f
TECHNISCHE UWIWERWØT Labora1ød or Sthaep&WdmmSc$ Meketweg 2, 2628 CD Detft T.L 015-788873FX O15 7883S Bibliotheek van deOnderafdeing der Scheepsbouwkunde Technijche Hoqecchool, Deift DOCUMEÑ ;
DATUM:
6t/vl'L. 73/2//s
r
COM-73-11O'47
THE ORGANIZATION OF SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH ABROAD AND IN THE UNITED STATES
WEBB INSTITUTE OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE
PREPARED FOR
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
APRIL 1973
Distributed By:
NT
National Technical Information ServiceFOR TECHNICAL REPORTS 1. Riport No. MA RD 900-7401 -
rG-n. Att.rt
3. iini'.. COM-73-11047 5. R i ori I April, I .it.iiog No. 4. iji i .ini 'ugt jiteThe Organization of Shipbuilding Research Abroad and in the United States
1973
6. I '&-rf urinitig I)r.injzat ion ( odr
7. Auihor(')
D. M. Mack-Forlist and Edward V. Lewis
R. 'g,riiiiii rg.jzjj/.Ir ici (ipi. ',_
NMRC-K.P-106
9. lcrforíning Orginizat on N,jm(- and Addrcss
-Center for Maritime Studies
Webb Institute of Naval Architecture
Glen Cove, New York 11542
10. l'ri. t I ,ij. iii Init No. 920.002
-lt. inri, j,jir N.
MA-4956
12. Sponsor ltg Agency Name and Address
U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration
National Maritime Research Center Kings Point, New York
13. I - 1g Ilcp. ". I 'criod tri J Final 14. pn'..rrtig -\z'nv Code 15. Supplementary Noi cs 16. Abstracts
This report presents a survey of shipbuilding research associations
in Europe and Japan and a qualitative evaluation of their
--effectiveness. The organization of U.S. shipbuilding industry
is then surveyed and research needs outlined on the basis of
shipyard interviews and a questionnaire. The authors recommend
that high priority be given to management techniques and to '
personnel motivaticn and training. It is recommended that the
present coope]ative shipbuilding research program in the U.S.
be strengthened by creating a senior central group or Shipbuilders' Research Association to work with R&D sponsors.
17. Key ords and I)ocumcnt Analysis. l7o. Descriptors
Shipbuilding Research & Development
TECHNISCHE
Laboum
VOOF-ArohIe
Meketweg 2,2628CD D&ft
- Reprodaced by T 188873 Fa,c oi mt'3.e
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
- - US Department of Commerce
17b. ldentiiicrs/Open-F.nded lerms Springfield, VA. 22151
17c. (OSATi Field/Group 18. Springfield, Virginia 22151 19. Sunt(I i 21. N.. .1 I 20. ccurity( l.tsr, (liii tINI I.AsSIi-ll:l) I-i
FOPM CFSTI-35 4-7o,
NMRC KF-106
THE ORGANIZATION OF SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH ABROAD AND IN THE UNITED STATES
by D.M. Mack-Forlist and Edward V. Lewis April 1973 Prepared by
Center for Maritime Studies
Webb Institute of Naval Architecture
Glen Cove, New York 11542
Approved by:
Captain L. S. McC ready Director, NMRC
ABSTRACT
This report presents a survey of shipbuilding research associations in Europe
and Japan and a qualitative evaluation of their effectiveness. It is shown that
effect-iveness is not directly related to financial outlay but depends greatly on
organiza-tion and on the relaorganiza-tionship between the research association and industry. The
organization of U.S. shipbuilding industry is then surveyed and research needs
outlined on the basis of shipyard interviews and a questionnaire. General
agree-ment is reported on the importance of research on production-oriented design and
on production methods and facilities. The 3uthors recommend that high priority be given also to management techniques and to personnel motivation and training.
It is concluded that, since the recentinauguration of a MarAd/SNAME research
program, U. S. shipbuilding research is now comparable to or greater in scope and
volume than the most extensive programs abroad. Although a strong central
co-ordii ating body, representing industry as well as government, is characteristic
of foreign shipbuilding research organizations, this country has developed its
pro-gram through informal cooperation among industry, government, and the Ship Pro-duction Committee, SNAME.
It is recommended that the present cooperative shipbuilding research program in the U.S. be strengthened by creating a senior central group or Shipbuilders'
Research Association to work with R&D sponsors, to be responsible for planning
and organizing shipyard research, to improve cohesionand coordination, and to
AC KNOWL EDGME NTS
The authors wish to thank the many individuals in the shipbuilding industry who submitted gracefully to interviews and questionnaires, many of whom are
members of the Ship Production Committee, SNAME, or its panels and the secretaries of the various foreign research organizations who provided much helpful data. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. James A. Higgins, Chief, Office of Advanced Ship Development, U.S. Maritime Admin-istration, and Mr. Vernon Olson, Technical Administrator, Society of Naval Arch-itects and Marine Engineers.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION I
SOURCES OF DATA
EVALUATION OF FOiETGN RESEARCH
General 6
Volume and Efficiency of Shipbuilding Output 8
Proportion of the Research Effort Allocated to Shipbuilding 10
The Location of Centers of Shipbuilding Innovation il
Organizations Participating in Research and Their
Relationships 13
The Seun,es and Allocation of Funds 15
The Technically Trained Personnel in Shipyards 15
The Level of Inter-Organizational Communication 17
Summary of Evaluation 18
UNITED STATES RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
Participation 21
Funding 24
Direction 26
Comparison with Foreign Organizations 27
Summary 28
UNITED STATES RESEARCH NEEDS
Analogies with Foreign Research Organizations 29
Analysis of Industry Opinions 30
The Study Staff's Views
32
Implications for Organization 34
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd.)
APPENDICES
Summary of Data Received from Foreign P esearch Organizations
Background and Activity of the Ship Production Committee of SNAME
U. S. Ship Research Organizations. The Sea-Use Program
TABLES
No.
Page
I Merchant Vessels -- Tonnage Launched
8A
H Allocation of Funds to Organized Maritime Research
lOA
Ill Distribution of Research Funds
13A TIJA Approximate Distribution of Organizational Research
Funds for Ship Construction 13C
IV Typical Forms of Organization for Research
13D
V Some Characteristic Central Research Organizations
13E
Vi Proportion of Technical and Administrative in Total
Shipyard Employment 16A
VII Research Reports Exchanged among Research Association
18A
VIII Ranking of Countries in Research
Organization Effectiveness 20A
IX Summary of Opinions on Organization of and Direction for
U. S. Shipbuilding Research -- All Responses 30A
IXA Summary of Opinions on Organization of and Direction for
U.S. Shipbuilding Research -- Shipyard Responses Only 30B
*
INTRODUCTION
The objective of the study is the evaluation of the effectiveness of shipbuilding research associations in Europe and Japan as background for recommendations regarding the improved organization of shipbuilding research
in the U. S. Although there are questions as to how research and development (R & D) should be organized and carried out, there can be no doubt of its value in shipbuilding -- as in all other industries.
