Advertisement

Mapping Platform Transformations

  • Clive I. V. Kerr
  • Robert Phaal
  • David R. Probert
Chapter
Part of the Decision Engineering book series (DECENGIN)

Abstract

Technology insertion provides the means to proactively sustain and enhance the functionality and associated performance levels of legacy product platforms. It aims to deliver in-service technological innovations in response to the need for new capabilities that address emerging threats, obsolescence concerns and affordability issues. Platform modernisation via technology insertion is an interaction between the three principal stakeholders of end-user, acquisition authority and product-service system provider. To bring these three groups together for the vision setting and planning activities, a transformation mapping approach has been developed. It requires the participants to populate three visual templates that respectively map the future strategic context, the portfolio/fleet of complex product platforms and the key functional systems that generate utility. The adoption of this approach provides the ability to outline future capability requirements, determine product development options, and align these with the associated technology upgrade paths against the time dimension. To illustrate the implementation of the method, a case study from the defence industry is employed to depict the typical outputs that can be generated.

Keywords

Functional System Product Platform Technology Upgrade Military Capability Service Branch 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Navy operational readiness. Report Number: 39 (Australian National Audit Office, Canberra, 2003)Google Scholar
  2. Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Management of the FFG capability upgrade. Report Number: 11 (Australian National Audit Office, Canberra, 2007)Google Scholar
  3. H.S. Balaban, W.L. Greer, Model for evaluating the cost consequences of deferring new system acquisition through upgrades. Report Number: P-3424 (Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, 1999)Google Scholar
  4. A.H. Barber, D.L. Gilmore, Maritime access: Do defenders hold all the cards? Def. Horiz. 4, 1–8 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. D. Birchall, G. Tovstiga, Capabilities for strategic advantage: Leading through technological innovation (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2005)Google Scholar
  6. K. Booth, Navies and foreign policy (Croom Helm, London, 1977)Google Scholar
  7. T.A. Brooks, H. Jenkins, N. Polmar, R. Pirie, T.D. Ryan, J. Sommerer, W. Weldon, J. Wolbarsht, Science and technology for naval warfare 2015–2020. Report Number: NRAC 05–3 (Naval Research Advisory Committee, Arlington, 2005)Google Scholar
  8. R. Crane, ADF responses to meet future contingencies. Aust. Def. Force J. 173, 68–72 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. A. Davies, ADF capability review: Royal Australian Navy. Policy Analysis (Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Barton, 2008)Google Scholar
  10. A. Davies, Australia’s defence white paper 2009. Def. Syst. 12, 34–37 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. Defense Industry Daily (DID), Australia’s hazard(ous) frigate upgrade. Available at: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-hazardous-frigate-upgrade-04586/. Accessed 28 Oct 2009 (2009)
  12. Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), SEA 1390 phase 2.1: FFG upgrade project (Defence Materiel Organisation, Canberra, 2008)Google Scholar
  13. Department of Defence (DoD), Defence 2000: Our future defence force. Report Number: Defence White Paper (Department of Defence, Canberra, 2000)Google Scholar
  14. Department of Defence (DoD), Defence capability development manual. Report Number: DCDM, Capability Systems Division (Department of Defence, Canberra, 2006)Google Scholar
  15. Department of Defence (DoD), Australia’s national security: A defence update 2007 (Department of Defence, Canberra, 2007)Google Scholar
  16. Department of Defence (DoD), Defence annual report: Volume 1 (Department of Defence, Canberra, 2008)Google Scholar
  17. Department of Defence (DoD), Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific century: Force 2030. Report Number: Defence White Paper (Department of Defence, Canberra, 2009a)Google Scholar
  18. Department of Defence (DoD), Defence capability plan. Report Number: DCP (Department of Defence, Canberra, 2009b)Google Scholar
  19. T. Dowling, R. Hood, R. Hirst, D. Barker, E. Lomas, E. Phillips, A. Griffiths, B. King, D. Field, Agile capability and adaptable systems. Report Number: QINETIQ/EMEA/TECS/CR0700304, TI MPA (Technology Insertion Major Programme Area) (QinetiQ, Farnborough, 2007)Google Scholar
  20. A. Houston, The ADF of the future. Aust. Def. Force J. 173, 57–67 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence, Trade (JFADT), Australia’s maritime strategy. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Department of the House of Representatives, Canberra, 2004)Google Scholar
  22. C. Kerr, R. Phaal, D. Probert, A framework for strategic military capabilities in defense transformation. The 11th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS 2006)—Coalition command and control in the networked era, Cambridge, Sep 26–28Google Scholar
  23. C.I.V. Kerr, R. Phaal, D.R. Probert, Technology insertion in the defence industry: A primer. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B. J. Eng. Manuf. 222, 1009–1023 (2008a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. C.I.V. Kerr, R. Phaal, D.R. Probert, Aligning R&D with changing product requirements in an evolutionary acquisition environment. The R&D management conference 2008, Ottawa, June 18–20 (2008b)Google Scholar
  25. C. Kerr, R. Phaal, D. Probert, A strategic capabilities-based representation of the future British armed forces. Int. J. Intell. Def. Support. Syst. 1, 27–42 (2008c)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. C.I.V. Kerr, R. Phaal, D.R. Probert, Cogitate, articulate, communicate: The psychosocial reality of technology roadmapping and roadmaps. The R&D management conference 2009—the reality of R&D and its impact on innovation, Vienna, June 21–24 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. S.M. Kosiak, Matching resources with requirements: Options for modernizing the US Air Force (Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington DC, 2004)Google Scholar
  28. M. Mahon, US Navy surface warfare: Future requirements and capability. Def. Syst. 11, 40–44 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. M.J. Milas, R. Vanderbok, Beyond proactive DMSMS, what’s next: Coordinated technology management. 9th Joint FAA/DoD/NASA conference on aging aircraft, Atlanta, March 6–9 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of Defence (MoD), Defence industrial strategy. Defence white paper (CM6697) (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 2005)Google Scholar
  31. R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, D. Probert, Customizing roadmapping. Res.Technol. Manag. 47, 26–37 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. R. Phaal, C.J.P. Farrukh, D.R. Probert, Strategic roadmapping: A workshop approach for identifying and exploring strategic issues and opportunities. Eng Manag J 19, 3–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. Royal Australian Navy (RAN), Australian maritime doctrine. Report Number: RAN Doctrine 1, Sea Power Centre (Royal Australian Navy, Canberra, 2000)Google Scholar
  34. Royal Australian Navy (RAN), Plan blue. Royal Australian Navy (Department of Defence, Canberra, 2006)Google Scholar
  35. G. Smith, Stating the problem: Facing the challenge. Maritime war in the 21st century: The small and medium navy perspective, Papers in Australian Maritime Affairs Number 8, ed by D. Wilson, Sea Power Centre, Royal Australian Navy, Canberra, Australia (2001)Google Scholar
  36. Sea Power Centre (SPC), The Navy’s new Aegis. Report Number: Semaphore 07, Sea Power Centre (Royal Australian Navy, Canberra, 2009)Google Scholar
  37. L. Thompson, Cruise missile defense: Connecting theater capabilities to homeland needs (Lexington Institute, Arlington, 2004)Google Scholar
  38. M. Thomson, The cost of defence: ASPI defence budget brief 2008–2009 (Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Barton, 2008)Google Scholar
  39. E.K. Yakura, Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 956–970 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clive I. V. Kerr
    • 1
  • Robert Phaal
    • 1
  • David R. Probert
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations