The Royal Navy’s Type 45 Story: A Case Study

Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 162)


This chapter presents systems engineering as portfolio analysis carried out with multiple stakeholders who hold different perspectives about the system elements, and where conflicting objectives must be accommodated in deciding what is affordable. A case study of the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer shows how a portfolio approach traded-off time, cost and performance to arrive at a plausible way forward. The combination of technical system modelling with group processes that engaged all stakeholders enabled a solution to be agreed within only 15 months. This set a record for major equipment procurement in the Ministry of Defence, and saved the contractor 2 years of design work.


Equity Model Unit Production Cost Naval Architect Benefit Criterion Electrical Propulsion System 
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.



I am grateful to Malcolm Cree and the editors for helpful suggestions that improved the manuscript. I also belatedly thank the many participants in the decision conferences, particularly Commander Dean Molyneaux and Lieutenant Commander Bill Biggs, who assisted in facilitating the decision conferences, Commodore Philip Greenish, who ably led participants through the tangled web of conflicting objectives, Brigadier General Keith Prentiss, who continued to exert pressure on costs, and Captain Joe Kidd, Captain Joe Gass and Commander Malcolm Cree, who championed the process from the start and saw it through to the final propulsion decision conference.


  1. Bernardo JM, Smith AFM (1994) Bayesian theory. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Delbecq A, Van de Ven A, Gustafson D (1974) Group techniques for program planning. Scott Foresman, GlenviewGoogle Scholar
  3. Fischhoff B (2006) Constructing preferences from labile values. In: Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (eds) The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1993) Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J Risk Uncertain 7(2):177–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hardin, G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (eds) (2006) The construction of preference. Cambridge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. National Audit Office (2002) Ministry of Defence major project reports. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Phillips LD (2007) Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles RF, Von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Phillips LD, Bana e Costa CA (2007) Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res 154(1):51–68Google Scholar
  11. Renn O (1999) A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environ Sci Technol 33(18):3049–3055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roxburgh C (2003) Hidden flaws in strategic thinking. McKinsey Quarterly, 2Google Scholar
  13. Schein EH (1999) Process consultation revisited: building the helping relationship. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  14. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: HEuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political ScienceManagement Science GroupLondonUK

Personalised recommendations