An authoritative statement on the value of R & D in industry generally was made in a recent report prepared by the National Science Foundation for the National Commission on Productivity:
"Although what we know about the relationship between R & D and economic growth/productivity is limited, all available evidence indicates that R & D is an important contributor to economic growth and productivity. Research to date seeking to measure this relationship (at the level of the firm, the industry, and the whole economy) points in a
single direction -- the contribution of R & D to economic
*
growth/productivity is positive, significant and high' (1).
There are numerous other authoritative studies of the qualitative benefits of R & D. More recently there have been studies which show some correlation between intensity of R & D effort and rates of output in dollar terms at the national level (2)-(9). Some quantitative correlations at the individual industry level have also been shown with fair reliability in such very recent studies as that by Richard B. Freeman at Harvard(1O) and William Leonard at Hofstra (11).
Measurement of effectiveness of research in quantitative terms has not
been generally accomplished at the national or industry level, although individual
projects, specific programs and,to a lesser degree , the entire programs of
individual industrial enterprises have been evaluated; this is part of the normal budgetary process of the enterprises. The macro-measurement at the overall industry level has been in terms of correlations between research effort and output (as previously noted) or between research effort and the structure of the labor force (12). In some cases measurement has been attempted in terms of
output and usage of technical papers (3). (pp. 135 - 146).
-2-There have also been attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of research
in terms of number of patents applied for or granted. This approach was
rejected in a report prepared for the OECD, particularly for international comparisons.
"The absolute number of patents taken out or applied for in
various countries are of little help... "because of great
differenc3s "in commercial and scientific significance.. ." and differences "in national patent procedures" (14) (pp. 52-53).
There have been quantitative broad estimates, based on general judgment, such as:
20% of measured growth rate of total product to be attributed to increase in knowledge and its application" (15). But the exact quantitative basis for this judgment is not shown, nor is the "increase in knowledge" necessarily synonymous with R & D outpit. The pre-vailing opinion, as stated in OECD studies, is that:
"It has not yet proved possible to find satisfactory measures of output of research workers... " (l4)(p. 17).
"So far, no satisfactory comparable measures of output or 'productivity' of research have been developed. " (14)(p. 51). "It has not yet proved possible to find satisfactory measures
of output of R & D. Comparisons of inputs into R & D do not justify conclusions about the output of R & D nor a fortiori
conclusions about the whole innovation process" (16).
Similar opinions are expressed directly and by inference in most of the studies
cited in the Bibliography, Appendix E.
In the case of the Maritime Administration shipbuilding research program,
developed in cooperation with the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
and the shipyards, benefits were estimated on the basis of the total volume of ship
construction work which will be affected by the research results. It is mueh too early, however, to say whether an accurate measurement of the actual savings arising from this research program will be attainable.
Consequently, the evaluation of shipbuilding research in this study will be
in purely qualitative terms. Tha approach, as discussed in detail in the chapter
-3-effectiveness to the volume and efficiency of shipbuilding output, location of
centers of innovation, the structure of research organizations andthe level of
personnel training.
This study further attempts to show what forms of shipbuHdingresearch
organization are most likely to produce meaningful R & D results both abroad
and in the United States. Research organization for this purpose is understood
as the overall organization for the entire industry at the national level. Some
discussion will be included concerning the requirements for effective operation
of individual research groups. This discussion will, however, be in general
terms and will be limited in scope to considerations which are relevant to
organization of research for the U. S. shipbuilding industryas a whole.
Finally, the principal findings of the study will be summarized in specific conclusions, and definîte recommendations will be offered regarding the
-4-SOURCES OF DATA
Sources of data in this project included a literature search, question-naires and interviews.
The literature search was carried out at the following libraries: Webb Institute of Naval Architecture
Columbia University
The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Enginçers The American Management Association
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers The Library of Congress
Requests for information on foreign shipbuilding research practices were addressed to the organizations listed in Appendix A. The responses which have
been received are summarized in Tables II, III, IV and V and are described in
Appendix A. The substance of these responses is included in the next chapter of
this report, on the Evaluation of Foreign Research.
The Office of Naval Research in Washington receives periodic reports on
foreign research from its London office. Interviews were conducted at ONR
and the reports for the past three years were reviewed. Reports and personnel
of the Naval Ship Systems Command were consulted. The Admiral in charge, and staff members, of the Coast Guard office of research were interviewed (see
Appendix C). Brief interviews were also conducted with personnel of the American Bureau of Shipping, American Institute of Merchant Shipping, American Maritime
Association, Maritime Transportation Research Board and Shipbuilders Council
of America.
Requests for suggestions concerning aims and organization of shipbuilding
research in the United States have been addressed to the major shipbuilding companies, two universities, the principal government agencies, regulatory
bodies, engineering societies and the principal naval architects. The responses
received are summarized in Tables IX and IX A. They are discussed in the chapter of this report dealing with United States Research Needs.
The periodicals of the principal United States and foreign technical
societies, concerned with shipbuilding, have been examined for relevant material,
with the assistance of the BSRA Journal of Abstracts. Several commercial
periodicals, including Shipping and Shipbuilding Record and Marine Engineering/Log have also been reviewed.
-5-The publications and articles which appear most useful and pertinent to this study are listed in the Bibliography, Appendix E. The most directly
pertinent material appears under References, listed at the end of the body of
the report.
The following conclusions regarding available data have been formed on the basis of the search of literature and the reference to other sources described above:
There is a very large volume of literature on research in
general. Most of this literature deals with theories of research
on particular subjects, organization of research, and results of individual research projects.
There is relatively little published material which deals with
effectiveness of research in terms of measurement. There is
almost no published work on quantitative evaluation of research results on an industry-wide or nation-wide basis.
The quantitative measurements which have been attempted on industry-wide or nation-wide bases are in terms of correlation between research effort and effects on productivity, general
level of technology, etc Direct cause and effect relationships are
not established.
Consequently, it appeared that evaluation of the effectiveness of foreign shipbuilding research and its organization would have to be based on observations
and judgment of the study staff, since neither the data nor an accepted method for
quantitative measurement of effectiveness ofresearch on a macro-analysis scale
-6--EVALUATION OF FOREIGN RESEARCH General
Reliance on judgment as a basis for evaluating research is an accepted
approach. For example, the Ship Systems Command of the Navy Department
concludes from observations of shipbuilding results in the Soviet Union that
research (in Soviet shipbuilding).. . has shown significant results. . ."(17). This conclusion is reached without observing the research operations itself, and without quantitative data on research input or output, by observing the ship-building results and the general structure of the Soviet shipship-building research
organization.
However, an evaluation based on judgment requires criteria if it is to have any reliability. In his presentation at the international symposiuni on research policies the Swedish representative suggested the following as a basis for evaluating research policies (14) (p. 11):
The existing social innovations in research. The frequency with which such innovations occur, The direction of the changes
The nature of major forces leading to the changes.
Most of these factors do not permit a truly quantitative approach but, at best,
a partially quantitative approach, heavily weighted by judgment. In elf éct, the
evaluation considers the vitality of the research organization and the factor or
factors which govern the selected indicators of its vitality.
A similar approach was used in this study to evaluate the effectiveness of
research organizations. The following factors were selected as backgròund
for judgment of the effectiveness of shipbuildingresearch organizations: 1) The volume and efficiency of shipbuilding output.
2) The proportion of research effortallocated to shipbuilding. .) The location of centers of shipbuilding innovation.
4) The types of organizations participatilig in research and
their relationships.
3) The source3 of and allocation of R & Dfunds.
The proportion and functions of technically trained personnel in shipyards.
The levels of inter-organization communication.
Four of these factors (Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6) are subject to some degree of quanti-tative measuremert. The other three are almost entirely in the qualitative area.
-7-All seven are to a greater or lesser degree affected by market conditions. Although all seven are direct measures of technological and organizational excellence and policy, only by inference are they indicators of effectiveness
of research organization. It is felt, nevertheless, that these factors provide
a sufficient basis for judgment concerning the effectiveness of research organi-zations in the several foreign shipbuilding centers.
Technological excellence is clearly related to the levels and dissemination of available knowledge. Organizational excellence, similarly, is related to
knowledge and communication as well as to the educational level ofthe organiza-tion. Hence, there appears to be correlation between levels and communication of knowledge, on the one hand, and the direction and effectiveness of research
organizations, on the other. The degree of correlation will he discussed in
qualitative terms; neither the available data nor the scope of this study allows the establishing of mathematical relationships.
It is unnecessary for the purposes of this report to examine the selected
factors for evaluation of R & D in all shipbuilding countries. Consideration will he
given only to those countries where the level of shipbuilding activity or the level of
research activity, or both, are known to be high. The countries included are:
Belgium France Great Britain The Netherlands Italy Japan Scandinavian Countries Spain West Germany
The Soviet Union is not 'ncluded, in spite of the high level and reputedly high
quality of its maritime activities, because of the difficulty of obtaining relevant
and reliab]e data.
Each of the above listed factors will now be discussed in turn. In general,
-8-1. The Volume and Efficiency of Shipbuilding Output
In terms of both volume and productivity the leading shipbuilding countries are known to be:
Japan
Sweden
West Germany
* The volume of orders in Great Britain is comparable to that in GermaÏy; the problems and difficulties of British shipyards are so well known, however, that
they require separate discussion in the context of evaluation of research. As
is shown in Table I, Merchant Vessels, Tonnage Launched, the four above countries account for over two-thirds of the shipbuilding output of the world.
It should be noted that a comparison of volume on the basis of tonnage alone may be somewhat deceptive. The composition of the tonnage output needs to be considered for proper evaluation of the scope of shipbuilding effort.
However, the outnut in Table I includes a high proportion of sophisticated ships
for all countries. It may, therefore, be considered as established that in terms
of volume of output Japan, Sweden, West Germany and Great Britain are and have been, over a period of time, the world's leading shipbuilders.
Efficiency has to be considered from at least two points of view
--efficiency as measured by output per unit of labor and --efficiency as measuredby
unit of capital employed. The two different measures are made necessary by the different levels of labor earnings and, consequently, different conditiöns of labor-capital trade-offs in different shipbuilding centers.
The most comprehensive recent study of comparative shipyardlabor
productivities was made by the Center for Maritime Studies in 1969 (1g). At
that time it was found that productivity in terms of output of comparable ships per unit of labor was highest in Sweden and West Germany. Labor productivity was slightly lower in the United States, again slightly lower in Japan and sub-stantially iower in Great Britain. These findings were made in 1969, based on data for 1967. Recent surveys in Japan, the Scandinavian countries and West
Grma.y by both private persons*nd UDS. Gove.ument agencies confirm these
*
About 7, 900, 000 dwt. tons in Great Britain and about 8, 300, 000 dwt. tons in West Germany, as of the end of 1970. (Source: Maritime Administration.)
**
Unpublished trip reports prepared by personnel of Bethlehem Steel Co., Todd Shipyards Corp., and Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.
Table I
MERCHANT VESSELS
- TONNAGE LAUNCHED
(United Nations, Statistical Yearbook
- 1970, Table #132)
Source cited in yearbook
- Lloyd's Register of Shipping (London).
All figures in thousand gross registered
tons 1953 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 World 5,095 7,940
8,75
8,569 10,264 12,216 14,307 15,780 1i,908 19,315 W. Germany - Total 818 962 1,010 971 890 1,023 1,184 1,002 1,352 1,609 Tankers 330 230 393 422 397 277 432 205 508 772 Japan - Total 557 1,799 2,183 2,367 4,085 5,363 6,685 7,497 8,583 9,303 - Tankers 328 651 861 1,301 2,756 2,731 2,574 2,707 3,973 4,517 Sweden - Total 485 742 841 888 1,021 1,170 1,161 1,308 1,113 1,293 - Tankers 368 421 480 509 784 879 717 519 391 936 United Kingdom - Total 1,317 1,192 1,073 928 1,043 1,073 1,084 1,298 898 1,040 - Tankers 762 393 403 369 420 421 244 260 81 272 United States - Total 528 343 449 294 276 270 167 242 441 400 - Tankers 340 136 64 118 79 52 21 --111 232 Denmark - Total 1,312 Norway - Tankers 840 Belgium - Total 843 Netherlands - Tankers 394 France - Total 1,255 Italy - Tankers 709
-9-findings in general.
Comparative productivity in terms of capital employed is best measured
by launchings or deliveries per shipway. This is an appropriate measure
because the shipway, whatever its nature -- building dock, sliding way, etc.
together with its auxiliary equipment, cranes, utilities, etc. , is the biggest single unit of capital investment in the shipyard. It is also the final major assembly line and controls the rate of output. If the other facilities of the yard
are out of balance with the way capacity, if they can produce either more or less
than the yard can launch (or float out), that in itself is a sign of bad planning of
facilities or a sign that the yard's facilities are not adapted to the particular
construction program i hand.
Most of the recently built or converted shipyards are designed for
operation with one or, at most two, principal shipways or for one shipway with a
supporting facility capable of building part of a ship. Typical output schedules for these modern yards are:
Sweden 5 to 7 ships per way per year
Japan 4-1/2 to 6 ships per way per year
W. Germany 2 to 3 ships per way per year
United States 2 to 2-1/2 ships per way per year
(projected)
The ships in the above schedules are in all cases tankers of the 200, 000 - 250, 000
dwt. ton class.
There are indications that the higher output rates can only be accomplished at the expense of a very high level of pre-outfitting, coupled with a high ratio of
supporting facilities to shipway investment, or by a level of manning on the
ship-way which is not consistent with optimum labor productivity. The former, a high
level of investment in supporting facilities, has been observedin Sweden; the
latter a high level of manning, in Japan. It is probable that this difference in
approach accounts, at least in part, for the higher level of laborproductivity in
Sweden. The much higher cost of labor in Sweden and the resulting different
level of labor-capital trade-offs may account for the different solutions in Sweden
and Japan. However, since both have succeeded in maximizing the output per
shipway, it is clear that both have developed a high level of management and
-lo-2. The Proportion of Research Effort Allocated to Shipbuilding
In all of the major shipbuilding countries ship technical and shipbuilding
research is a joint activity of a number of different organizations. (See Table II,
Principal Participants in Organized National Shipbuilding Reseaith). In almost
all countries the government contributes more or less substantially to the financing of the research.
In all of these countries, with the possible exception of France, some part of the research is devoted to ship production as distinct from ship technical or design. Only two of the countries, however, have so far established distinct
shipbuilding research groups. These countries are Japan and Great Britain. In
Japan a "committee. .. to take up problems of manufacturing practice" was
formed in 1947 within tne Japanese Society of Naval Architects and a Shipbuilding Research Association was founded in 1952. In Great Britain a ". . . division of
production research was started in 1961" within the British Ship Research
Asso-ciation (BSRA). In the opinion of Dr. R. Hurst, director of BSRA, it has "made
a substantial contribution to improved productivity within the industry." (13). Thus,
in both countries a national center of shipbuilding research has been organized, in both cases within an independent technical organization, but with some
financial support from the government. The organization is slightly different in the Scandinavian countries. There the Norske Ventas, a classification society,
rather than a separate professional research organization, is a principal center
of activity. Essentially, however, the approach is the same -- an independent technical organization programs and conducts or monitors the research activity, while industry and the government contribute financial support.
It is very difficult to form any valid opinion concerning the amount of research which may be conducted independently by shipyards. Few shipyards have separately identifiable research programs or research organizations distinct
from their engineering departments and engineering activities. A considerable
amount of work which can properly be considered research on production-oriented
*
It is interesting to compare the first program of this BSRA ship production group with the first research program proposed by SNAME and sponsored by MarAd in the U. S. The first subjects taken up by the BSRA group were: 1) weathering of
primers, 2) burning speeds, gases and nozzles, 3) PERT application, 4) one-sided welding, 5) computer application, 6) special projects for ship owners. Although occurring 10 years later, it will be shown that the U. S. program covers similar ground. (See Aopendix B). Furthermore, these topics remain on
-lOA-TABLE II
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO
ORGANIZED MARITIME RESEARCH
X Participants
xx = Participatir'.g through industry associations
$ = Sources of Finds
I) = Participant through SNAME
NOTES:
With the exception of The Netherlands, Italy and West Germany, income from
research results is listed as a source of revenue to the research association.
Differences in the national organization of research between Japan and the
European countries are discussed in the section on evaluation of foreign research.
Ship
Yards OwnersShip SuppliersMaterial SocietiesClass AgenciesGov't. SocietiesTeehn.
Belgium X$ X$ X$ X$ Denmark X$ X$ X$ X$ $ France X$ X$ X$ X$ Gt. Britain X$ X$ X $ The Netherlands XX$ XX$ X $ Italy X$ X $ X Japan X$ X$ X X$ X$ X Norway X$ X$ X$ X$ $ Spain X$ X$ $ $ Sweden XX$ XX$ $ W.Germany X XX X X X U.S.A. l)$ I) i) I) X$ X$ KEY:
11-design is performed by all shipyard engineering departments in the course of
preparing the design and working plans for a ship or group of ships. Similarly,
work which can be considered as production research or development is
performed by each shipyard in the course of planning and carrying out a facility program. Only very rarely, however, are these activities identified separately from the work on the ship construction or yard construction program to which they contribute. The evaluation in this report must, therefore, be based on the formal programs and the identified research organizations.
The distribution of the research funds of the several central organizations in Europe and Japan is shown in Table III, Allocation of Funds to Organized
Maritime Research. In most countries shipbuilding research, if separately
identified at all, runs a poor second to research activities which support ship design. In several countries there is no shipbuilding research as such except for the work of the shipyards: France, Sweden and Italy.
There is one feature which all of these organizations have in common.
They all have full-time professional research staffs, These staffs vary in size and organization. The staffs of BSRA and Norske Ventas are the biggest, the Belgian and Italian groups probably the smallest. All operate as permanent organizations.
3. The Location of Centers of Shipbuilding Innovation
Almost all of the major innovations in shipbuilding have been adopted in some or all of the major yards in all of the principal shipbuilding countries. While the usage of innovations is dispersed very widely, the place of origin of innovations is quite naTrowly concentrated. A number of innovations originated in the U. S. during World War II, as acknowledged by Japanese writers:
Specialization of yards within a multi-yard operation, with each yard building ships of one type.
Multiple conFtruction of many ships from centrally developed plans.
Detailed planning and scheduling of operations by a central department in the yard.
Extensive application of industrial engineering to shipyard processes.
Building of ships from sub-assemblies prepared away from the building berth.
Extensive use of welding, to the point of all-welded construction.
-12-Most of the subsequent major advances in ship construction technology since the war have originated in Japan and Scandinavia:
Japan: 1. Panel shops for assembly of large panel units
--plates, stiff eners, webs.,
One-sided welding of steel plates up to about 37 mm, using special fluxes.
Three-dimensional sub-assembly (not in wide use in Japan at this time).
Tandem construction of sterns and complete ships in same building dock.
Automatic welding and assembly of T-sections for stiff eners.
Specialization of individual yards in peace time. Scandinavia: 1. Assembly-line final ship erection (Arendal).
Fully mechanized panel shops. Fully mechanized web assembly.
Very large (600-700 ton) three-dimensional sub-ass embijes.
Full pre-outfitting of deckhouses. Full pre-outfitting of machinery flats. i. Computer-aided lofting and drawing.
Three major post-war innovations were originated in West Germany:
i.
Optical lofting -- developed during the war,originally for naval construction. Only the
large-scale commercial application was a port-war development.
Photo lofting -- an off-shoot of optical lofting and only partially developed in Germany. Numerical control (N. C.) of burning -- was developed partially in Germany, partially in the United States, as a specialized application of N. C. machinery.
It is significant that more innovations in ship design originated in the
-13-innovations were developing elsewhere. The first 'supertankers -- much
smaller than the present giants, but much larger than any built previously
any-where -- were designed and built in the United States in the late forties. The
barge ship was an American design. The fast -- 20-knots and over -- dry cargo
carrier was an American concept. The origin and much of the development of
the container ship occurred in the United States. Nuclear ship propulsion was
first applied in the United States. The surface-effect ship is an American idea.
The marine industries in the U. S. which generated these ideas failed to
continue their war-time record of shipbuilding innovation. The reasons were other than inherent lack of inventiveness and are discussed elsewhere.
4. Organizations Participating in Research and Their Relationships
Each of the nine shipbuilding countries which is considered in this report
has one or more organizations engaged in some form ofmarine research. Their
functions in relation to the research effort are not always the same. The sources
of their funds, as well as their manning, differ quite widely (see Tables II, III,
IV and V). In one respect, however, they are identical: all organizations have a
central programming and coordinating group at the national level which provides
a focal point for the overall effort in maritime research, although the authority
vested in the central organization varies widely among countries.*
The participating organizations and the sources of fundìng are shown in Table II. The allocation of funds is shown in Table III, to the extent that the
research associations had the information and made it availableto us. The typical
forms of combination and coordination are shown in Table IV and the type of
governing body, staffing and principal faci]ities are shown in Table V.
Shipyards, shipowners and manufacturers of ship equipment participate
in the research associations in all of the countries considered. In several of the
European countries and in Japan the classification societies also are part of the
central organizations; in several other countries the classificationsocieties are
not members but different marine industry associations do participate (Table IV).
In Japan steel companies are included, and members of technical societies and universities are represented on the various technical committees.
*
On a recent personal survey of Japanese shipbuilding by one of the authors, discussions with heads of several of the private and government research
associations revealed that there is inadequate correlation among these groups
-14-An attempt has been made in Table lilA to compare funding for shipbuild-ing research alone, separated from total maritime research given in Table III.
The governing body of the associations in all cases includes industry rep-resentatives. In Denmark, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Japan, and Norway
technical or classification societies also participate in the governing body. In
Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Spain the governments are represented in the governing council, and in Great Britain the unions are also
rep-resented (Table V).
The staff of the central organizations varies from a few perons in Belgium and West Germany to 45 in the Shipbuilding Research Association of Japan, about 350 in the Ship Research Institute of the Japanese Ministry of Trans-port, and about 300 in the BSRA organization. The equipment varies from
port-able instruments only, used in investigations and testing in shipyards, manufac-turers plants and on board ship, to laboratories owned and operated by the
ceri-tral organizations in Great Britain, Japan, Norway (Table V). A more detailed
description of several of the national central organizations is given in Appendix
A.
The considerable diversity among the organizations and their principal
common feature -- a central group -- have been noted. The countries in which
maritime research has reached major or, at least, significant proportions have
these common features:
No other major organizational or operating feature is shared by a majority of the nine national organizations.
1. A central body - 9 countries
2. A technical staff in the central office
- 7 counties
3. Government participation in financing - 6 countiies
4. Governing council composed primarily
of maritime industry members - 7 countries
5. Physical tests carried out away from
central location - 6 countries
6. Government participation in
program-ming and control of research - 5 countries
7. Exchange of research results through
the "Scheme for International
Coopera-tion in Ship Research". - 8 countxies
8. Central organization receives some
*
Expected to increase to 1630 in 1973.
Sources: U.S. Government Agencies, Society
of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, U.S. oil
companies. See also Appendix C.
See notes on following page.
TABLE III
DISTRIBUTION OF MARITIME RESEARCH
FUNDS (non-military) Expenditures ($1, 000) Sources of Funds - 1972 Trend 1965 -1972
Plus Help in Kind
1965 1967 1970 1972 Belgium 40 20 20 30 Industry + Gov't. up to 50% -25% Yes Denmark 15 15 130 180
Industry, Gov't. + Contracts
+1,100% France 115 130 190 290 Industry + Contracts +150% Yes Gre 3,125 3,500 3,250 2,800 Industry -50%, Gov't. -30%, -10% Yes Netherlands 235 320 650 i, 280 Industry -50%, Gov't. -50% +445% Yes Italy 110 110 415 520 Industry + Contracts +370% No Japan N.A. N.A. N.A. 6,500 Industry+Gov't. over 50% N.A. Yes Norway 300 810 1,200 1,670 Industry + Gov't. +565% No Spain N.A. N.A. 50 75
Industry + Gov't. about 20%
N.A. ? Sweden 140 300 940 940 Industry + Gov!t. up to 50% +570% W. Germany N.A. 130 210 365* Industry + GovTt. up to 50% N.A. ? U.S.A. 9,725 7,815 11,850 24,850 Industry + Gov!t. +154% Yes
NOTES FOR TABLE III
L Foreign expenditures
for all years
were converted to U.S. dollars
on the basis of 1972 currency exchange
rates.
2.
Expenditures are for all types of
ship
or maritime research, excluding
Naval or other military research
but
including shipbuilding research
(if any).
Figures cover primarily the
activities of ship research associations
and/or government
agencies (such as the U.S.
Maritime Administration).
3.
Data obtained on direct industry
expenditures on research
are given below:
Internal expenditures by U.S.
shipyards, not included in the
Table, are estimated to
amount to $6,500,000
-7,500,000 annially.
(Seep. 25).
A personal
survey of Japanese shipbuilding by
one of the authors of this report in
October 1972 revealed that
well over $10, 000, 000
is being spent internally
by Japanese shipyards
on R & D such as operation of model towing
tanks, studies
of welding techniques,
development of improved production
methods, design of
stan-dardized ships, etc. The figures for Italy do not
include a recent government
grant of $4, 400, 000 for
a
Ship Research Center. The figures for Sweden do not
include funds, part loans
- part subsidies, in the
amount of about $10, 000, 000 for
a three-year ship research
program (Source:
Knight-Wegenstein study for German
government).
4.
Estimates of shipbuilding research
separated from other maritime
research are given in Table
III A.
5.
A breakdown of U. S. figures
given in the Table is:
1965 1967 1970 1972 MarAd $9,500 7,500* 11,100* 23,750 ABS 100# 200# 400# 500 SNAME (budget) 125 115 150 100 C.G. 200# 500 Totals $9, 725 7, 815 11,850 24, 850 *Includes operation of N. S. Savannah #estjmates
-14C-TABLE III A
APPROX, DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH FUNtS FOR SHIP CONSTRUCTION
($1000) 1965 1967 1970 1972 Belgium o o o o Denmark 85 (50% x 95%) France O O O O Great Britain 840 (30%) Netherlands 65 (5%)
Italy neg. neg. neg. neg.
Japan signigicant* Large**
Norway neg. neg. neg. neg.
Sweden O O O O
W. Germany neg. neg. neg. neg.
U.S.A. O O O $3000
neg. neglibible Source: Appendix A
*1970 - Table VIII, p. 18A, shows 7%of
published reports on shipbuilding
* *1972 - Increased on basis of Researèh
Theme for 1969-1972, "Labor Saving at Shipyards".
Ministry of Transport (Gov't)
1
Ship Research Institute (Govtt) Ship-yards Ship Owners -14D-TABLE IV
TYPICAL FORMS OF ORGANIZATION FOR RESEARCH
i. Western Europe (Denmark, France, Norway, West Germany)
Central National Resarch Organization
Outpu
Western Europe (Great Britain, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden)
¡ I
-
- - Ouput
InternationaL Exchange Japan Univer- Marine sities Manuf. International ---ExchangeOrganization for Development of
Shipbuilding Techniques
Shipbuilding Rsearch Association (Industry) Technical So cie ti es Classification Society
J
Central National Reserch Organization
Ma'rine
Ship Marine Industry
Shipyard s Owners Manufacturers Associations
Ship Marine Classificati on
Shipyards Owners Manufacturers Societies
Y
Belgium Denmark F rane e Gt. Britian Netherlands Italy . apan Norway Spain Sweden W. Germany
TABLE V
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS Governing
Facilities
Body
and Operations
Staff
Council elected by members from industries Council - Industry members, and one Technical Society. Council - Industry members, Trade Association Represt. Council - Industry, Technical Societies, Trade Asstns. Government and Unions, Governed by Netherlands Ship Research Center Council - Industry members. Council - Industry, Trade Ass'tns. ,
Classification soc'ts.
Council - Industry, Ventas and Gov't. Research Council. Cóunèil - Industry, Governm't., two technical colleges. Council - Industry Associations md Dept. of Defense. Council - Industry. No. laboratories. Work on site No laboratories. Work on site and in offices No laboratories.
Work
on site Own laboratories and work on site and other facilities. No laboratories. Work on site and other facilities. No laboratories. Work on site and other facilities. Own laboratories and work on site and other facilities Own laboratories and work on site. No laboratories. Work on site and at university. No laboratories. Work on site and in other facilities. Some facilities, Work on site and in other facilities. Minor Staff About 15-20 Technical Staff. Small administrative and Technical Staff, About
00 on staff, more
-15-5. The Sources and Allocation of Funds
The operating budgets vary widely. The lowest are under $100,000 per
year, the highest, in Japan, about $6,000,000 per year. The latter figure is
the combined outlay, or the combined budget, of the Shipbuilding Research Association (industry) and the Shipbuilding Research Institute (government). In
evaluating these budgets the purchasing power of the amounts in the several countries must be taken into account; in all of them, but particularly in Japan, these amounts produce a much greater quantity of technical services than they would in the United States. This difference in cost has been estimated by OECD as a "research rate" of exchange with the dollar valued at about 0. 6 of the official
dollar rate of exchange (l4)(p. li).
Where the allocation of ship research funds could be determined the bulk of the money was found to be assigned to ship design and performance
testing. Only in England and Japan major amounts are assigned to ship
production research. In all countries, however, the sum spent by the shipyards
on research or development work performed in the shipyards remains
unidenti-*
fied. It is, therefore, not possible to determine with any precision the total effort actually expended on shipbuilding research as distinct from other ship research.
6, The Technically Trained Personnel In Shipyards
The proportion and functions of technically trained personnel in any
organization is, in the first instance, an indicator of the mode of operation. An
organization which relies heavily on staff functions and control will tend to have
a high proportion of administrative and technical personnel. Organizations which
tend toward centralized control will have a larger staff than organizations which operate on the basis of delegation of responsibility and assignment of control functions to departments and groups which actually perform the work.
To some extent, however, the proportion of staff and technicians is also an indicator of the level of production technology and management information
techniques at which the organization operates. Unfortunately, data on employment
of engineers and scientists in shipbuilding are not readily available. The
statistics show in Table VI represent employment of engineers, scientists and
*
The only exception found was Sweden where national statistics show that about 0. 7%
of total shipyard employment consists of personnel engaged in research. (Source:
-16-administrative and clerical personnel as a proportion of total employment. Partial data available for Japan suggest that engineers represent about 40% of the technical and administrative group, at least in one or two of the biggest
shipbuilding companies. Similar partial data indicate much lower percentages in the United States and Great Britain.
A survey by a member of the study staff at Arendal, Eriksberg and Kockums about two years ago and data of the Swedish National Central Bureau of Statistics indicate that the scientific, engineering and administrative force (including clerical) is about 25% of total employment in shipbuilding, with
engineers and scientists representing about 30% of that force. Surveys made at
the same time at Swan Hunier and at several Clyde yards suggest that the
percentage of scientific and engineering personnel in the LT. K. was substantially lower, perhaps as low as 15%-20% of the total technical and administrative staff. The United States figures, based on spot surveys are: total administrative, scientific and engineering, about 20%, engineers and scientists 15%-25% of that force.
On this basis the proportion of scientific and engineering personnel to total shipyard employment in the four countries compares as follows:
Japan 8% - 9% (of total shipyard force incluling
subcontract employees)
Sweden about 7-1/2%
Great Britain 5% - 7%
United States about 3% - 5%
Japan and Sweden, the two countries with the highest level of shipbuilding tech-nology, show the highest proportion of scientific and engineering personnel in their shipyards.
From observations made by U. S. government and industry representatives the scientific and engineering personnel participate more directly and in greater numbers in production and production-associated fimctions in Japan and in the Scandinavian countries than elsewhere. The marketing, planning, production control and other management system functions are also more strongly manned
by college graduates in the above two shipbuilding centers than elsewhere. In
Japan and the Scandinavian e 'ntries the senior production functions -- department
TABLE VI
PROPORTION OF TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
IN TOTAL SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT
Year UNITED STATES*** GT. BRITIAN SWEDEN** JAPAN* Total Empl. %Tech. and Adm. Total Empl. %Tech. and Adm.
Total Empi. %Tech. Empi. and Ex. Adm. Subc. Empi. mcl. Subc. Tech.
2 Adm. Ex. Suhc. %Tech. 2 Adm. Inc. Sub.
1964 117,000 16.2 158, 000 29. 6 32, 000 24. 7 N. A. N.A. N.A. N. A. 1965 129,000 16.2 158,000 30.3 31, 000 26. 2 126, 000 174,000 27.1 19. 6 1966 144,000 16.8 158,000 31.0 30, 000 26. 9 127, 000 174,000 28.5 20. 8 1967 140, 000 18. 0 160,000 32.2 29, 000 25. 9 128, 000 180,000 28.4 20. 2 1968 141,000 18.2 157,000 33.0 29, 000 26. 1 127, 000 182,000 27.2 19. 0 1969 142,000 18.5 197,000 32.5 125,000 171,000 26.9 19.7 1970 132,000 19.6 197,000 34.9 29, 000 26.5 128,000 176, 000 30. 8 22. 5 1971 127,000 19.9 N.A. N.A. 134, 000 186,000 30.3 21. 8
Eighteen principal companies; 38 shipyards.
