore based database. It consists of software designed
specifically for managing vessel maintenance. It differs from the Excel system in that
the system is programmed with all information regarding maintenance of the machinery
and the maintenance routines are automatically scheduled by the system. It is in use on
two of the vessels.

EAM. The Naval Service is in the process of adopting a single computer based system
similar in principle to the AMOS. Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) is a module of
the MIF and is currently being rolled out on a phased basis to all units with
maintenance requirements. It is anticipated that this will be the future system which
will be used on all ships and units. Some of the added advantages are:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Linked to stores (will significantly improve planning and accountancy).
Run from a secure database via satellite (24hrs / 7 days availability to sea going
units).
Can accommodate immediate and widespread update when required.
Greater accuracy in forecasting.
Handles all internal and inter unit works orders.
Allows for capture of time spent on maintenance tasks.
Greater capacity for trend analysis.
15
EAM has been rolled out on trial to one shore based unit (Diving section) and the first sea
going unit (LE Aisling). It is anticipated that EAM will eventually replace the other two
systems.
3.4
Maintenance Execution
Vessel Maintenance is carried out as follows:
3.4.1 By ship’s crew on patrol
A patrol is generally of 21 days duration. During that time, each department onboard the
ship carries out hourly, daily, weekly and monthly maintenance routines PPM. The ship’s
crew also continuously undertake UCM. In addition, they also complete any scheduled
larger routines. Generally maintenance routines of up to and including 6 monthly, are
carried out at sea on patrol. Larger maintenance routines are generally not performed, as
this would involve taking equipment out of service for an extended time frame. There is
also a risk factor in larger routines – e.g. if problems are discovered requiring extra parts,
the equipment could be out of service for even longer. Main engine and generator
maintenance (small to medium scale) is carried out at sea e.g. 100Hrs, 500Hrs, 1500Hrs.
The careful management of alternate engine running routines and engine room practices
allows for the deferral of major maintenance routines. Not all elements of major routines
can be conducted at sea, so some of the jobs will be deferred to a more suitable time. The
completion of maintenance at sea can be affected by factors such as weather and the
operational profile of each vessel. Factors that can contribute to successful completion are
scheduled down time e.g. vessel alongside port, or weather bound at anchor where duty
watches are supplemented by key maintenance personnel who can conduct maintenance.
Maintenance cover is maintained at all times on a 24hr basis.
3.4.2 Alongside Naval Base between patrols
During periods alongside in the Naval Base between patrols (periods of 16 days),
maintenance as outlined above is conducted. Work that may have been deferred during an
operational patrol is also undertaken. In addition to the “normal” working day,
maintenance cover is supported on a 24hr basis by rostered duty watch personnel.
Departments within the vessel will also use this time to request support from shore based
departments who can provide extra personnel, in particular specialised trades, specialist
equipment and specialist knowledge. In the main, this support is sought to reduce work
back-logs, investigate and problem solve more complex failures and undertake UCM that
may be beyond the vessel’s ability. Support is available from Naval Dockyard, WEU and
FSG. The support levels are limited during standard periods between patrols, as ships on
annual refit will command the majority of support resources. Civilian contractors may also
be contracted in during this period for specific specialised work e.g. insulation work and
accommodation outfitting.
3.4.3 During the annual refit period
Each ship is allocated an annual refit period of generally 28 days. Planning for the annual
refit normally commences at six to nine months prior to the event. All large scale
16
services/overhauls are scheduled to occur at this time. New equipment fit, major additions,
alterations and accommodation upgrades also occur at this time. The majority of available
resources from NDY, WEU and FSG are made available to the vessel during this period.
The ship’s crew are also employed on maintenance during this period. Civilian contractors
may also be contracted in during this period for specific specialised work.
3.4.4 During Dry Dock
Each ship is removed from the water every 30 months for a two week dry docking period.
This allows work to be conducted on all underwater components of the vessel, which are
unavailable under normal circumstances, and is planned in advance. A civilian ship repair
facility is contracted to dock, carry out necessary works and undock the vessel. The work
carried out by the contractor is supplemented by the ship’s crew.
3.5
Maintenance Management and the Maintenance Cycle
3.5.1 The Maintenance Cycle
Figure 3.1 outlines the key units involved in vessel maintenance and the maintenance
management cycle. A draft maintenance plan is circulated by the Maintenance
Management Section (MMS) – a sub-element of PIMM, to the various stakeholders and is
considered in conjunction with the annual patrol plan.
Once agreed differing units have responsibility for implementing various elements of the
plan. Typically each ships Mechanical Engineering Officer (MEO) is responsible for
ensuring that PPM is conducted when required. Where available, FSG personnel can
supplement the ships maintenance crew when alongside between patrols.
The Officer in Charge (OIC) of MENDY typically manages the Annual Re-fit project for
each ship and the OIC of WEU manages ordnance upgrades and electronic upgrades as
well as supplying staff for re-fit tasks.
The requisitioning of inventory for differing elements of maintenance is generally
performed by the unit, which will perform the maintenance task that requires the inventory
or equipment that is being requisitioned. The procurement of the item may be through Main
Technical Stores or through the unit performing the maintenance task. Figure 3.1 below
illustrates the Maintenance Management Cycle.
17
Figure 3.1
The Maintenance Management Cycle
3.5.2 Maintenance Management
Figure 3.2 highlights the differing levels of maintenance, the contribution that each unit
makes to overall maintenance outputs and management responsibilities. There may be
occasions when units perform levels of maintenance above or below those outlined,
however, the figure is a useful guide to the roles of the differing units.
It is clear that although PPM is scheduled and monitored by MMS, the execution of
maintenance is managed by a variety of stakeholders. Inventory is requisitioned by the
various stakeholders as required.
18
Figure 3.2
Maintenance Management Overview
Maintenance Plan is produced by MMS
Maintenance levels can be categorised by Technical Difficulty
Maintenance
Level
Level 1
Low
Maintenance
Performed By
Level 2
Level 3
Technical Difficulty
(Skills and Equipment / Facilities
Required)
Ships Crew
Ships Crew
High
Dockyard Civilian
Staff
FSG
Outside contractors
Dockyard Civilian
Staff
Outside contractors
Maintenance
Managed By
Maintenance
Recorded by
Maintenance
Centrally
Recorded and
Scheduled by
Ships MEO
Ships MEO
Dockyard / WEU
Consultation with
Dockyard / FSG /
WEU managers.
Consultation with
Ships MEO
Ships MEO
Ships MEO
Dockyard
Maintenance Management Section
The Logistics Unit supports maintenance through the acquisition of inventory and the
procurement of contracted services.
19
4.
Maintenance Activities, Costs and Outputs
This chapter addresses the following terms of reference:
3. Define the outputs associated with Naval Service vessel maintenance activity and
identify the level and trend of those outputs.
5. Identify the level and trend of costs and staffing resources associated with Naval
Service vessel maintenance and thus comment on the efficiency with which it has
achieved its objectives.
6. Evaluate the degree to which the objectives warrant the allocation of public funding
on a current and ongoing basis and examine the scope for alternative policy or
organisational approaches to achieving these objectives in a more efficient and / or
effective basis (e.g. through international comparison).
4.1
Planning, Inspection & Maintenance Management Unit (PIMM)
This Unit is responsible for Naval Service technical standards, new constructions and is
also responsible for Engineering / Technical branch matters in conjunction with the
Personnel Management Section. Maintenance Management Section (MMS) is within this
Unit and it directs, supervises and records technical maintenance of Naval Service
equipment. PIMM are responsible for new constructions, planning and provides an
inspectorate to preserve Naval Service technical standards. The strength of the unit is
outlined in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1
MMS Strength
Officers
NCOs
Enlisted
Personnel
Total
8
12
1
21
4.1.1 Costs
The total payroll cost of the MMS for 2006 was €770,000. As strengths and rank structures
remained constant over the Review period, these costs are indicative of MMS payroll costs
each year of the Review period.
In order to accurately reflect the cost of time spent on purely maintenance related activities,
other assigned tasks such as temporary duties, training and ceremonial duties were
identified. A percentage of 16% was extrapolated from available data. This represents time
spent on activities other than maintenance. When total payroll costs are reduced by this
percentage actual maintenance related payroll costs for MMS were €646,800.
4.1.2. Activities
MMS carries out the following maintenance functions:
20









Researches, creates and implements maintenance policy and routines.
Reviews and updates maintenance policy and routines.
Plans, schedules and distributes maintenance routines for all units on an annual basis.
Monitors and assesses completed maintenance.
Maintains an overall overview on running of large items of machinery.
Monitors CBM.
Monitors ship’s machinery log books.
Co-ordinates ship’s annual engineering inspections.
Identifies and implements ship’s modernisation policy.
As outlined in Chapter 3, MMS plan all fixed scheduled maintenance or PPM to include;
Dry-docking – Each ship is removed from the water every thirty months for a two week dry
docking period. This allows work to be conducted on all underwater components of the
ship and is planned in advance.
Annual refits – Each ship is allocated an annual refit period of generally twenty-eight days.
Routines - Daily, weekly, monthly, tri-monthly and bi-annual maintenance routines and
requirements.
Fixed schedule maintenance requirements are governed by manufacturer’s
recommendations, IMO recommendations, relevant civilian legislation and regulations,
Naval Service experience and Classification Society standards. Classification Society
Regulations set ship quality standards and include inspections to ensure that ships are
seaworthy and not a threat to the environment. If a ship passes inspection, the
Classification Society issues a technical and compliance report. Although built to Class,
Naval Service vessels are exempt from and therefore not retained in Class. This is mostly
for operational and security reasons.
4.1.3 Output / Maintenance Management
The initial draft maintenance plan is circulated to Naval Service Operations (NSO) in order
to develop and merge it with the annual patrol plan. Once finalised, the maintenance plan
is issued to the various maintenance stakeholders including the ship’s MEO. MMS often
order parts for the various refits in order to speed up the requisitioning process but this
activity is also conducted by the MEO, WEU, Dockyard and FSG. Once the plan is
circulated, MMS step back to an oversight role and responsibility for driving the
maintenance activities is delegated to the MEO. This process is the same for each of the
eight ships and assistance from MMS is continually sought when maintenance-planning
issues arise particularly in the case of unscheduled repairs.
The calendar year is broken into four quarters with a specific maintenance schedule
assigned to the MEO for completion in each quarter. This schedule will include projections
of dry-docking and re-fits that are dynamic and change frequently depending on engine
running hours each quarter.
At the end of each quarter, MMS download data for maintenance completed on board. This
data does not normally, but can include work completed during refits or unscheduled
maintenance. In general, the refit period lasts approximately five weeks and there are
21
rarely overruns outside of the scheduled timeframe. The Naval Service estimate is that
70% of all maintenance is planned with the balance assigned to unscheduled requirements
that arise from time to time. This unforeseen maintenance or UCM is addressed by MMS
in discussion with the MEO and prioritised depending on operational requirements and
resource availability. The process of downloading data is quite labour intensive and
currently entails three different management support systems.
Standard Excel Package - is used on the majority of the fleet where a member of MMS has
to physically download maintenance work onto a disk from the ship’s maintenance
computer at the end of each quarter. It consists of spreadsheets containing a planner,
master plan, maintenance schedules, weekly monthly routines and quarterly return reports
and is operated on six of the ships.
AMOS - is operated on the LE Roisin and Niamh. This is an “off-the-shelf” package,
which is designed specifically for the marine industry and in particular for use onboard
ships. It was procured with the purchase of LE Niamh and Roisin. The maintenance
schedules and inventory are preloaded on the system and it has the ability to cost inventory
to ships but does not currently cost labour. Each ship has its own real time database, which
is uploaded to a central database at each visit to the Naval Base. During the reporting
period there was satellite connect difficulties with this system but these have been recently
resolved.
Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) - is a module of MIF currently being piloted on LE
Aisling in tandem with Excel as a back up.
All three management support systems require different skills, corporate knowledge,
training, technical expertise and operating procedures in order to be maintained. It is
envisaged that MMS will operate one management system namely EAM, once EAM is
fully operational.
4.1.4 Efficiency and Recommendations
The current maintenance management system is labour intensive with responsibility for
execution of maintenance dispersed amongst a number of stakeholders, as previously
highlighted in Chapter 3. This is not helped by the use of three differing management
support systems, Excel, AMOS and EAM. It is anticipated that, once fully implemented,
EAM will address these management issues.
The Working Group identified the US Coast Guard’s (USCG) MMT system as a valuable
and best practice model that could be adopted, as appropriate in the Naval Service. This
point will be expanded on in Chapter 5.
4.2
Flotilla – Ships Crew
The organisational structure / crew of a Naval Service vessel for the purpose of the Review
can be sub divided into three branches, each with distinct duties and responsibilities. The
three branches are as follows:


Marine Engineering Branch
Weapons / Electrical Branch
22

Operations Branch
Operations Branch is concerned mainly with the navigational and operational functions of
the vessel, in addition to personnel administration. As such, the Branch is excluded from
the maintenance tasks as defined within this Review. The maintenance responsibilities
reside within the Mechanical Engineering and Weapons Electrical Branches and their
functions correspond in the main with those of their shore-based colleagues. The planning
and coordinating of all maintenance activities on board each vessel rests with the MEO.
The maintenance personnel on board each vessel are outlined in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2
Maintenance Personnel on each Naval Service Ship as June 2006
Vessel
LE Eithne
LE Emer
LE Aoife
LE Aisling
LE Orla
LE Ciara
LE Niamh
LE Roisin
Total
Marine Engineering
Branch
Officers NCOs Enlisted
Pers
2
10
9
1
9
8
1
8
4
1
9
3
1
7
6
1
8
3
1
7
5
1
8
6
9
66
44
Weapons Electrical
Branch
Officers NCOs Enlisted
Pers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
1
Total
24
19
14
14
15
13
15
16
130
4.2.1 Costs
The total salary costs for maintenance personnel outlined above for 2006 was €5,600,744.
The yearly costs throughout the period of the Review were relatively constant due to the
fact that staff numbers and ranks remained consistent throughout. An analysis of ships
maintenance personnel’s duties identified that 43.73% of staff time is attributable to watch
keeping and other duties with the remainder being available for vessel maintenance
activities. Assigning costs on this basis results in total payroll costs for ship’s maintenance
staff of €3,151,523. The costs for each vessel are outlined in Table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3
Maintenance Personnel Costs for each Naval Service Ship 2006
Vessel
LE. Eithne
LE. Emer
LE. Aoife
LE. Aisling
LE. Orla
LE. Ciara
LE. Niamh
LE. Roisin
Total
Total Cost
1,011,576
786,386
604,594
611,939
693,143
555,574
641,519
696,013
€5,600,744
23
Cost of available time for
maintenance
569,213
442,499
340,205
344,326
390,031
312,621
360,982
391,646
€3,151,523
The above costs relate to maintenance staff availability for maintenance and do not relate to
the cost of personnel time actually engaged in maintenance. It was not possible to calculate
personnel direct maintenance costs due to the fact there are no job cards or other method of
recording maintenance personnel time when actually engaged in maintenance activity.
4.2.2 Activity
PPM conducted by the flotilla during patrols is based on the schedules set by MMS using
the three maintenance management support systems, previously outlined in the Review.
Patrols are generally of 21 days duration, with maintenance on board being dovetailed with
the operational tempo of the ship. During patrols, the two maintenance branches carry out
hourly, daily, weekly and monthly planned maintenance routines. Small to medium scale
maintenance is carried out on ships’ main engines and generators, e.g. 100hrs, 500hrs,
1500hrs maintenance routines. This requires careful management of duty versus standby
engines and engine rooms. Additionally, maintenance branches complete larger PPM
routines with up to and including six monthly routines carried out on patrols. Maintenance
routines greater than six months cannot be carried out, as it would involve taking
equipment out of service for an extended timeframe. MEOs are required to make quarterly
returns using the management support systems to MMS on the maintenance scheduled
against maintenance completed.
The completion of maintenance schedules can be impeded by factors such as weather, the
operational tempo of the ship and the complexity of problems that may be uncovered
during PPM. Temporary unavailability of required maintenance inventory items can also
impede the completion of certain maintenance tasks. PPM that is not completed during
patrols is identified by maintenance management support systems and is completed
between patrols when the ship is alongside or during periods of annual refits.
Maintenance branches also conduct UCM as the need arises and to this end are required to
provide maintenance cover on a 24hr basis while the vessel is on patrol and alongside at the
Naval Base.
4.2.3 Efficiency
Time spent on major maintenance routines undertaken by maintenance personnel in the
flotilla is not currently recorded i.e. through the use of job cards or other methods. This
presents two difficulties in attempting to identify if maintenance tasks performed by ships’
maintenance staff are efficient. Firstly, the output of maintenance personnel in the flotilla
cannot be disaggregated into discrete maintenance tasks and secondly, costing is based on
personnel availability to conduct maintenance and not on their actual time spent engaged in
maintenance. Specific efforts were made to benchmark maintenance work carried out by
maintenance personnel in the flotilla with standard times used by the USCG maintenance
staff on board a similar class of ship to the LE Eithne for major service routines. However,
this was not possible due to the reasons outlined above. It has therefore not been possible to
assess the efficiency of maintenance staff in the flotilla.
24
4.2.4 Recommendations
It is anticipated that the implementation of the EAM module of the MIF will allow for the
capture of personnel time spent on major maintenance routines.
The Steering Committee recommend, that major service routines are isolated and that
standard times are introduced for each of these routines. Standard times can be identified
for the major service routines by utilising manufacturers, USCG, and other suitable
comparative data.
The Steering Committee also recommends that a formal system to monitor performance
against standard times should be established.
It should be noted, as previously stated above, that there are external factors that impact on
maintenance activities such as weather, the operational tempo of vessels and lead time for
parts. These will make the use of standard times for comparative purposes less reliable
initially than their use for shore-based units. However, in due course, the recording of time
spent on jobs and the use of standard times will provide a bank of data that will allow for
better measurement of the efficiency of maintenance tasks undertaken by personnel in the
flotilla.
4.3
Mechanical Engineering and Naval Dockyard (MENDY)
This Unit is responsible for second line and heavy technical support of Naval Service ships
and boats. This unit comprises the main element of the civilian maintenance workers and
the FSG. The FSG is the flotilla shore rotation. The breakdown of strength and costs for
2006 are outlined in Table 4.4 as follows;
Table 4.4
Civilian
Military
Personnel Costs for MENDY 2006
Officers
NCOs
Enlisted Pers
Total Pers
8
44
26
86
78
Total Allocated Pay14
2006
€ 2,743,891
€ 2,153,850
164
€ 4,897,741
Total
4.3.1 Civilian Dockyard Staff
4.3.1.1 Costs
Payroll costs for 2006 were identified as €3,372,167. This figure includes staff involved in
both administrative and maintenance activities. Civilian Dockyard staff are directed
towards other maintenance activities aside from Naval Service fleet maintenance. These
include;

14
Self-maintenance of Dockyard equipment and facilities
Account Analysis Report MIF
25



Naval Base units requiring Dockyard maintenance skills
Department of Defence ferry fleet
Unit costing
The job card system was used to identify the percentage of time engaged in these other
activities in order to reflect the cost of Naval Service fleet maintenance. Analysis of direct
costs associated with the various areas of maintenance highlighted 18.7% of time dedicated
to these other responsibilities. This gives an associated cost of €2,743,891 for civilian
Dockyard personnel for 2006.
4.3.1.2 Activities
As already mentioned, the civilian Dockyard staff are mainly used for level II and level III
(heavy technical support) maintenance of Naval Service ships. Their main work effort is
primarily directed towards the annual refit of each ship, which is generally scheduled for a
twenty-eight day period. All large-scale services/overhauls are scheduled to occur during
the refit. New equipment fit, major additions, alterations and accommodation upgrades
also occur at this time. The majority of available maintenance resources as detailed above
are made available to the ship during this period. During periods alongside the Naval Base
between patrols, support is often sought from the Dockyard in order to reduce work
backlogs, investigate & problem solve more complex failures and undertake UCM that may
require Dockyard resources. However, support levels are limited during standard periods
between patrols, as ships on annual refit will command the majority of support resources.
OC Dockyard can also order parts through the Main Tech Stores for work that will be
conducted during the re-fit period.
4.3.1.3 Efficiency
The maintenance plan issued by MMS details specific work that must be completed within
the refit period. This work is managed by OC Dockyard and assigned to the various
civilian sections. The Dockyard operates a job card system that associates time and
personnel resources with the various maintenance requirements.
The current process entails opening a job card once work has started, which is then closed
on the date that the job is completed. However, within this period, additional jobs can and
are added to the card and personnel assigned to the work are often called away for other
prioritised work. The net effect of this is that the completed job number reflects a series of
aggregated maintenance activities against an overall time. It is therefore difficult to
comment on efficiency when the system does not provide information regarding time spent
on specific maintenance activities.
The Steering Committee noted that the present job card systems primary focus is on
capturing costs rather than a means of identifying time spent on maintenance activities.
The Committee acknowledged that the difficulties encountered by the Working Group in
terms of identifying time spent on various maintenance activities is a practice or custom
related issue and a modified application of the job card system should address these issues.
The Naval Service has recently taken steps to address this gap.
26
Allied to this issue, the Steering Committee noted that there is presently no benchmarking
system in the Naval Service for assessing maintenance activities such as the use of average
or standard times compared to actual time taken to complete work as a measure of
efficiency.
The Working Group noted that a Preventative Maintenance Manual was in operation in the
USCG. This manual includes a detailed list of maintenance activities on a ship-by-ship
basis outlining the number of personnel required to conduct the work, necessary parts and
consumables, frequency and an estimate on how long the job should take. The Naval
Service has commenced drafting a Preventative Maintenance Management Manual, by
combining all the information already available into a single source document. In addition,
the Working Group acquired standards times from an engine manufacturer in order to
benchmark time for completion of specific maintenance routines and it is intended that
these routines will be incorporated into the Naval Service Preventative Maintenance
Management Manual.
Due to the aggregation of multiple maintenance tasks under a single job number, the
Working Group were unable to isolate specific jobs for which standard times had been
identified. This prevented the Working Group from completing the benchmarking study
and commenting on efficiency.
4.3.1.4 Recommendations
It is anticipated that the EAM module of MIF will allow for the setting of standard times
against specific jobs and the recording of actual time spent on these jobs.
The Steering Committee recommends that a Preventative Maintenance Manual, currently
being developed by the Naval Service, be completed for each vessel. This manual should
include a detailed list of maintenance activities on a ship-by-ship basis outlining the
number of personnel required to conduct the work, necessary parts and consumables,
frequency and an estimate on how long the job should take.
The Steering Committee recommends that major PPM routines are isolated and that
standard times are introduced for each of these routines. Utilising manufacturers, USCG
and other suitable comparative data can identify standard times for the major service
routines.
The Naval Service should continue to refine the current civilian job card system to clearly
identify specific works undertaken, thus facilitating the identification of time spent and
associated costs on specific maintenance jobs.
The Steering Committee recommends that a formal system to monitor performance against
standard times should be established.
4.3.2 Fleet Support Group (FSG)
4.3.2.1 Costs
The total payroll cost of FSG for 2006 was €3,155,000. It became apparent during the
Review that FSG are used for activities other than maintenance therefore the whole payroll
27
costs could not be allocated. These activities include ceremonial, military training, base
security duties and relief for personnel at sea. An examination of daily/weekly attendance
figures highlighted a 33% time allocation to activities other than maintenance. When
taking this factor into account, the maintenance related cost of
FSG for 2006 is €2,153,850.
4.3.2.2 Activities
The FSG comprise of the marine engineering staff that are on 2-year rotation from sea
service with the flotilla. The skills resources within FSG include engine room artificers and
mechanics. OC Dockyard assigns appropriate tasks to FSG personnel based on the
Preventative Maintenance Plan. FSG generally conduct level II maintenance on the various
ships during refits and when vessels are alongside. In addition, they are also responsible
for servicing and repairs to the inflatable rib fleet. As mentioned in the costing
methodology, FSG are also used for other duties.
4.3.2.3 Efficiency
As indicated above, FSG personnel are assigned various tasks in accordance with
maintenance requirements. These assignments are recorded in the daily parade states but
unlike their civilian colleagues, there is no job card system or means of capturing output in
terms of time spent on maintenance activity. Therefore, productive effort for maintenance
could not be isolated on a task-by-task basis and this has prevented the Steering Committee
from commenting on efficiency.
4.3.2.4 Recommendations
The Steering Committee anticipate that EAM will address the issues outlined above in
terms of reporting on time spent on maintenance activities. The Steering Committee
recommend that the job card system should also be piloted and extended to the FSG in
order to align maintenance processes under one system and facilitate the introduction of
EAM.
The Steering Committee noted that 33% of FSG staff time is spent on a range of activities
including sea relief and non-maintenance related military duties. Personnel are often taken
away from maintenance jobs in order to fulfil these temporary duties, sometimes with little
prior notice. This may result in a reluctance to schedule FSG staff for extended
maintenance tasks. The Steering Committee recognise that there is an ongoing requirement
for sea relief staff and staff to undertake military duties. In that context, the Steering
Committee recommends that the Naval Service critically review management of FSG staff
resources to ensure maximum availability for maintenance tasks. The Steering Committee
acknowledges that on occasion, operational requirements may supersede planning
guidelines but believe that their technical skills and capabilities need to be primarily
directed towards maintenance activities.
4.4
Weapons Electrical Unit (WEU)
28
WEU is responsible for the maintenance of communications, navigational, electrical and
ordnance equipment on Naval Service vessels. The organisation of the Unit reflects these
categories of equipment and is broken down into the following sections:



Communications Technical Section
Electrical/Electronic Section
Ordnance Section
This Unit co-ordinates and controls the work of its component sections. The Unit also
manages the use of external contractors as the need arises.
The staff of WEU comprise of the permanently shore based staff and communications,
electrical and ordnance technicians who are on two year rotation from sea service with the
flotilla. The total strength of the Unit as at 2006 is outlined in Table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5
Personnel Employed in WEU (2006)
Officers
NCOs
Enlisted Pers
Total Pers
8
48
3
59
4.4.1 Costs
The total salary costs for WEU for 2006 were €2,087,000. The costs remained consistent
over the period of the Review again due to the fact that the staff numbers and ranks
remained constant over the period. However, all salary costs cannot be attributable to the
maintenance effort. Personnel from the unit are also involved in other Naval Service tasks
such as regimental duties, military training and ceremonial duties. Analysis of daily and
weekly attendance for staff in the Unit identified that 16% of WEUs staff time is not
attributable to maintenance. This gives salary costs for WEU attributable to the
maintenance effort of €1,753,080.
In addition to staff costs, there has also been significant expenditure on equipment installed
on board the flotilla by WEU. These costs are outlined in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.6 below.
Figure 4.1
Expenditure on Equipment Installed by WEU 2003 to 2006
€ 000,000
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2003
2004
29
2005
2006
Table 4.6
Expenditure on Equipment Installed by WEU 2003 to 2006
Expenditure on
equipment installed
by WEU (€)
2003
2004
2005
2006
472,348
481,693
1,193,193
289,665
The increase in expenditure for 2005 relates to a number of upgrades to vessel equipment
with a combined value in excess of €600,000, which is outlined below:



Major refurbishment of DAO5 Radar on board LE Eithne
Purchase of replacement gyros on Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs)
Purchase of Marine Inertial Navigation Systems (MINS)
Although the useful life of these upgrades extends beyond the period of the Review their
full costs were charged in the year they were incurred.
4.4.2 Activities
As outlined above WEU is broken into three functional areas each with responsibility for a
specific area of maintenance, which is identified below.
Communications Technical Section - The Communications Technical Section provides
maintenance service for all Naval Service communications and navigational equipment.
Electrical/Electronic Section - The Electrical/Electronic section provides a maintenance
service for all power generation and ship borne electrical equipment.
Ordnance Section - The Ordnance Section provides a maintenance service for all small
arms and ships’ weapon systems and an advisory/inspectorate function for weapons.
WEU maintenance activities are based around the vessel patrol plan, with the majority of
their work being conducted during the annual refits for each of the eight vessels. In
preparation for annual refits, WEU identify maintenance work required to be completed by
consulting equipment maintenance schedules and liasing with MMS and ships MEOs.
Outside of refit periods, WEU conduct maintenance on the vessels while ships are
alongside the Naval Base between patrols. In this period, WEU assist the ships crew with
extra personnel, particular specialised trades, specialist equipment and specialist knowledge
to reduce work backlogs, investigate and problem solve more complex failures and
undertake UCM that may be beyond the ships’ crew capacity. WEU also provide advice for
ships at sea in all matters relating to their competencies.
If there is a requirement to conduct maintenance beyond the capability or capacity of WEU,
external contractors are engaged and managed by WEU.
30
4.4.3 Efficiency
As with the flotilla there are no records kept on time spent on jobs completed by WEU
personnel through the medium of job cards or other methods. This presents the same two
difficulties as with the flotilla in determining the efficiency of the unit. Firstly, the
productive effort of WEU staff cannot be disaggregated into discreet maintenance tasks and
secondly costing is based on staff availability and not on the their actual time engaged in
maintenance tasks. Specific efforts were made to benchmark maintenance work carried out
by WEU Electric / Electronic section on power generators aboard ship, with standard times
set by the manufacturer for major service routines. However, this was again found not to be
possible due to the reasons outlined above and the difficulties in obtaining this data from
the manufacturers. It has therefore not been possible to assess efficiency.
4.4.4 Recommendations
As with other units, it is anticipated that the implementation of the EAM module of MIF
will allow for the capture of time spent on major service routines.
In the interim, the Steering Committee recommend that the Naval Service should develop a
refined job card system to be piloted in WEU, in order to align maintenance processes
under one system.
It is further recommended by the Steering Committee that major PPM routines are isolated
and that standard times are introduced for each of these routines. Utilising manufacturers
and other suitable comparative data can identify standard times for the major service
routines.
The Steering Committee recommends that the Naval Service critically review management
of WEU staff resources to ensure maximum availability for maintenance tasks. The
Steering Committee acknowledges that on occasion, operational requirements may
supersede planning guidelines but believe that their technical skills and capabilities need to
be primarily directed towards maintenance activities.
4.5
Contracted Maintenance
Contracted maintenance for the period 2003-2006 is highlighted in the table and graph
below Figure 4.2 and Table 4.7.
Figure 4.2
Contracted Maintenance Costs 2003 - 2006
31
€000,000
3
2
1
0
2003
Table 4.7
Year
Contracted
Maintenance
Costs (€)
2004
2005
2006
Contracted Maintenance Costs 2003 - 2006
2003
2004
2005
200615
1,410,811
1,808,713
1,193,193
2,451,247
Contracted maintenance is required when a particular item of equipment needs a
manufacturers service input or specialised fixtures and fittings need to be replaced,
upgraded or installed on the various vessels. This level of maintenance is required when
the expertise is not retained either on board ships or in the Dockyard. It includes servicing
of refrigeration units, air conditioning systems, governors, turbo-blowers and all internal
refurbishment and repairs such as galleys, decking, tiling and specialised repairs. In the
case of dry-docking, the necessary maintenance infrastructure is not within Naval Service
resources and must therefore be outsourced. This entails removing each ship from the
water every 30 months for a two-week dry-docking period. This allows work to be
conducted on all underwater components of the ship and is planned in advance. A civilian
ship repair facility is contracted to dock, carry out necessary works and undock the ship.
Ships’ crew supplement the work carried out by the contractor.
4.5.1 Output and Information Deficiencies
The main difficulty that the Steering Committee encountered when costing contracted
maintenance was in obtaining a breakdown of expenditure on a ship-by-ship basis. The
Naval Service was unable to associate contract maintenance costs with various individual
ships through the MIF system. The cost is captured in NSC cost centre and not devolved to
the fleet where the costs ultimately fall. Initial investigation suggests that subhead
managers currently do not devolve expenditure (through no fault of their own) to the end
user cost centre codes. This issue was raised with the MIF Project Management Board who
confirmed to the Steering Committee that it is being addressed as part of MIF Phase II.
4.5.2 Outsourcing of Maintenance
15
The 2006 cost of contracted maintenance includes two new projects; major overhaul of 76mm OTO
Melara main armament and an upgrade of LIOD weapons systems. Difficulties were also experienced in
2006 with the changeover from IMS to MIF where some inventory items were wrongly procured under the
Contracted Maintenance DoD Code. It was not possible to identify all of these costs hence the 2006 figure is
higher than the previous years.
32
The Steering Committee noted that the Royal Navy (RN) have started outsourcing more of
their maintenance to civilian contractors in an effort to reduce costs. Contracts valued at
around £250 million have been recently placed by the Ministry of Defence with companies
owning shipyards in the North West, North East and South West of England for the longterm maintenance of its fleet of Navy support ships. Northwestern Shiprepairers and
Shipbuilders (NSL) of Birkenhead and the A&P Group in Falmouth and Newcastle on
Tyne have been named as the contractors to maintain the flotilla of 16 Royal Fleet
Auxiliary (RFA) tankers, stores ships and landing ships that supply the RN at sea. The
contractors will maintain 'clusters' of ships, providing the necessary refuelling and refit
work for the RFA vessels throughout their service lives. Ships are grouped in clusters
according to their duties and capabilities. NSL is contracted for the maintenance of four
clusters of ships (11 ships in total), with contracts totalling over £180 million, while A&P
Group are charged with two clusters (five ships) in a contract worth around £53
million with the work to be shared between its bases in Falmouth and on the Tyne.
Another engineering and support services company called Fleet Support Limited (FSL) is
based in Portsmouth. In addition to deep repair of naval warships, support and commercial
vessels, the company also provides a fully integrated facilities management, logistics,
transport, waterfront support and fleet-time maintenance service to the RN. All key
capabilities are integrated by FSL in Portsmouth to include








