|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The major problem with any type of functional package of work is the high cost of coordination when changes occur and the possibility that functional empires will be rebuilt. Accordingly, a deliverable-based work breakdown structure was adopted which had a repeating framework until a single manager could effectively manage the work. This meant that the smallest packages had to have a real manager (rather than an engineer who was not interested in costs or achievement) and was multifunctional involving staff from different departments and skill sets. The generic work breakdown structure is shown in Fig. 1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The basic concept for development (for example) is that the work is broken down into a number of subsystems and overall test equipment according to the output of the system design area. This also defines the integration requirements and interfaces between subsystems. The system test area is responsible for the certification against the requirements. Each subsystem is further broken down into sub-subsystems with their system design and integration, subsystem test equipment, and test areas. Each level has its own management, so that it is a self contained entity that could easily be let to a subcontractor or undertaken in-house. The smallest package of work was aptly named a task package that had a resourced network, a budget, and a set of requirements passed down from above in the work breakdown structure. All the networks were linked together to produce an overall program for the project. The structure does not have a separate package for Quality as it was incumbent on the whole staff to build quality into the product and not to have someone else responsible for their quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The benefits from this type of structure are that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it ensures that all areas are covered including subcontractors; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it links deliverables into the contract and identifies each deliverable cost; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
historical data is independent of organizational change; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is not parochial in terms of department, function, or directorate, and it encourages interfunctional teamwork; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it gives clear accountability and responsibility to managers; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
design reviews are easier as each level is the design authority; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is flexible with project size; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the structure can increase bidding efficiency. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each of the other areas (Production and In service) had a similar work breakdown structure so that there was a clear relationship between development and production of the same deliverable at each level. |
|
|
|
|
|