Source;Shipbuil der' s Association
**
Source
National Central Bureau of Statistics, Sweden.
Source
-17-graduate engineers than in some of the other European countries, including Great Britian, or than is the case in the United States.
7. The Level of Inter-Organization Communication
All countries considered have central organizations which insure full and regular communication between the different research groups within the country. The nine European countries have, in addition, set up a central
international organization. This "Scheme for International Cooperation in Ship
Research" insures exchange of ideas and information at the international level. To some extent, at least, this exchange of information is reflected in the collection
and exchange of technical and research reports. The numbers of reports exchanged
and the proportion which deals specifically with shipbuilding are shown in Table VII. The exchange of information is supported by annual meetings of the
International Cooperation group. At these meetings reports are exchanged and
there is, according to reports of participants, a free exchange of views on all
matters concerning the research conducted during the preceding year. The
United States has been regularly represented at these meetings by the Technical Administrator of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, which is a charter member of the group.
The Common Market, and the continuing growth of Japanese shipbuilding capacity -- along with declining worldwide orders -- seems to be a stimulus for increased cooperation among European shipbuilders in R & D. Professor J. I-L. Krietemeijer of Deift University of Technology recently said, "I suggest that
cooperation and coordination of research and development in the European shipbuilding and shipping industries shall be improved. Even if there is already any kind of
action in this field, this should be encouraged by the industry itself
The same applies to universities of technology, institutes and learned societies for the education and training of high qualified technical, economical and managerial
staff members. In this respect I would like to emphasize the significance of post
graduate courses or seminars of high standard with a frequency of every three to five years in order to brush up and refresh the obsolete knowledge and get familiar with up -to-date technology. These courses ought to be organized at an international level" (19).
-18-All of the several countries have a considerable volume of technical periodicals, and research results are published regularly -- although pften with
some delay because of their proprietary nature. Language barriers prevent any
real analysis of the output of technical literature and of research liter.ture in particular. The library search conducted for this study did, however, produce the impression that the output of literature is greatest in Japan, Great Britain,
and the U. S. BSRA publishes a Journal of Abstracts which is international both in coverage and, in distribution.
The central organizations not only insure a free flow and coordination of
research information within their countries, but they also provide the means for
pinpointing problems which require research and for maintaining a dialogue on
critical topics. lt does not appear, however, that these organizations, withthe
possible exception of Japan, fully coordinate the research efforts of individual
shipyards or shipyard groups. There are indications that in Japan the Shipbuilders
Association provides some coordination and interchange at the shipbuilding company
*
level.
Summary of Evaluation
The seven factors selected as a basis of evaluation present a
partially contradictory picture. On the basis of
2. proportion of funds allocated to shipbuilding,
organizations participating in research and their relationship, sources and allocation of funds,
levels and organization of communications,
the research organizations of the three principal world shipbuilding centers
--Great Britian, Japan and Scandinavia -- must be ranked equally high. On the
basis of the other three factors, however,
1. volume and efficiency of shipbuilding output, 3. location of centers of shipbuilding innovation,
proportion and functions of technically trained personnel in shipyards,
the superiority of Japan and Sweden over Great Britain is glaring.
* Source: Trip reports by Commission on American Shipbuilding and by representatives of U. S. Shipyards.
18-A TABLE VII
RESEARCH REPORTS EXCHANGEDAMONG RESEARCH ASSOCIATIONS
* Japan is not represented on ICSR. Figures are obtained from 'Selected Papers from the Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan" (in English) published during the
years indicated.
All
Other
Yards
Gen'l. MgTt. Production Outfit
Belgium 1963-1965 - - - - 6 1968-1970 - - - - 8 1971-1972 - - - -3 Denmark 1963-1965 - - i - 10 1968-1970 - - - - 6 1971-1972 - - 1 3 France 1963-1965 1 - 2 5 1968-1970 - - - - 9 1971-1972 - - -Gt. Britian 1963-1965 i 1 1 -45 1968-1970 1 2 3 i 37 1971-1972 2 - 4 1 17 Netherlands 1963-1965 - - 2 - 40 1968-1970 - 1 2 - 35 1971-1972 - 2 - - 40 Italy 1963-1965 - - - - -1968-1970 - -
i
- 11 1971-1972 - - - - 13 * Japan 1963-1965-
11 - 17 1968-1970 - 1 3 -61 1971-1972 - i - - 27 Norway 1963-1965 1 - - -18 1968-1970 - - - 2 15 1971-1972 1 - -1 11 Spain 1963-19651968-1970 -- - - - -- - - 3 1971-1972 - - - - 2 Sweden 1963-1965 1 - - -7 1968-1970 - - - -5 1971-1972 - -i
- 21 W. Germany 1963-1965 - - - -1968-1970 - - i - 4 1971-1972 - - - 12 1963-1965 - - - - 79 1968-1970 - I - 1 29 1971-1972 --
- - 75
-19-This contradiction arises from the breadth of the concept "effectiveness
of the shipbuilding research association." The effectiveness of the research
organizations can be evaluated from two very different points of view:
I. Effectiveness in terms of continuity and scope of the research
effort itself and publication of results.
2. Effectiveness in terms of insuring application of the results of
research.
From the first point of view, the BSRA is as effective, perhaps more so, than
any of the other organizations. From the second point of view, the BSRA has been unable to stimulate British yards to achieve the results obtained by the Japanese and Scandinavian industries.
A partial explanation of the BSRA lesser effectiveness concerning application of results may have been given by B,S, Miller of the University of Glasgow, "The chief weakness of British ship research has been a failure
to relate research effort to those areas of design, production and operation
where maximum economic benefit could be achieved". (20) Miller's views
have been confirmed in correspondence between a member of the study staff and a faculty member at Strathclyde University who was formerly an executive in a Clyde shipyard.
But it should be remembered that a research organization's effectiveness
in terms of application of its findings depends on several factors which are outside
the organization's control. These factors include management policies and
support, market conditions, availability of capital, union attitudes and, in some
cases, legal restrictions. It has been pointed out that British shipyards have been slow in adopting the findings of BSRA, ship production research.
The proportion of effort allocated to research on shipbuilding, i. e., production-oriented research, as against design and general scientific problems,
will depend almost entirely on the policies and interest of the management of
shipyards and shipping companies and their associations. The possibility of building
groups of similar ships and, therefore, the usefulness of research in production methods
and production controls which are associated with such construction depends on
market conditions. The possibility of conducting expensive applied research
-20-or re--20-organization of facilities and processes depends on availability of funds.