Dry docks to suit all classes of RN ship
Comprehensive manufacturing and refurbishment workshops
A large non-tidal basin for ship lay-up, preparation and fitting out
Experienced workforce
Optimum application of commercial and naval practices
A knowledge of RN ships
Established naval supply chain
All specialisations to survey, plan, investigate, supervise, test and deliver the project
The Steering Committee note that the maritime industry in the United Kingdom is well
established, far more vibrant and presents greater choice of maintenance contractor than
exists in the domestic industry in Ireland. Commercial shipping enterprises in Ireland use
contractors both in England and mainland Europe and scheduled maintenance work is often
conducted when the vessel is in port and under cargo contract so loss of business is limited.
Larger maintenance work such as dry-docking takes place as required and in the case of
Arklow Shipping is conducted in Dublin dry-dock. The Naval Service currently utilise
commercial dry docking facilities in Cork.
In addition, the volume of maintenance work emanating from the RN is much greater than
that of the Naval Service and would therefore be more likely to attract and encourage
greater competition. The scope for identifying suitable contractors in Ireland is limited
without actually tendering for contracts and there is no guarantee thereafter that a chosen
contractor could provide vessel maintenance over a sustained period of time. Servicing
Naval Service vessels off-island is possible but presents issues for security, logistical
requirements of transporting vessels to and from identified ports and the inherent loss or
reduction in organic maintenance capability as a result. However, it is recommended that
the Naval Service continue to explore any opportunity to achieve greater efficiency in
outsourcing maintenance or elements of maintenance.
33
4.5.3 Recommendations
The Steering Committee recommends that the Naval Service should continue to
investigate, identify and implement the most cost effective and efficient means of vessel
maintenance available.
The previous recommendations of the Steering Committee with respect to benchmarking
efficiency of maintenance tasks will, in due course, allow for more informed cost
comparison of alternative approaches to maintenance including further use of contracted
services.
4.6
Inventory
The primary management and storage of Naval Service maintenance inventory is
performed by Naval Service Technical Stores. All requisitions made by units involved in
the maintenance of vessels are made to the Tech Stores, with the Tech Stores in turn filling
requisitions from their stock, or requisitioning from commercial suppliers. In addition to
inventory being held at Tech Store level, inventory is also held in each of the maintenance
units, e.g. MENDY, etc and also on board each of the vessels. Figure 4.3 outlines the units
involved in the storage and requisitioning of maintenance inventory.
Figure 4.3
MEN
DY
Maintenance Inventory Management
FSG
WEU
LE Eithne
Tech Stores
Commercial
Suppliers
4.6.1 Naval Service Technical Stores
The Naval Tech Stores staff are responsible for the administration of the stores
procurement process, control of Naval Service contracts and the custody, care and
maintenance of inventory. Not all inventory under the control of Tech Stores relates to
maintenance, e.g. Naval Service stock of ship fuel. Activity analysis undertaken of
transactions conducted provided us with an estimate showing that 57% of the productive
34
effort of Tech Stores relates to maintenance inventory. Table 4.8 below outlines the staff
employed in Tech Stores.
Table 4.8
Military and Civilian Staff Employed in Tech Stores as at June 2006
Military
Civilian
Total
4.6.1.1.Staff Costs
Officers
3
NCOs
5
Enlisted Pers
2
Total Pers
10
16
26
Military Staff. Costs were calculated using the staff in place as at 2006. This gave a total
of €526,043 for military staff. Apportioning costs on the basis of activity analysis gives the
staff costs for 2006 as €299,885. Although military staff rotated through appointments, the
rank profile of staff remained consistent allowing this cost to accurately reflect staff costs
for each year of the Review.
Civilian Staff. The Tech Stores staff remained constant throughout the period of the
Review allowing costs to be calculated from individual pay data. Costs were again
apportioned using activity analysis, which gave a cost for civilian staff of €329,553.
4.6.2 Inventory Costs
During the period of the Review the Naval Service, in line with the Defence Forces
transitioned from the Inventory Management System (IMS) to the MIF to manage
inventory. This transition created difficulty in extracting data on the value of inventory
used in vessel maintenance. This difficulty was compounded by the fact that the vessels
could only link with MIF when they were alongside the Naval Base.
Figure 4.4 and Table 4.9 below outline the cost of inventory purchased over the period of
the Review.
Figure 4.4
Cost of Maintenance Inventory Purchased 2003 – 2006
€ 000,000
3
2
1
0
2003
2004
35
2005
2006
Table 4.9
Cost of Maintenance Inventory Purchased 2003 – 2006
Cost of maintenance
Inventory Purchased
(€)
2003
2004
2005
2006
3,469,939
3,326,176
3,061,172
3,006,583
4.6.3 Efficiency
As outlined above there are currently data deficiencies, which make it difficult to make an
informed assessment on whether inventory is being purchased and expended in the most
efficient manner. In order to monitor efficiency in the purchase and use of inventory, data
relating to inventory needs to be made more readily accessible by management systems.
Additionally, analysis of procurement activity indicates large numbers of small orders for
maintenance inventory. This would appear to be reducing the opportunity available to gain
economies of scale by aggregating orders. The Naval Service have already begun to
examine past purchase history to identify opportunities to combine future orders.
4.6.4 Recommendations
Data on inventory used annually needs to be more readily accessible with this information
being available on a ship-by-ship basis. Costs must be related to individual vessels in this
way and will facilitate annual budgets to be assigned to individual vessels.
The Steering Committee recommends that notional budgets for each ship should be
developed with a system to monitor outturn against assigned budgets. The notional budgets
for each of the vessels should be apportioned to the individual vessels with performance
monitored by OC PIMM. This should be piloted in the interim on a manual basis until
EAM is fully implemented.
This type of system is being used successfully in Arklow Shipping on a manual paper
based system. The Naval Service are currently involved in three initiatives, which should
make this data accessible going forward. Firstly, the refined use of cost centre codes as part
of the roll out of MIF Phase II. Secondly, a pilot on MIF connectivity via a new satellite
link is underway involving two vessels. The ultimate objective of the project is to achieve
constant MIF connectivity with each vessel in the flotilla. Thirdly the full implementation
of EAM should assist in the gathering of the required data. In the interim, budgets should
be assigned to each of the ships with a system to monitor outturn against allotted budgets
piloted on a manual basis until EAM is fully implemented.
The Steering Committee recommend that every effort be made to aggregate orders and
reduce the number of smaller orders so as to fully exploit economies of scale achievable in
ordering inventory. It is anticipated that this will be achieved through two initiatives
previously referred to that the Naval Service have embarked on. Firstly, the introduction of
EAM, will trigger ordering of inventory for large scheduled maintenance routines and
secondly the introduction of MMT to manage each individual vessels maintenance. The
36
planned introduction of MMT’s will be expanded upon in Chapter 5. Both of these
initiatives will have the effect of reducing the need for large numbers of smaller orders. To
ensure economies of scale are achieved, a formal system to monitor the number of small
orders should be established.
4.7
Infrastructure
Each of the units involved in vessel maintenance occupy buildings of differing sizes and
functionality, e.g. workshops, stores, office space. The costs related to these buildings for
the purpose of the Review were defined as expenditure on upgrades and utilities. The next
two sections identify the costs that relate to Naval Service vessel maintenance.
4.7.1 Capital Upgrades of Infrastructure
During the period of the Review, two capital infrastructural projects were undertaken. In
2003, a new Naval Service Tech Stores was built costing €3,004,848 and in 2006, the FSG
Mast House was upgraded to accommodate maintenance of the RIBs on the two newer
vessels costing €820,088. It was not deemed appropriate that any of these costs would be
apportioned for the purpose of the Review due to the estimated useful life of the upgrades.
4.7.2 Current Upgrades of Infrastructure
During the period of the Review, there were upgrades to the building infrastructure
occupied by maintenance units. The costs of infrastructure upgrades are outlined in Figure
4.5 and Table 4.10 below for the relevant years of the Review.
Figure 4.5
Infrastructure Upgrade Costs 2003 - 2006
€ 000
150
100
50
0
2003
Table 4.10
2005
2006
Current Infrastructure Upgrade Costs 2003 - 2006
Current Infrastructure
Upgrades (€)
Total
2004
2003
87,700
2004
128,609
2005
0
2006
14,386
87,700
128,609
0
14,386
37
The expenditure in 2003 relates to the upgrade of the FSG Workshops with the expenditure
in 2004 relating to refurbishment of the Riggers Workshop (MENDY). It should be noted
that although all current expenditure projects occurred within the period of the Review thus
contributing to the cost of maintenance, the benefit of these infrastructural improvements
will last well beyond the period under review.
4.7.3 Utility Costs
Utility costs were estimated for the period of the Review based on the area (m²) of the
building each unit occupies. A flat rate for utilities was used which gave consistent costs
for each year. Table 4.11 below outlines the utility costs for each unit involved in
maintenance.
Table 4.11
Utility Costs 2003 – 2006
Unit
17
MMU
WEU
MENDY
FSG
Tech Stores
Total
4.8
Area (m²)16
206
673
2,481
974
1,289
Utility Costs (€)
2,157
7,046
25,976
10,198
13,496
58,873
Cost Overview
Total Costs for Naval Service vessel maintenance are outlined in Table 4.12.
16
Utility costs per m² sourced from Forfas
17
Utility costs attributable to MMU and Tech Stores were apportioned based on the proportion of time staff spent on
maintenance related activity (84% and 57 % respectively)
38
Table 4.12
Overall Naval Service Vessel Maintenance Costs for 2006.
Maintenance Costs
2006
Staff Costs
PIMM
Flotilla
MENDY
- Military (FSG)
- Civilian
WEU
Tech Stores
- Military
- Civilian
€646,800
€3,151,523
€2,153,850
€2,743,891
€1,753,080
€299,845
€329,553
Equipment, Contracted Maintenance &
Inventory
WEU Equipment installed
Contracted Maintenance
Inventory
Infrastructure
Current
Utility Costs
€289,665
€2,960,347
€3,006,583
€14,386
€58,873
€17,408,396
Total
4.9
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Steering Committee note that many of the recommendations arising in this chapter are
currently being addressed.
It is anticipated that EAM, when fully implemented will assist in addressing the following
key issues:




Recording of time spent on maintenance
Development of standard times
Triggering of inventory requisitions
Auditable maintenance trail
The Steering Committee note that further devolution of costs to end user cost centres is
being addressed in the context of Phase II of MIF. Once operational, this will alleviate
difficulties encountered in identifying costs on a ship-by-ship basis.18
39
The Steering Committee note that it will take a period of time before EAM can be fully
operational and the subsequent benefits measured. While this process is being progressed,
certain interim measures can be implemented in order to address certain identified issues in
the short-term. The Committee therefore make the following recommendations:

The Naval Service should continue to refine the current civilian job card system to
clearly identify specific works undertaken thus facilitating the identification of time
spent and associated costs on specific maintenance jobs. The job card system should
also be piloted and extended to FSG and WEU in order to align maintenance processes
under one system. Work in this area should commence immediately.

The Steering Committee recommend, that major PPM routines are isolated and that
standard times are introduced for each of these routines. Utilising manufacturers,
USCG and other suitable comparative data can identify standard times for the major
service routines. Furthermore, a formal system to monitor performance against standard
times should be established. Work in this area should commence immediately.

The Steering Committee recommend that every effort be made to aggregate orders and
reduce the number of inappropriate smaller orders of inventory in order to fully exploit
the economies of scale achievable in ordering inventory.

Notional budgets for each ship should be developed with a system to monitor outturn
against assigned budgets. The notional budgets for each of the vessels should be
apportioned to the individual vessels with performance monitored by OC PIMM. This
should be piloted in the interim on a manual basis until EAM is fully implemented.
Work in this area should commence immediately.

The Steering Committee recommends that the Naval Service critically review
management of FSG and WEU staff resources to ensure maximum availability for
maintenance tasks and to improve utilisation of FSG staff resources for extended
maintenance tasks. The Committee acknowledges that on occasion, operational
requirements may supersede planning guidelines but believe that their technical skills
and capabilities need to be primarily directed towards maintenance activities. Work in
this area should commence immediately.

The Steering Committee recommends that a Preventative Maintenance Manual be
developed for each vessel. This manual should include a detailed list of maintenance
activities on a ship-by-ship basis outlining the number of personnel required to conduct
the work, necessary parts and consumables, frequency and an estimate on how long the
job should take.

The Steering Committee recommends that the Naval Service should continue to
investigate, identify and implement the most cost effective and efficient means of
vessel maintenance available.
40
5.
Effectiveness of Maintenance
This chapter addresses the following term of reference:
4.
Examine the extent that Naval Service vessel maintenance objectives have
been achieved, and comment on effectiveness.
The effectiveness of Naval Service vessel maintenance is determined by the degree to
which the overall objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance is met. That objective as
outlined in Chapter 2 is:
“to preserve Naval Service vessels in a determined state or condition, or to restore Naval
Service vessels to a determined state or condition, in order to meet operational readiness
and deployment targets.”
Two approaches were taken in evaluating effectiveness:
(i)
The overall performance of the maintenance function was examined to see if the
objectives of meeting operational readiness and deployment targets were achieved
and;
(ii)
The maintenance management function was examined to determine whether the
process was effective.
5.1
Maintenance Performance
5.1.1 International Standards
As outlined in Chapter 2, Irish Naval Vessels are maintained throughout their life with a
view to ensuring a level of safety and environmental protection that is at least equivalent to
civilian standards such as SOLAS and MARPOL. That objective has been achieved
through the successful compliance of the Naval Service with regular inspections by
Classification Society representatives. This has provided impartial assurance of the
commitment of the Naval Service to maintaining safety, environmental protection and
overall ship worthiness.
5.1.2 Operational Readiness and Deployment Targets
As stated in Chapter 2, the Defence Forces’ Annual Plan 2008 requires that the Naval
Service fleet is operational or at a readiness level of 8 hours notice or less 90% of the time
each year. Table 5.1 shows that this target has been achieved for the last three years of the
period under review. This target was not in operation for 2003.
41
Table 5.1
Percentage of Time Operational or Available at 8 Hours Notice
Year
Total Weeks in Refit
for all vessels
% of Time
2003
2004
2005
2006
47
39
35
39
11.3
9.4
8.4
9.4
% of Time Operational or
available
at 8 hours notice
88.7
90.6
91.6
90.6
5.1.3 Deployment Targets
As stated in Chapter 2, there has been a phased increase in Naval Service ship patrol day
output, with current patrol day output more than 50% higher than the 1999 output.
The Naval Service Implementation Plan (2000) set a target of allocating 90% of annual
patrol days to fishery protection activity. The performance of the Naval Service in this
regard is outlined in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
Breakdown of Naval Service Patrol Days 2003 - 2006
Fishery Patrol
Days
1353
1488
1599
1540
Non-fishery Patrol
Days
143
80
82
118
Total
1496
1568
1681
165819
5.1.4 Unscheduled Maintenance
Fleet days lost due to unscheduled maintenance represent a very small proportion of the
overall days achieved as shown in the table below Table 5.3.
Table 5.3
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
5.2
Fleet Days Lost Due to Unscheduled Maintenance
Days Planned
1511
1600
1680
1680
Days lost due to unscheduled maintenance
27 (1.8%)
12 (0.75%)
10 (0.59%)
9 (0.54%)
Maintenance Management Function
Chapter 3 outlined the management structures and Chapter 4 described some of the
difficulties that have been identified with the existing processes in place to manage the
19
The 1680 patrol day target was not achieved due to nine days unscheduled maintenance for LE Ciara and
an additional thirteen days planned maintenance for LE Orla.
42
maintenance function. These included the use of three different management systems for
data retrieval, and the unavailability of appropriate data to allow for detailed analysis of
time spent on maintenance tasks. Where job cards are completed, they reflect a series of
aggregated maintenance activities against an overall time. It was not possible to isolate
expenditure on maintenance on a ship-by-ship basis.
Furthermore, once the annual maintenance plan had been discussed and agreed with the
stakeholders (involving multiple meetings on a ship-by-ship basis), OC MENDY retained
executive responsibility for and control over the delivery of the maintenance requirements.
This was a legacy issue as he did not have authority over all the elements of the
maintenance resource. There were also difficulties with the management of maintenance
inventory. Multiple units requisition parts for refits rather than this task being co-ordinated
centrally. In totality, these complications have hindered the effective management of the
maintenance function. In order to improve management effectiveness, a new model
encompassing a re-configuration of the responsibilities for maintenance, in conjunction
with a project centred approach, is outlined at the conclusion of this chapter. This new
model has been informed by the lessons learned from analysis of other organisations, as
outlined below.
5.3
Benchmarking
In examining the efficiency and effectiveness of Naval Service vessel maintenance, the
Review Group decided to benchmark costs and systems with an appropriate comparative
body. The USCG was identified as a good comparator to benchmark all aspects of the
maintenance on the LE Eithne against a similar class of vessel used by the USCG. The
maintenance management systems used by the USCG across their fleet were examined to
benchmark Naval Service systems.
Arklow Shipping, an Irish commercial shipping company was used to identify possible
alternate methods of maintenance and maintenance management systems.
5.3.1 United States Coastguard (USCG)
Following 9/11, the USCG moved from the responsibility of the Department of Transport
to the Department of Homeland Security. The USCG is focused primarily on effectiveness,
measured in patrol days, rather than efficiency. They are mission oriented, hence their
maintenance is mission centred.
The USCG maintenance structure has three levels
reporting to the Officer Commanding each vessel or the Maintenance and Logistics
Command (MLC) as appropriate.
43
Structure
Maintenance Level
Organisational
Intermediate
Depot
Maintenance Performed by
Ships personnel
Ships personnel assisted by Naval
Engineering Support Units20
USCG yard or civilian contractors
for refit or dry dock
Naval Service
Equivalent
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Scheduling
Maintenance schedules are based on equipment manufacturer’s recommendations,
generally accepted elapsed time methods for scantlings and structure, and CBM. Each
Medium Endurance Cutter (similar class of vessel to the LE Eithne) is scheduled for 185
patrol days each year. A Preventative Maintenance Schedule is created for each cutter.
These schedules are then used to plan the availability of all cutters for patrols and
maintenance. The cutters have dock maintenance every two years and are in dry dock
every four years. The planning horizon for all maintenance is between one and two years
in advance.
In order to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of scheduled maintenance, the USCG
have developed a method of project managing major refits. It should be noted that both the
structure and size of the USCG dictates that long lead-times are used in the planning of
refits. Ship refits are generally more comprehensive than those undertaken by the Naval
Service and it can take up to one year to complete a dry docking / Depot Maintenance Refit
for each cutter. In view of the size of the Naval Service fleet and the scale of work
undertaken during annual refits, such lengthy lead-times would not be required. However,
the USCG principle of using a team to project manage a programme of work is still
applicable and could be adapted to the Naval Service needs.
Acquisition Team
One of the examples of best management practice to emerge from the USCG was the use of
an Acquisition Team (A-Team). The Acquisition Team process is a collective term that
denotes all actions between the designation of the A-Team and the completion of the
project. The A-Team process has proved to reduce problems encountered during ship
availabilities. By having all interested parties involved in the Acquisition Team process,
fewer chances of mistakes or omissions can occur. The acquisition strategy and process
being used at the USCG helps ensure thorough preparation as ships enter either dry-dock or
dock side repair and maintenance efforts. The process consists of a team drawn from all
the required disciplines involved in cutter maintenance and the overall availability
scheduling process. The A-Team is responsible for the efficient planning, solicitation,
award and execution of the projects and does not disband until the maintenance projects
have been successfully completed. The team consists of the type desk manager (team
chairman), an engineering specifications writer, contracting personnel, administrative
personnel, logistics support personnel and the port engineer from a Naval Engineering
20
The personnel here (including the NESU) are solely engaged in engineering duties on the USCG cutters.
However, similar to personnel in the Naval Service FSG, in addition to their primary function of
maintenance, USCG personnel are also required to conduct other tasks such as regimental, ceremonial and
security duties.
44
Support Unit (NESU). Other ad-hoc members are added to the A-Team as required.
Members may join or withdraw as expertise is required, and may serve on several different
A-Teams simultaneously. The A-Team process involves at least four meetings during the
course of the acquisition process (see Figure 5.1) with milestones tracked during weekly
coordination meetings attended by all branches.
Figure 5.1
Acquisition Team Process
At the conclusion of the project, feedback is solicited from all A-Team members, lessons
learned are reviewed for each particular project and ways to improve the entire process for
future work are identified. By members focussing on a common goal, the A-Team makes a
significant contribution in keeping projects on schedule and within budget.
Funding
Maintenance funding is allocated to each cutter on a yearly estimate, pooled and then used
as required. Some funds are retained on board to be allocated by the Officer Commanding,
with the remainder retained ashore by the MLC. This pooling of financial resources did
not appear to be based on any definitive methodology, nor indeed did the calculation of the
initial estimate allocated to each vessel. Each cutter must then pay for all maintenance to
be carried out, whether it is carried out in the Coast Guard Yard or by civilian contractors.
The IT system in place to manage USCG maintenance quantifies the cost of civilian staff,
inventory and contracted work to each vessel. However, as is the case with the Naval
Service, the system does not quantify the maintenance costs of uniformed personnel.
5.3.2 Arklow Shipping
Established since 1966, Arklow Shipping specialises in the dry bulk trade, with
management teams based in Arklow and Rotterdam. Arklow Shipping currently operates a
fleet of 30 ships carrying cargo within Europe on short voyages of generally between two
45
and four days. Members of the Review Group met with a representative from Arklow
Shipping to explore the approach to maintenance management in a private sector context.
The main driver for maintenance planning in this company is to comply with maintenance
requirements as stipulated in shipping regulations and classification standards. In addition,
Arklow Shipping tries to keep the vessels operating 360+ days of the year. Maintenance is
planned to fit in with the ship’s operational schedule so that routine maintenance can be
accommodated without losing any operational capacity.
Structure
Maintenance Level
Maintenance Performed by
Routine maintenance
Non-routine
maintenance
Dry dock
Ships staff
On-shore team to assist ships staff
Contract experts when required
Dublin dry dock
Naval Service
Equivalent
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
The majority of vessel maintenance is carried out on board in so far as is possible. Each
ship has an engineer officer, supported by the ship’s crew. In addition there is a two man
support team and five engineer superintendents based in Arklow who are on call as
required to discuss problems with a ship’s engineer and organise the delivery of parts or
services to the port of call. The majority of maintenance work, apart from dry docking, is
carried out where possible by the ship’s crew, both at sea and while the ship is in port off
loading and loading cargo. In the case of services that are outside the capability of the
ship’s engineer, Arklow Shipping retain a list of reliable contractors in the main operating
ports who can be called upon to carry out maintenance at an agreed price. Arklow
Shipping uses a Dublin dry dock for their docking / refits, and makes the most of time
spent in dry dock by carrying out engine maintenance at the same time.
Scheduling
Arklow Shipping has been very successful in managing to dovetail maintenance with the
operational tempo of their fleet. Major maintenance is undertaken in ‘small packages’ with
the primary objective being to coordinate maintenance with the periods the ships are in port
off loading and loading cargo.
Funding
The costs for ship maintenance are estimated in a budgetary process each year based on the
planned maintenance activities (parts and services). Costs are allocated on a ship-by-ship
basis and the budget is checked every three to four months where the engineer
superintendent will justify expenditure. This system provides for detailed monitoring and
control of maintenance costs.
The key lessons learned from this private sector company are being studied carefully to
determine their practicability for the Naval Service and are reflected in the following
recommendations.
46
5.4
Recommendations
The Steering Committee found that maintenance outputs are meeting the objectives of
Naval Service vessel maintenance. This was confirmed by the fact that operational
readiness and deployment targets are being achieved to a high level and the low incidence
of unscheduled maintenance resulting in lost patrol days as outlined in Section 5.1.
The Steering Committee agreed that the current maintenance management structures in the
Naval Service provide a sound basis for effective maintenance management.
Implementation of the recommendations outlined in previous chapters requiring
improvements to management information is critical in improving the performance
management of the maintenance function.
Whilst PIMM has responsibility for scheduling maintenance requirements the Steering
Committee noted that the execution of maintenance was the responsibility of several
stakeholders namely:




Ships Crew and MEO
Naval Dockyard (Civilian Staff)
FSG
WEU
In addition Tech Stores have responsibility for procuring certain inventory and contracted
services. The responsibility for procuring inventory and contracted services also rests with
other stakeholders.
The Steering Committee agreed that better co-ordination of all available maintenance
resources coupled with improved performance measurement data will significantly improve
the effectiveness of maintenance management in the Naval Service and makes the
following recommendations:

The Steering Committee recommends the re-configuration of the current legacy system
into a dedicated MMT. This MMT will have responsibility for the centralised coordination of maintenance execution.
This team should be comprised of management representatives from each of the shore
based units responsible for conducting maintenance and be chaired by a representative
from Maintenance Management Section. Representatives from ship’s management will
participate where required. The 2 I/C of NSC will chair the MMT.
This team will be responsible for project managing fleet maintenance execution for each
calendar year.

The MMT will produce an overarching project plan for fleet maintenance.
This plan will outline prioritised fleet maintenance requirements including vessel re-fits,
planned scheduled maintenance and modernisation upgrades. The overarching project plan
will highlight inputs required from each unit (including vessels) and outline staff resource
inputs and inventory requirements. It is anticipated that this overarching plan will represent
an aggregation of project plans for each vessel. This approach should also allow for the
47
assignment of a notional maintenance budget for each vessel. A co-ordinated approach to
procurement should maximise opportunities for aggregation.

The MMT will monitor the execution of the overarching maintenance project including
resource utilisation.
In order to provide for assignment of additional resources if required or re-prioritise
maintenance inputs i.e. due to unscheduled maintenance requirements, the MMT will
closely monitor project implementation and resource utilisation. The implications of
resource re-prioritisation will be considered against the overarching project plan.
Figure 5.2 outlines the revised maintenance management process.
48
Figure 5.2
Revised Maintenance Management Process
2 I/C NSC
MMT produces annual project
report and lessons learned
Maintenance Requirements:
1. Uncompleted maintenance previous
projects
2. Planned Maintenance requirements
3. Annual Health and Safety Inspection
4. Annual PIMM Eng. Inspection
5. External Surveyor report
6. Ship’s work requests via EAM
7. Operational readiness inspection
8. Ship Modernisation policy
Refit Scheduling
Agreed between NOC / NSC
Routine Scheduled
Level 1 Maintenance
Major Level 2 and 3
Maintenance/Refit.
Level 1
Planned Preventative
Maintenance
Level 2 and 3
Planned Preventative
Maintenance.
Maintenance Management Team:
Reviews Maintenance Requirements
Draws up initial Ship Project Plans
Decides on priorities
Co-ordinates Stakeholder availability
Allocates resources
Initiates procurement
Overarching Project Plan
Resources
NDY/FSG
MTS
Ship Staff
WEU
Civilian Contractors
49
Maintenance
Activities carried
out by Resources
Monitored by
MMT
6.
Performance Monitoring System
This chapter addresses the following term of reference:
7. Specify potential future performance indicators that might be used to
better monitor the performance of Naval Service vessel maintenance.
6.1
Performance Monitoring System
The objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance as previously stated in Chapter 1
is
“to preserve naval vessels in a determined state or condition, or to restore said
vessels to a determined state or condition, in order to meet operational readiness and
deployment targets.”
Performance indicators must measure if the Naval Service and its units are achieving
this objective in the most economic and efficient manner. This in turn will inform
decision-making on maintenance issues and how the Naval Service are performing in
their maintenance of vessels.
The Steering Committee were cognisant of the fact that the Naval Service have
developed a Balanced Score Card (BSC) for monitoring all aspects of Naval Service
performance. The BSC has been used by the Naval Service to ensure that the,
“emphasis is centred on obtaining the best value for money in terms of the quality of
service and the range of services provided within the envelope of finance provided.”
The BSC provides the Naval Service with a mechanism to monitor progress in
achieving this objective from four perspectives. The perspectives are outlined below
in an extract from the BSC.
The Resource Perspective - To manage the procurement and maintenance of the
resources required for the delivery of Naval Defence and Marine services within the
parameters of devolved budgets.
The Development Perspective - To establish and further the means of developing the
Naval Service in order to facilitate the enhancement of service delivery on an ongoing
basis.
The Process Innovation Perspective - To review, re-engineer and integrate the
processes for the generation and delivery of Naval Defence and Maritime services in
order to increase their efficiency and effectiveness.
The Performance Perspective - To monitor, review and manage Naval Service
performance, on an ongoing basis, in order to most effectively and efficiently deliver
Naval Defence and Maritime services.
50
The Steering Committee are confident that many of the performance indicators
identified in the BSC relating to vessel maintenance remain relevant and should be
retained. Some existing performance indicators require modification. It was also
believed that the introduction of a number of new indicators would improve the Naval
Service ability to monitor performance of vessel maintenance. The Steering
Committee therefore developed indicators that could be absorbed into the current
structure of the BSC and enhance its ability to monitor the performance of Naval
Service vessel maintenance.
Furthermore, the Steering Committee took the view that the programme logic model,
used as the basis for the Review, was also the most appropriate basis for identifying
relevant performance indicators for each of the constituent elements of the
programme.
The application of the model provides an analytical framework for the identification
of inputs, activities, outputs and intermediate outcomes related to the programme and
facilitates analysis of the linkage between the constituent parts of the programme.
To properly measure the performance of the programme, it was identified that the
following types of indicators were appropriate:
Efficiency Indicators – how efficiently do we use the resources to produce our
outputs? These indicators are used to help guide resource allocation decisions by
managers. They are predominantly quantitative, with a heavy emphasis on financial
data, productivity and timeliness.
Quality Indicators – to what extent are the expectations of customers and stakeholders
being met? They include among other things measures of reliability.
Effectiveness Indicators – are we doing what we set out to do? They relate inputs and
outputs to outcomes. They are used for external reports and for high-level internal
management reports, including qualitative and quantitative data.
6.2
Recommended Performance Indicators
Having considered Naval Service vessel maintenance, the Steering Committee
recommends the following performance indicators based on the programme logic
model identified earlier.
51
Figure 6.1
Recommended Performance Indicators
Inputs
o
o
o
o
o
Staff
Inventory
Contracted Maintenance
Equipment
Infrastructure
Activities
o
o
o
o
Outputs
Management of Naval Service vessel
maintenance
Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM)
Unscheduled Corrective Maintenance (UCM)
Requisitioning and Distribution of Inventory
o
Serviceable Naval Service
vessels
Intermediate Outcomes
o
Naval Service Patrol Days
Suggested Key Performance Indicators
1. Percentage of Tech Stores
Requisitions < €250
Target - 10%
3. Percentage of major service routines
completed within standard times.
Target – 100%
5. Percentage of days Naval
Service vessels
are deployed or at a state of
readiness21
7. No. of patrol days
achieved by the Naval
Service
Target - 1680
2. Outturn on expenditure on
vessel maintenance against
assigned budget on a ship-byship basis
4. Percentage of PPM per annual maintenance
schedule completed
6. No. of patrol days lost to
UCM
Target - 100%
Target – 10
Target - Assigned budget
variance of ± 5% not
exceeded
21
Target – 90%
Readiness is the immediate (within 8 hrs) ability of a given Naval Service vessel to execute a designated mission
52
6.3
Performance Indicators
This section will develop on the performance indicators identified under the
programme logic model and will outline:




The recommendation that each set of indicators has resulted from
What the performance indicator will set out to achieve
How the data will be collected and reported on
Targets set
In most cases, the indicators identified are in fact a set of indicators to measure Naval
Service vessel maintenance on a ship-by-ship and/or on a unit by basis, depending on
which is the most appropriate. These indicators will be aggregated into an overall
indicator for the Naval Service. Additionally, some act as a set of indicators that
incorporate the constituent cost drivers of maintenance – staff, inventory, etc. These
indicators will again aggregate into a Naval Service indicator, which allows for a
comprehensive view of Naval Service performance and ease of analysis.
1.
Percentage of Tech Stores Inventory Requisitions < €250 – This performance
indicator arises as a result of the recommendation in Chapter 4
“[that] every effort be made to aggregate orders and reduce the number of smaller
orders of inventory in order to fully exploit the economies of scale achievable in
ordering inventory.”
This indicator will measure Naval Service success in aggregating orders for inventory
and the management of the inventory supply chain. Due to the nature of some of the
inventory required for Naval Service maintenance and the need for a local purchase
facility, there will always be a requirement for some number of small orders. For this
reason, the target for the numbers of orders less then €250 in value, is set at less then
10% of the total number of orders.
Target - Percentage of inventory orders less then €250 to be < 10%.
2.
Outturn on expenditure on vessel maintenance budget against assigned budget
on a ship-by-ship basis – This performance indicator arises as a result of the
recommendation in Chapter 4,
“Notional budgets for each ship should be developed with a system to monitor outturn
against assigned budgets. The notional budgets for each of the vessels should be
apportioned to the individual vessels with performance monitored by OC PIMM.”
This set of indicators will measure the effectiveness of Naval Service management in
estimating their maintenance requirements and allow for better monitoring of
budgeted maintenance expenditure. Notional budgets will be set for each of the
individual ships using the four cost drivers - staff, inventory, contracted maintenance
and equipment costs, as the basic building blocks. Outturn will be measured against
budgets on three levels - for each of these cost drivers, on a ship-by-ship basis and
across the Naval Service.
54
Target - Assigned budget variance of ± 5% not exceeded.
3.
Percentage of major service routines completed within standard times - This
performance indicator arises as a result of the recommendation in Chapter 4
“The Steering Committee recommend, that major PPM routines are isolated and that
standard times are introduced for each of these routines. Utilising manufacturers,
USCG and other suitable comparative data can identify standard times for the major
service routines”
This set of performance indicators will monitor the economic and efficient
management of maintenance inputs. Standard times should be developed for all major
service routines on each of the Naval Service vessels with actual time taken to
complete these routines measured against those standard times. The reason for major
service routines exceeding standard times should be indicated under the following
headings:
 Inventory
 Staff Time
 Contracted Maintenance
 Equipment
This will allow speedy analysis of variance between standard and actual times for
completing routines. This indicator should be reported on a ship-by-ship and unit
basis aggregating into a Naval Service indicator.
Target – 100% of major service routines completed within standard times
4.
Percentage of PPM per annual maintenance schedule completed - This set of
performance indicators arises from the need to monitor performance of Naval Service
maintenance against PPM schedules set by PIMM. They will measure the efficiency
with which maintenance is managed and conducted to complete annual maintenance
schedules. The set of indicators should identify performance on a ship-by-ship basis,
which can be aggregated to an overall Naval Service performance indicator. The raw
data for quantifying this measure is already being recorded on a ship-by-ship basis
using Excel, AMOS and EAM. The reason for any PPM not being completed should
be indicated within the confines of the following categories:





Inventory
Staff time
Contracted Maintenance
Equipment
Weather
This indicator should be reported on a unit and ship-by-ship basis aggregating into a
Naval Service indicator.
Target - 100%
55
5.
Percentage of days Naval Service vessels are deployed or at a state of
readiness22 - This performance indicator arises as a result of the stated objective of
Naval Service vessel maintenance earlier in this chapter
“to preserve naval vessels in a determined state or condition…… in order to meet
operational readiness and deployment targets.”
This performance indicator is also identified in the Defence Forces’ Annual Plan
2008. These indicators will measure how effectively the Naval Service manage and
conduct maintenance, by identifying the proportion of the year that each Naval
Service vessel is deployed or at a state of readiness. The set of indicators should
identify performance on a ship-by-ship basis, which can be aggregated to an overall
Naval Service performance indicator. Naval Service vessels should be deployed or at
a state of readiness 90% of the calendar year, in line with the Defence Forces’ Annual
Plan 2008 and targets set in agreed MOUs and SLAs.
Target - 90%.
6.
Number of patrol days lost to UCM – This performance indicator arises as a
result of the stated objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance earlier in this
chapter,
“to preserve naval vessels in a determined state or condition…… in order to meet
operational… deployment targets.”
This set of performance indicators will measure the effectiveness of Naval Service
vessel maintenance. They will record patrol days lost due to UCM on a ship-by-ship
basis aggregating into a measure for the performance of the Naval Service. Patrol
days lost to UCM should be categorised and reported under the category the defective
component relates to.



Engines
Generators
Equipment, etc
This will facilitate the analysis of the reasons for UCM.
Target – 10.
7.
Number of patrol days achieved by the Naval Service - This performance
indicator arises as a result of the stated objective of Naval Service vessel maintenance
earlier in this chapter,
“to preserve naval vessels in a determined state or condition…… in order to
meet…deployment targets.”
This set of performance indicators will again measure the effectiveness of Naval
Service maintenance. The indicators will report the number of patrol days on a shipby-ship basis, which will aggregate into a performance indicator for the Naval
22
Readiness is the immediate (within 8 hrs) ability of a given Naval Service vessel to execute a
designated mission
56
Service. This performance indicator is already contained within draft SLAs between
the Naval Service and the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) and is being
reported on an annual basis. This practice should continue with the full set of
performance indicators being monitored, in line with targets set in MOUs and SLAs,
on a quarterly basis with corrective action taken as necessary.
Current Target – 1,680.
6.3.2 Recording and Reporting Performance
A formal system to record and report performance of Naval Service vessel
maintenance against the identified indicators is fundamental to the success of any
performance measurement system. The previously established Naval Service BSC
provides the most appropriate mechanism for recording and reporting on performance.
Baseline data should be collected to enable progress to be monitored. Progress against
performance indicators should be recorded in such a way as to allow performance to
be monitored at any given time with six-monthly results being reported on.
57
Appendix 1
Naval Service Organisation
NAVAL SERVICE ORGANISATION
Naval Service HQ
NS Support Command
Logistics
Mechanical
Engineering/
Naval Dockyard
Weapons Electrical
Planning Inspection
& Maintenance
Management
Personnel
NS Operations Command
Current Ops
Helicopter
Patrol
Vessel
Squadron
LE Eithne
Intel
Naval Service College
Flotilla
Large
Patrol
Vessel
Squadron
LE Niamh
Technical
Training
School
Off-Shore
Patrol
Vessel
Squadron
LE Roisin
LE Emer
58
LE Aoife
Officer
Training
School
Costal
Patrol
Vessel
Squadron
LE Aisling
LE Orla
LE Ciara
Line
Training
School
Units engaged in ship maintenance activity
Naval Support Command (NSC)
Planning Inspection and Maintenance
Management (PIMM)
MENDY FSG & Dockyard
Main Tech Stores
NSC is tasked with the support of the Naval Service afloat and ashore. OC NSC commands
the following support resources in the Naval Base, Personnel, Logistic and technical
units/sections, in order to enable the Naval Service fulfil its operational and training
commitments
This unit is responsible for Service technical standards, new constructions and is also
responsible for Engineering / Technical branch matters in liaison with the Personnel
Management Section. Within this section is Maintenance Management that directs,
supervises and records technical maintenance of Naval Service equipment. Planning
Inspection are responsible for new constructions, planning and provides an inspectorate to
preserve Naval Service technical standards.
This Unit is responsible for second line and heavy technical support of Naval Service ships
and boats. Within this unit comes the Plant and Machinery Section, which provides
technical service support for Naval Service ships and boats, and the Naval Dockyard, which
provides heavy engineering and technical support for Naval Service ships. This unit
comprises the main element of the civilian maintenance workers in addition to the flotilla
shore rotation, which are called the FSG.
The Main Tech Stores staff are responsible for the administration of the stores procurement
process, including control of Naval Contracts Section and the custody/care/maintenance of
stores contents including Naval Service stock of ship fuel. The store includes both military
and civilian personnel working under the command of a naval officer.
59
APPENDIX 2 NAVAL SERVICE FLOTILLA
LE Emer P21
LE Emer was built in Ireland to the basic design of the Naval Service’s first
purpose built Offshore Patrol Vessel, the LE Deirdre but was modified to
improve stability and speed.
LE Emer's original Bofors 40L60 gun was recently upgraded to a Bofors
40L70 improving the range and accuracy of her main armament.
Operationally, LE Emer chalked up a notable first when she undertook the
first ever deployment of an Irish naval ship to resupply Irish troops serving
with the United Nations troops in Lebanon in 1979. This was the first of
many such deployments and the Naval Service now frequently supports Irish
troops abroad. A notable operation in her history was her part in the
apprehension of the Marita Anne in 1984, which stopped after warning shots
were fired by Emer and which was found to be carrying a significant quantity
of arms and ammunition.
Type
Displacement, tonnes
Length Overall
Beam
Draught
Main Machinery
Speed, Knots
Range, miles
Complement
Weapons
Commissioned
Offshore Patrol Vessel
1019.5 Standard
65.2m
10.5m
4.4m
2 x SEMT-Pielstick Diesels;4800hp,
1 Shaft
17kts
4000 at 17kts, 6750 at 12kts
46 (5 Officers)
1 x Bofors 40mm L70 Cannon,
2 x Gambo 20mm
16 January 1978
60
LE Aoife P22
LE Aoife was built in Ireland to the Naval Service’s Deirdre design but was
modified for stability and speed and was also fitted with a bow thruster to
improve manoeuvrability. LE Aoife's original Bofors 40L60 gun was
recently upgraded to a Bofors 40L70 improving the range and accuracy of her
main armament. Among many notable operational successes in her history,
LE Aoife played a major role in the location of the flight recorder of the Air
India plane which crashed off the Irish coast after a bombing in 1985.
Type
Displacement, tonnes
Length Overall
Beam
Draught
Main Machinery
Speed, Knots
Range, miles
Complement
Weapons
Commissioned
Offshore Patrol Vessel
1019.5 Standard
65.2m
10.5m
4.4m
2 x SEMT-Pielstick Diesels;4800hp, 1
Shaft
17kts
4000 at 17kts; 6750 at 12kts
46 (5 Officers)
1 x Bofors 40mm L70 Cannon,
2 x Gambo 20mm
29 November 1979
61
LE Aisling P23
LE Aisling was built in Ireland to the Naval Service’s Deirdre design but was
modified for stability and speed and was also fitted with a bow thruster to
improve manoeuvrability. LE Aisling's original Bofors 40L60 gun was
recently upgraded to a Bofors 40L70 improving the range and accuracy of her
main armament.
A notable operation in her history was her part, in conjunction with the LE
Emer, in the apprehension of the Marita Anne in 1984, which stopped after
warning shots were fired and which was found to be carrying a significant
quantity of arms and ammunition.
Another notable, though sad, duty conducted by Aisling was her part in the
recovery mission following the Air India bombing in 1985 off the Irish coast.
LE Aisling coordinated the search and recovered 38 bodies before handing
the continuing search over to her sister ships which had by then arrived onscene.
Type
Offshore Patrol Vessel
Displacement, tonnes 1019.5 Standard
Length Overall
65.2m
Beam
10.5m
Draught
4.4m
Main Machinery
2 x SEMT-Pielstick Diesels;4800hp;1
Shaft
Speed, Knots
17kts
Range, miles
4000 at 17kts; 6750 at 12kts
Complement
46 (5 Officers)
Weapons
1 x Bofors 40mm L70 Cannon;
2 x Gambo 20mm
Commissioned
21 May 1980
62
LE Eithne – P31
LE Eithne was built in Ireland as a Helicopter Patrol Vessel. The equipment
fit was to a very high standard and included the Naval Services first Ops
Room, which integrated control of armament and aircraft to a designated
centre, remote from the bridge. Her main armament is a Bofors 57mm antiaircraft gun with a LIOD fire control system. Secondary armament is
provided by two 20mm Rheinmetals. Eithne is also equipped with the DAO5
Air Surveillance Radar.
In the summer of 1986 Eithne scored a notable first, by becoming the first
Irish Naval Service ship to cross the Atlantic, when she sailed to the United
States, visiting Hamilton, New York and Boston.
Type
Displacement, tonnes
Length Overall
Beam
Draught
Main Machinery
Speed, Knots
Range, miles
Complement
Weapons
Helicopters
Commissioned
Helicopter Patrol Vessel
1760 Standard, 1910 Full Load
80.8m
12m
4.3m
2 x Ruston 12RKC diesels, 6800 hp, 2
Shafts
20+, 19 normal
7000 at 15kts
85 (9 Officers)
1 x Bofors 57mm Cannon
2 x Rheimetall 20mm Cannon
1 SA365f Dauphin
7 December 1984
63
LE Orla P41
LE Orla was formerly the HMS Swift, patrolling the waters of Hong Kong.
She was purchased by the State in 1988. The primary armament is a 76mm
OTO Melara compact gun and Radamec electro optical fire control system.
LE Orla is a high-speed vessel, designed to move rapidly about the patrol
area and to bring her considerable firepower to bear where necessary.
LE Orla scored a notable operational success in 1993 when she conducted the
biggest drug seizure in the history of the State at that time, with her
interception and boarding at sea of the 65 ft ketch, Brime.
Type
Displacement, tonnes
Length Overall
Beam
Draught
Main Machinery
Speed, Knots
Range, miles
Complement
Weapons
Commissioned
Coastal Patrol Vessel
712 Full Load
62.6m
10m
2.7m
2 x Crossley SEMT-Pielstick Diesels,
14400hp, 2 Shafts
25kts+
2500 at 17kts
39 (6 Officers)
1 X 76mm OTO Melara Cannon;,
2 x 12.7mm HMG,
4 x 7.62mm GPMG
1988
64
LE Ciara P42
LE Ciara was formerly the HMS Swallow, patrolling the waters of Hong
Kong. She was purchased by the State in 1988. The primary armament is a
76mm OTO Melara compact gun and Radamec electro optical fire control
system. LE Ciara is a high-speed vessel, designed to move rapidly about the
patrol area and to bring her considerable firepower to bear where necessary.
LE Ciara scored a notable operational success in Nov 1999 when she
conducted the second biggest drug seizure in the history of the State at that
time, with her interception and boarding at sea of the MV Posidonia off the
SW coast of Ireland.
Type
Displacement, tonnes
Dimensions, feet
(metres)
Main Machinery
Speed, Knots
Range, miles
Complement
Weapons
Commissioned
Coastal Patrol Vessel
712 Full Load
204.1 x 32.8 x 8.9(62.6 x 10 x 2.7)
2 x Crossley SEMT-Pielstick
Diesels, 14400hp, 2 Shaft
25kts+
2500 at 17kts
39 (6 Officers)
1 X 76mm OTO Melara Cannon,
2 x 12.7mm HMG,
4 x 7.62mm GPMG
1988
65
LE Roisin P51
LE Roisin was built in Appledore Shipyards in the UK for the Naval Service
and Naval Service engineers stood by her construction at all stages. She was
built to a design that optimises her patrol performance in Irish waters, which
are among the roughest in the world, year round. For that reason a greater
length overall (78.8m) was chosen, giving her a long, sleek appearance and
allowing the opportunity to improve the conditions onboard for her crew.
Facilities onboard include more private accommodation, a gymnasium and
changing/ storage areas for boarding teams.
LE Roisin's main armament is a 76mm OTO Melara compact gun and
Radamec fire control system, which is tied in to the integrated bridge system.
She also has a highly automated engine room. Her twin Wartsila diesels give
her efficient patrolling ability with good speed performance when required.
Type
Displacement, tonnes
Length Overall
Beam
Draught
Main Machinery
Speed, Knots
Range, miles
Complement
Weapons
Commissioned
Offshore Patrol Vessel
1500
78.84 metres
14.00 Metres
3.80 Metres
2 x Twin 16 cyl V26 Wartsila 26 Medium
Speed Diesels giving 5000KW at
1000RPM, 2 Shafts
23
6000nm at 15kts
44 (6 Officers)
1 X 76mm OTO Melara Cannon,
2 x 12.7mm HMG,
4 x 7.62mm GPMG
15 December 1999
66
LE Niamh P52
LE Niamh was built in Appledore Shipyards in the UK for the Naval Service.
She is an improved version of her sister ship, LE Roisin and Naval Service
Naval Service engineers stood by her construction at all stages.
She is built to the successful Roisin design that optimises her patrol
performance in Irish waters, which are among the roughest in the world, year
round. For that reason a greater length overall (78.8m) was chosen, giving her
a long, sleek appearance.
Her main armament is a 76mm OTO Melara compact gun and Radamec fire
control system, which is tied in to the integrated bridge system. She also has a
highly automated engine room. Her twin Wartsila diesels give her efficient
patrolling ability with good speed performance when required.
One of LE Niamh's most notable episodes was her trip to Asia in 2002, which
was the first ever visit by an Irish Naval Service Vessel to that part of the
world and included official visits to China, Japan, Korea and Malaysia,
together with a refuelling stop in India and a UN resupply visit to Irish troops
based in Eritrea. She also recently supported the first ever deployment of Irish
troops to Liberia, in West Africa and provided transport and logistical support
to the contingent that conducted reconnaissance of the port and territory prior
to the arrival of the main body.
Type
Displacement,
tonnes
Length Overall
Beam
Draught
Main Machinery
Speed, Knots
Range, miles
Complement
Weapons
Commissioned
Offshore Patrol Vessel
1500
78.84 metres
14.00 Metres
3.80 Metres
2 x Twin 16 cyl V26 Wartsila 26 Medium Speed
Diesels giving 5000KW at 1000RPM, 2 Shafts
23
6000nm at 15kts
44 (6 Officers)
1 X 76mm OTO Melara Cannon,
2 x 12.7mm HMG,
4 x 7.62mm GPMG
18 September 2001
67
APPENDIX 3 Programme Logic Model
The Programme Logic Model maps out the shape and logical linkages of a programme. It provides
a systematic and visual way to present and share understanding of the cause-effect relationships
between inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes (results and impacts). The Programme Logic
Model is used in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes. Adoption
of this approach should enable programmes to be analysed in terms of inputs, activities or
processes, outputs, and outcomes that are arranged to achieve specific strategic objectives. The
Programme Logic Model is also sometimes referred to as the “Input-Output Model”.
Programme Logic Model23
Strategic Planning
Programme
Evaluation
Strategic
Objectives
Impacts
Inputs
Activities
Outputs
Results
Basic definitions of the elements of the programme logic model are summarised below.
Strategic Objectives - Describe the desired outcome at the end of the strategy period. The
objectives should ideally be described in both qualitative and quantitative terms.
Inputs - There are many inputs to programmes – physical inputs like buildings and equipment,
data inputs like information flows, human inputs (grades of staff) and systems inputs like
procedures. The financial input is the budget made available to the programme. Inputs are
sometimes referred to as resources.
Activities - Activities, also called processes, are the actions that transform inputs into outputs.
Activities are collections of tasks and work-steps performed to produce the outputs of a
programme.
23
Source – Department of Finance Guidance Manual for Value for Money and Policy Reviews
68
Outputs - The outputs are what are produced by a programme. They may be goods or services.
Outcomes – These are the wider effects of the programme, from a sectoral or national
perspective, in the medium to long term. They include the medium to long term
effects on the targeted beneficiaries.
69