The application of new technology and the economic usefulness of such application also depends on union acceptance in most cases., For example, the full
economic gains from such new techniques as panel lines, one-sided welding,
mechanical positioning of assemblies, etc. , can only be made with complete
flexibility of craft assignments.
lt has been shown that the research in Europe and Japan is effective insofar as production of technical and scientific data is concerned and is the result of the coordinated effort and free flow and interchange of information. The free flow and interchange depends on the central coordinating or controlling organizations which exist in all of the countries considered as well as at the international level. However, the effectiveness of the research is reflected in industrial effectiveness in only some of the countries.
The conclusion is inescapable that the effectiveness of a research organization in promoting and conducting research is not in itself sufficient to insure that the industry will derive the full possible benefit from the results
of research. Cooperation, interest and active support of the industry, as well as
support of public agencies and labor are necessary to insure effective use of research results and the gains which flow from that use.
Table VIII has been prepared to show the ranking of the ten countries
considered in this study in terms of the seven factors used in the evaluation. It
shows graphically what has been said above -- effective performance of research does not guarantee that the industry for which the research is performed will benefit -- unless other necessary conditions are present. The other necessary
Volume and Efficieney of Shipbuilding Shipbuilding Innovation Proportion and Functions of Technical Personnel Source and Volume of Research Funds Proportion of Funds for Shipbuilding Research Participation of Organ. in Research and their Relationships Corn rn uni cations
Table VIII
RANKING OF COUNTPIES IN PESEABCH ORGANIZATION
EFFECTIVENESS Den-Great West Belgium mark France Britain Netherlands Italì Japan Norway Sweden Germ. 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 ? 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 ----2 or lower 1 2 or lower 1 ----2 or lower 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 Note: 1.
The countries are ranked by groups, i.
e. ,
all of the top three are ranked -1, all of middle
group are ranked -2, etc.
2.
Volume is ranked as output in relation to size of
-21-UNITED STATES RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
Participation
Marine research has been a major and growing activity in the United States throughout the post-war period. The great number of organizations
engaged in this research and the diversity of researchprograms makes it
difficult to construct a clear picture of the research effort. It is apparent,
however, that at least the following organizations and groups have been active
in this area for all or most of the past quarter of a century:
Government Agencies:
Maritime Administration (MarAd)
Navy
Coast Guard
Technical Organizations:
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) Ship Structure Committee (SSC)
Maritime Transportation Research Board (MTRB) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
Universities Industry:
Shipyards Ship Owners Oil Companies
Manufacturers of Marine Equipment
In the Maritime Administration (MarAd) the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development heads a program administered by the following offices:
Advanced Ship Development Advanced Ship Operations Maritime Technology
MarAd operates National Maritime Research Centers at Kings Point, New York, and Galveston, Texas.
-22-The Navy R & D program covers a very wide field, going far beyond mari-time research. This is apparent from a comparison of the Navy's total R & D
budget of over two billion dollars in 19139, 1970 and 1971 (21), compared with its ship research expenditures which are shown at page 24 below. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy is responsible for all Navy R & D activities and approves the programs and budgets of all Naval research establishments. The principal groups are:
The Office of Naval Research The Naval Research Laboratories
The Naval Ship Research & Development Center, with laboratories at: Carderock, Md.
Annapolis, Md. Panama City, Fia.
While all of the activities are subject to the budgets, reviews and approval of
The Assistant Secretary, the personnel of the last three laboratories report to
the Chief of Naval Operations through the Chief of Naval Material.
The Coast Guard has a research and development division. The organi-zation and activity of the division is described in Appendix C. It includes re-search on:
Merchant marine safety Ships and boats (lifesaving) Aids-to-Navigation devices Polution control
-23-The research activityof the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers is organized in a system of volunteer committees and a permanent
administrative staff. The Technical and Pesearch Steering Committee guides
the activities of the following Technical Committees, each of which hasa number
of Panels covering specific subjects or p rojects: Hull Structure Committee
Hydrodynamics Committee
Ship Technical Operations Committee Ship's Machinery Committee
Marine Systems Committee Ship Production
Committee members are drawn from all branches of the marine industry, government, and universities.
A long-standing shipbuilding related research group is the Ship Structure
Committee, a 5-agency group jointly sponsored by the Navy, the MilitarySealift,
the Coast Guard, Maritime Administration and American Bureau of Shipping. It
has its origin in the Board of Investigation to Inquire into the Design and Methods
of Construction of Welded Steel Merchant Vessels set up in 1943. After preparing
several reports that led to improvements in design, materials and construction
tecimiques, the board was replaced by the Ship Structure Committee which has
sponsored a long-term research program in structural mechanics and ship structural design. These projects have been planned and monitored by the ShipResearch
Committee of the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council.
The Maritime Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of
Sciences - National Research Council, is also jointly supported bygovernment
agencies and sponsors research on a variety of subjects through the following committees:
Ship Operations
Ports and Cargo handling Ship acquisition
Ship research
Trade and economics
The American Bureau of Shipping has an R & D department, operating under a Vice President, which deals primarily with ship structural design problems.
-24-Individual universities carry out sponsored research in marine fields, in particular:
University of California, Berkeley University of Michigan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stevens Institute of Technology
Webb Institute of Naval Amhitecture
Industry participates in research through the programs of the above technical organizations, as well as by means of their own in-house R&D. In particular, marine and shipbuilding research in individual shipyards has for many years been a part of the total U. S. marine research effort.
It can be seen that the research effort is dispersed both organizationally and geographically, although a partial technical coordinating function is performed by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. The industry associa-fions, such as the shipbuilders Council, AIMS and AMA, do not, at this time, play a significant role in directing, coordinating or financing research efforts within the industry.
The coordinating function of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers in the specific area of shipbuilding research is exercised through its Ship Production Committee. The committee was organized in January 1970
and inaugurated a shipbuilding research program in June of that year. In cooper-ation with the Maritime Administrcooper-ation this program was later expanded and funded. Major parts of the program and a number of new projects were incorporated in research contracts funded principally by the Maritime Administration and partially by the yards; other projects have been continued as Society-shipyard activities.
The MarAd-shipyard program was started in March, 1971. A second phase of this program was developed and proposed by the Ship Production Committee in April, 1972. The committee is also performing a technical monitoring function for the MarAd-shipyard program. For a description of the Ship Production Committee organization and work see Appendix B.
Funding
The multiplicity of organizations, diversity of programs and differences in cost accounting make it impossible to determine the total volume or the sub-division of funds devoted to research. Some approximation, however, is
poss-ible, at least as regards the annual funds for research programs in thé last several years:
