Common Vocabulary is Cost Effective
This proposal to organize the semantics of Navy operations and contracting terms related to shipbuilding was rejected by the shipbuilding czar located at Washington Navy Yard. By a search for definitions, we found that a 1947 dictionary of terms for Liberty ship construction was the only contracting standard.
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL
Basic Information
(1) Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants
PO Box 0433
Baldwin, New York 11510
(516) 623-6295
CCR Profile:
DUNS: 047492368
CAGE: 0H9A2
TIN: 112529408
(2) Contact point(s) for technical personnel to be contacted for
evaluation and negotiation:
Thomas V. Sobczak, Ph.D., P.E.
Owner
Contact point(s) for business personnel to be contact for evaluation
and negotiation:
Thomas V. Sobczak, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal
(3) Making Littoral Combat Ship Terminology Literal
(4) August 29, 2007
(5) We authorize Dr. Thomas V. Sobczak to represent himself
_______________________________
Thomas V. Sobczak Ph.D.
Principal
Making Littoral Combat Ship Terminology Literal
A proposal to the
Chief Operating Officer, Surface Warfare Enterprise
A large share of money spent to research new ideas' results in workable solutions that
lay fallow. Misinterpretations of manufacturing/building/assembly intentions expressed
via technical terms and vocabularies, thought to be agreed to by all participants,
confuse users of interoperable systems and cost the sponsor excessively. The SWE
LCS program provides a practical example. Communications from the Navy as
qualified by the American Bureau of Shipping and Naval Vessel Rules interpreted by
NAVSEA Technical Authorities to Lockheed-Martin were understood differently from
what was intended. Waste of intellectual resources is an extravagance taken for
granted by those experiencing government munificence. Programs that attempt to
create, locate or transfer technology fail to satisfy Government attempts to create
seamless hardware integrations. Attempts at ontological uniqueness (simple
definitions), to ease understanding, create Towers of Babel that propagate massive
misunderstanding.
PROPOSAL RATIONALE
As I read the magazine, Marine Log, and media representation of the problems of new
vessel construction, I was impressed by a discussion of the logic causing the
cancellation of a Littoral Combat Ship construction contract (LCS-3). Lockheed Martin
claimed they followed US Navy's issued directions and the Navy claimed they did not,
based on the understanding of the Interested third party, ABS. While the reports
provided only limited rationale for the action, my interest was peaking. How could two
so seemingly professional groups with coordination from the interested third party
appear so far apart?
I lost my left leg to an infection. As a result I have been certified Disadvantaged under
the Americans With Disabilities Act. I spend a good deal of my time data mining and
documenting my results as articles and presentations. I accomplished an initial review
of "Littoral Combat Ship" based upon the "Marine Log" magazine blurb. I used
Goggle, Clusty, and Copernic Agent search engines. The results were random. I
located a copy of the original RFP and relevant documents from SWE, PEO Ships,
Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamic, Northrup-Grumman and SPAWAR.
Development of a plan for building a ship for the US Navy appears as a very
demanding task. I could visualize the ship specifications having a significant impact on
performance and construction cost. As a layman, the General Specifications for Ships
of the US Navy (GENSPECs), as presented, appeared to include excessive and
burdensome boilerplate
As it affects the SWE Littoral Fleet, the US Navy GENSPECs documentation appears
to be obstacle to achieving the "New Culture" described by Adm. Cebrowski in his
February 25, 2004 presentation before the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments. V.ADM Sullivan's NAVSEA SITREP amplifies and extends Adm.
Cebrowski's thoughts establishing goals using terms that lack specificity.
I did not locate a common glossary with definitions of shipbuilding terms, in any one
place, that might be applicable to SWE Littoral Combat Ship construction or for that matter
any vessel construction or refurbishment. ABS does not identify a reference dictionary or
glossary of the terms required to control construction. For the record, incremental
definitions exist in OPNAVINST, NAVSEA Process sections 0, S, LP, CH, SS and in
Technical Work Package discussions available on the Internet. I suggest to the
reviewer of this proposal that a knowledgeable individual be assigned to compare the random
definitions presented in uncoordinated documents. Definitions of a common word
frequently differ depending upon the lead organization within NAVSEA, PEO
operations, PEOI Ships, ABS or ONR.
My research suggests that the ship construction task facing an emerging new class of
vessels is unsettling. I surveyed two hundred plus web sites within the US Navy,
Shipbuilding Contractors, Subcontractors and professional organizations. One quickly
realizes that NAVSEA specifications suffer from numerous points of view. Many
discuss the topic using words that allow for interpretation. The GENSPECs is modified by CNO
Requirements. The composite is interpreted by a Program Manager and his staff. The
successful contractor adds his inputs while modifying the design to reduce cost and
ease construction. I noticed SPAWAR is involved because they control some Mission
Packages as does Naval Surface Warfare Center. Finally, specifications conceived for previous
construction of similar sea frames, if applicable, or if they might reduce shipbuilding
costs are interpreted into the design of the new vessel class. These extensions shortcut the
logic that creates final design specifications. The foregoing can further confuse
understanding because the same term or abbreviation has or can have a different
meaning to each participant.
Look at an example that collects words from within NAVSEA specifications and
instructions sans definitions. The Navy over uses acronyms. I sorted by the abbreviation for
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy, i.e., SCN, to learn how the acronym was used:
There were seventeen distinct uses of the abbreviation "SCN" in NAVSEA
documents: (More than in the "Tower of Babel" story in the old testament bible.)
Abbreviation Official US Navy Definitions
SCN Search Control Number
SCN Sensor Control Network
SCN Sequential Contact Number
SCN Ship Construction Navy
SCN Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy
SCN Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
SCN Shipping Control Note
SCN Shipping Control Number
SCN Ships Construction, Navy
SCN Software Change Notice
SCN Specification Change Notice
SCN Stock Code Number
SCN Subcontract Change Notice
SCN Supply Chain Navigator
SCN SupraChiasmatic Nucleus
SCN System Change Notice
SCN System Change Number (Oracle)
Next I examined the composite term - Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy (SCN) to locate
definitions. I found them, not necessarily similar, in documents of various departments
and divisions within NAVSEA the command:
SHIPCO
SHIPDA
SHIPDAFOL
SHIPDTO
SHIPGO
SHIPIM
SHIPMAIN
SHIP-CU
SHIP-DM
SHIP-DU
SHIP-ED
SHIP-FA
SHIP-SD
SHIPALT
As the reader can see different uses of the acronym abound. A shipbuilding contractor
who accepts NAVSEA work runs the risk of misinterpretation of terminology. In this
limited survey, SCN means different things to different people within approved official
specifications mandated to a contractor.
It is as a result of my preliminary research that this proposal is offered to you to help
create a glossary with definitions for the Littoral Combat Ship portion of SWE. My goal is to
aid planning, judgement, analysis and testing of littoral vessels by providing a common
ship construction language for new sea frames and associated mission packages. I believe
that any glossary created will require adjustment as the program matures. That decision
will happen over time, adjusted to needs as defined by SWE and NAVSEA.
PROPOSAL
Sobczak proposes to examine the structure and organization of terms within the
SWE/NAVSEA Littoral effort to:
Phase One - Define Key Words and associated content in a glossary and
dictionary for Homogeneous Vessel and Shipyard Construction Terminology
Sobczak will identify words and definitions relevant to focused data mining among
Contractors developing Littoral Ships at any tier now or in the future. Using the
resources at our disposal, we will define relations basic to simplifying the integration of universal
definitions and a workable information sharing scheme. Sobczak proposes to define
the mechanism to collect appropriate information from existing reports, manuals, policies,
procedures, and instructions that contribute to excessive or duplicate definitions in
Navy and Contractor repositories. Shell software will be developed to open forgotten back
doors and trap doors in archived records to collect orphaned information.
N.B.: This logic will be repeated in phases to encompass Sea Frame Technologies,
Mission Systems Technologies, Generic Product Design and Material Technologies,
and, Shipbuilding Facilities and Tooling. Our goal is a common integration of terms.
Phase Two - Configure a end user structured key word/concept dictionary
Sobczak will structure the words and definitions collected and build an assemblage
that mandates commonality across projects and contractors. Emphasis will be to
assure that words are uniquely defined and used consistently in and among any project or
task. Sobczak will suggest a comprehensive glossary and definition management system.
Under contract number F33657-84-C-0090 Sobczak created "A Glossary of Terms
Used in Configuration Management" and "A Glossary of Terms Used in Logistics
Management" for the USAF Aeronautical Systems Division of the Air Force Systems Command. As a
commercial endeavor Sobczak created "A Glossary of Terms Used in Computer Aided
Manufacturing" for the Society of Manufacturing Engineers and the United Nations
International Labor Organization (ILO). We have practical experience in organizing
and simplifying data collection and dissemination.
The Navy requires the result of this proposal in order to assure SWE/NAVSEA
commonality.
WHY THIS EFFORT IS UNIQUE AND INNOVATIVE
In order to properly answer this question a definition is required. Innovation is the
sequencing or addition of activities to create a new element within the corporate unit.
This new element will benefit the corporate unit, some part of it or wider industry as a whole.
Data mining as proposed for cataloging vocabulary and common definitions goes
beyond simple data searches in a way that structures responses (word usage), validates by
monitoring frequency of use and intent, and extracts the meaningful from a universe of
chaff. As an example a Goggle search for the question "What is innovation?" returned
44,000,000 hits.
Less than one hundredth of one percent apply to the intent of the original search terms.
Using the Sobczak created Innovation, Segment Indexed Integrated Databases (SIID),
Sobczak reapplies logic developed as part of the USAF Integrated Computer Aided
Manufacturing (ICAM) Program in a manner that was not anticipated by the original
developers. This is innovation as it expands the intent of the original development in
unanticipated directions. A survey of twenty-nine data base search engines shows
other developers have yet to pioneer focused search results in the innovative manner
created by Sobczak.
Uniqueness implies the first and only person or corporation to implement an innovation.
The concept is time constrained. As an example, when Mr. Henry Ford created his
production line, he was unique. Within five years his competitors duplicated his idea.
He remained first, but was no longer unique. Currently, Sobczak's SIID system for focused
data mining is unique. We will remain so until another chooses to duplicate or attempt
to build upon our efforts. The uniqueness of SIID was demonstrated when Government
clients selected Sobczak to identify product and technical solutions for the USAF B-1B
SPO, USAF XRX Program Office (F-22), US Army LOGMARS, US Navy Man Tech
Office, and many private corporations contracting for the Government. A client list is
published on our website:
http: //sobczaksays.org.
Our vocabulary will be of benefit to SWE, NAVSEA, the US NAVY and the government
in general. It will eliminate duplication and redundancy between and among participants
in any shipbuilding and refurbishment program.
The proposed vocabulary fills a void. With an organization of information in a form
such as the "Wikipedia" and Navy Knowledge On-line (NKO), SWE could have a the first
common vocabulary since the 1947 Liberty Ship Glossary. The only definitions
available prior to WWII were created for the British Royal Navy in 1805. This vocabulary will
differ from the Navy "Know IT" type encyclopedia as it is dynamic rather than static, after a
word is identified. By examining how the particular word or its use affects others in
combination, the Navy will be capable of forecasting and addressing the words relation
to cost-effective building/construction techniques.
By establishing baseline lists that currently do not exist, the vocabulary creates a
convenient means to solidify new technologies while adjusting to the continuing flow of
new inputs (idiom) from various sources. We foresee a continuing need to forecast the
evolution of word usage among evolving technologies in order to assure ongoing
understanding of the intent and application of the term.
This unsolicited proposal does not suggest failure on the part of the Navy or any
specific contracting corporation or agency and in no way violates any agency or firm's
information propriety. As best we see it, the benefits of a common SWE/NAVSEA vocabulary has
to date been underestimated.
Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants has invested our own funds to define and locate
hundreds of data sources appropriate to the mission of common word definitions
applied to shipbuilding. We have amassed commercial text, some of which has been indexed
and structured, using innovative logic we term SEGMENT INDEXED INTEGRATED
DATABASES (SIID). SIID is unique to Sobczak, Consultants. We ask that you
consider using our unusual talents to exploit the ontological weaknesses within current
shipbuilding system design and operation. We assure client security by identifying and isolating
polling points collecting similar technologies or components thereof.
Our research and investment have created a one of a kind unique systems for
identifying a universe of information concerning commercial Bulletin Board Systems and the
special interest groups and the subgroups that tangent from them. Our contacts range from the
most local BBS `(some inside the NSY system) to chatting on-line with hobbyist
professionals within foreign nations. The information we locate and catalog, to afford
clarity, are focused beyond engineer/planner expectation. As one example, in a SIID
search to identify interest in LCS technical topics, a web site based in Thailand and
operating a Technical Blog exhibits an unhealthy interest in LCS activities.
Beyond glossary and vocabulary creation, Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants, Inc. uses
Segment Indexed Integrated Databases (a technique developed by Dr. Sobczak) logic
to research topics such as Technology Transfer, Configuration Management, Logistics
Planning, Project Planning Techniques and the use of Bar Codes and RFID as tools for
manufacturing control. Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants developed a source list of
unofficial research web sites , researchers and relevant design facts that affect
shipbuilding definitions. What proved interesting was polling BBS and Special Interest
Groups to learn if others were performing similar vocabulary research, either knowingly
or as a consequence of other efforts. Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants locating and
cataloging off-the-shelf amateur experts defines a universe of individuals involved in
competitive intelligence concerning advances in LCS ship design. Our efforts do not
duplicate the efforts of Department of Defense security professionals.
Each time we see information that has not been reported in the media, we report our
finding to the agency that in our limited experience seems likely to be responsible for
preventing unauthorized use of such information. It is our experience that no single
agency has responsibility for management of the data collection, analysis and
distribution of the non professionally developed knowledge concerning proprietary shipbuilding
technologies. There is no single source in the Navy to contact when we view
potentially misused terms.
Hobbyist experimenters are the research scientists of the hands-on user community.
Technology transfer is created by those we term, hackers' helpers. Unknowingly, these
professionals put forth a plethora of information that allows a novice to collect, trade
and misappropriate without realizing the consequences of his actions. Professionally
prepared technical information comes available in the hobbyist community from people who
satisfy their egos and insecurities by talking too much and giving away copies of otherwise
unattainable documents. These choice tidbits are a valued reference source in the
off-the-shelf LCS shipboard development process. A frequent source of information
about Naval topics came from NSY, Norfolk. We spoke to a Reservist Naval radio operator
who out of boredom researched and provided technical details about Navy sea frame
systems repair/refurbishment not readily available on any public net.
Those protecting shipbuilding technologies do not listen to the chatter from the national
"we" nor do they catalog the technologies in our media as do creative interlopers.
Targeting the sources of advanced shipbuilding technology is as easy as reading an
NAVSEA or related US Navy source generated planning document, available on the
web, expanded by the directory of knowledge displayed after one uses a search engine to
define specific data. Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants has defined Web site and BBS
data sources by a self developed quality rating system. The upper end BBS is frequented
by advanced degree or experienced professionals. The special interest groups are of a
quality which is rivaled only by post postgraduate seminars. The vocabulary, you
authorize, will be similarly rated but available solely to Naval personnel.
As PhD's specialize so do hobbyists. When a researcher attains super privilege and
exhibits the proper level of involvement, information is passed about freely. The
Washington Navy Yard's NAVSEA and the like have been opened to interested
professionals. Determining the volume of technology available will quickly make an
analyst aware of the vast numbers of ship construction techniques and new ideas that
comprise an insecure database.
A structured vocabulary does not presently exist to help SWE/NAVSEA to focus on the
amount and usefulness of information leaking from Navy repositories. You need such a
vocabulary. Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants is in place to produce that document.
DISCUSSION
Development of concepts such as CAD, CAE, CAM, and CIM justified the major USAF
investment in the automation of manufacturing using computers in the 1980s. The
creation of an architecture for manufacturing served as the basis for attempts to join islands of
automation developed uniquely by multiple contractors. One such effort involved the
transfer of manufacturing information between the USAF and two Prime Contractors.
This effort cost the USAF three million dollars ($3,000,000). Dr. Sobczak while researching
ICAM methodology suggested a more cost effective way to accomplish computer data
systems integration to transfer technology.
During the early ICAM development the USAF Wright Laboratory contracted with Dr.
Sobczak to duplicate, using available off-the-shelf technology, the sub-program,
Integrated Materials Control -Manufacturing Management (IMC-MM). Sobczak's solution proved
that IMC-MM could be replicated for an approximate cost of $300,000 using desktop
computers. In 1984, the test bed host computer was a modest 8088/8087 Personal
Computer utilizing DB II to structure the data being captured.
Sobczak sold knowledge obtained from public records in Federal and Corporate Data
bases to agencies of the Federal Government (USAF/AFSC/B1B/PMW,
USN/DTNSRDC, OD/MTAG, USAF/ASD/XRX, etc.) and to Corporations (Grumman, Loral, etc.)
needing the newly identified solutions. Our logic blends the best parts of the reuse concept with
technology transfer. In every case our solutions cost less than one half that previously
projected by the prime contractor.
Under a separate contract, in 1986, we constructed an SIID structure and two software
packages for ASD/YP (F-16 Fighting Falcon). First, we identified and integrated data
from General Dynamics-Fort Worth, ASD/YPC (configuration), ASD/YPP (Airframe), and
ASD/SI (Support) combining information from one mainframe, two minis and about a dozen
desktops (Z248 & PC80286). The Advanced Automated Configuration Tracking
Information On-line Network (AACTION) feeds an SPO Financial Management System
(FMS). While not tasked to do so, the resulting structure had the capability integrate
the complete F-16 Aircraft Program by tail number, lot, etc. This included the PMRT at
00ALC.
The SIID data repository host was a fast desktop computer using commercial data base
software manipulated by expert system macros produced for the purpose of identifying
targeted topics in various keyword combinations. As the system matured, we migrated
to the CLIPS expert systems engine developed by the NASA Johnson Space Flight
Center and extended at NASA Langley. We currently use a commercial Office Suite.
Information reuse successes are limitless to those capable of developing the practical
means to identify economical solutions. Currently, developers functioning in our
national or economic interest, or, involved in attempts to implement new knowledge, do not
exhibit creativity. They repeat the failures and shortcomings that these same large Defense
Contractors experienced attempting to develop near duplicate technologies for a
different Service in an earlier time. USAF ICAM and NASA IPAD are Government-funded
examples that never attained agency-wide realization. CAM-I's "Framework" provides an
industry-funded example that achieved more success in Europe than in the USA. Semantics,
the lack of a common vocabulary, frustrated systems implementation beyond the initial
single user test bed.
Sobczak created a method to identify common semantics (word definitions) within
archived information that provides a particularism to projects that suffer from supposed
differences. Outcomes are the result of locating and integrating unfocused facts
(misstatements of any unique technical vocabulary). We have generated new
products/ideas in niche markets for entrepreneurs (Grumman, Loral, Waldes Kohinoor,
Solarex, etc.) willing to seek out solutions their competition has ignored.
Many ideas, as originally conceived, are pedestrian in their intended industry/universe.
These ideas become fast track when reapplied to a more amenable niche. Most data,
we identify and restructure, currently reside, unnoticed, in archival holdings located in
public domain, or in corporate, university and government repositories. Our results identify
solutions and approaches that are little used and perhaps forgotten. These
warehoused facts have a high probability to become cost-effective solutions when related or
associated with a specific system or need. Reuse, using Sobczak developed common definitions,
is a natural occurrence.
Segment Indexed Integrated Databases (SIID) is a unique refocusing of USAF
sponsored planning and control techniques, evolved as a part of the Computer Assisted
Manufacturing program of the late 1980's, into areas outside their originally intended
scope. SIID begins by using the idea of a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) not unlike
that defined in original US NAVY research by Booz Allen & Hamilton and, later USAF
PERT/COST by USAF AFSC. The WBS is enhanced using the Penn State University
(Dr. Sun Yung Ham) and USAF Wright Laboratory Manufacturing Technology Division
Group Technology logic. ICAM Group Technology Classification & Coding (GTCC) binds
related data organizations (technical vocabularies), i.e., grouping related characteristics. SIID
groups concepts and ideas. Focus and control are evident when the relation between
ideas and their original intended use, i.e., what we term a simplified matrix
(SIMPLIMATRIX), creates word structures delineating new solutions (knowledge.)
A comment explained later discusses the SIID CAM methodology as identifying 16,000
manufacturing vocabulary terms containing less than 4,500 unique definitions. The
theory speaks pointedly of the duplication and redundancy that are eliminated when logic and
common sense are applied to structure a vocabulary for archived intellectual resources.
Federally sponsored Research and Development components can be integrated to
create or optimize intellectual property in an unexpected manner. Sobczak thinks outside the
box.
Technologists generate data in gigabytes in every subject. Proper capture, logging and
organization of data infers previously unconsidered thoughts. SIID allows those who
research topic word structure (semantics) to expand and capitalize upon useful
tangential knowledge while purging chaff.
We use existing catchwords to structure a search for datum necessary to produce new
facts. SIID optimizes federally funded archival research. Automated architectures
serve as the basis for attempts to join islands of automation. Sobczak optimized this
research He used it to formalize a set of rules for semantic integration. SIID collects archived
information/facts and structures self-asserting word groupings to produce unanticipated
and unintended results. Operations Managers constantly recognize the forest but almost
always miss the trees (solutions) that abound.
For years we have researched knowledge engineering via significance-based code
structures to foster information caching from dissimilar data base (file) structures
hosted on dissimilar hardware. The American Government has tools that when used
non-traditionally, allow knowledge integration to occur in a less complex manner than is
presently evolving as mining of warehoused (archived) information. Our interpretation
of Government tools and methods has been applied uniquely and ubiquitously outside
their originally intended use.
The initial test bed SIID was an integration of the Army, Navy and Air Force data for
Manufacturing Technology. A work breakdown structure of ideas was constructed
based on the six Manufacturing Technology Advisory Group's (MTAGs) technology thrusts.
Initial integration of collected data identified a problem of inter-service semantics (competing
ontologies). A search by Armed Forces and Contractor managers for an individuality
(unique word identity) created a maze of complexity that obscured knowledge
integration and concept reuse. This attempt at uniqueness is typical in any large scale
program.
By Baselining (establishing a standard definition across vocabularies) terms in a
relational matrix, we established common definitions. Twenty-two years later, the
Society of Manufacturing Engineers still publishes Sobczak's Manufacturing Glossary
under the title: "A Glossary of Terms Used in Computer Aided Manufacturing." By
tagging like ideas he related 16,000 self-centered terms from a dozen industry and
contractor subsets into a manageable 4,500 meaningful yet common definitions without
loss of content or context.
We created a Work Breakdown Structure of then current terminology. Since many
basic terms appear at different levels in an organizational stratum, the idea of Group
Technology (GT) was applied non-traditionally. In place of the grouping of like parts,
we grouped like the words explaining concepts, methods and ideas. The result was
akin to a Japanese bonsai tree in shape. It allowed any use of a word, any place in the
organizational strata, to be identified and tracked as one rather than multiple entities.
This procedure eliminates duplicate ideas made different only by their location in an
archival stratum. The SIID allows a DBMS index to reference fewer terms. This, in turn,
allows the relocation of pertinent portions of main frame-based DBMS to personal
computer/work station hard drives. The indexed structure is quantified by using GTCC
to classify and build a SIC/NAICS like structure.
An SIID conducted today might collect inputs from several thousand data bases
worldwide being accessed by numerous search engines (currently 56 engines of 154 total
are available using Copernic Agent 2). The extracted data segments and their reference
tags are the fodder of a unique and innovative ontological (structured word) integration.
We, precisely, place the items of data located into a relational matrix. Dissimilar data
segments eventually integrated using the SIID key word context provides an integrated
universe of previously unrelated information that becomes simple solutions to
here-to-fore complex problems. The initial collection process involved writing software
to extract data as a flat file, convert it to ASCII, transmit it to a newly designated host machine and,
when assembled, merge identified data with other like files. SIID organizes the merged result
and manipulates data using newly assigned common format tags (similar to the 1960's
IBM Corporation "key-words-in-context"). The source DBMS and its host hardware are
irrelevant to the process once we leech the relevant compatible data.
SIID integrates the vocabulary of any DBMS to provide, yet to be considered, unique
and innovative integration into definitions and/or new facts.
In any endeavor the quest for automated productivity is driven by a need for increased
profit. While the Government is not a 'for-profit' organization, its Commands, Divisions
and Systems compete for scarce resources. Those auditing operations judge the cost to
performance ratios as an indicator of managerial success. Return on investment (yield)
optimize available resources so they might accomplish more for less. SIID data
transfer functions bidirectionally. Data created to optimize production can be recycled to bear
on cost effective engineering upgrades. We were retained to provide this logic to the F-16,
B-1B and F-22 aircraft programs and to several commercial product developments. In the case of
evolving weapons systems, SIID word/definition might identify currently ignored production
weaknesses and suggest alternate options identified by the newly created common vocabulary.
In any organization with a highly mobile staff and staff reductions, long term projects
suffer from a discontinuity of corporate memory. To assure consistent and continuous
corporate memory, data must be collected and stored, in a way amenable to prompt efficient and
organized retrieval. The system in operation must be congruous with the policy,
standards and regulations that govern determined need and use. Most programmatic
systems in use by government and industry are dissimilar in goals, architecture and/or structure.
Policy, standards and regulation terminology are not considered by systems creators. This causes
redundant and duplicate data. Potential for efficiency is limited as users depend on incomplete
pieces of knowledge that do not readily integrate nor meet program/project needs.
The development of indexable logic structures, for integrating vocabulary, significantly
reduces the cost to find and expand the availability of needed data. Further, by
Baselining, i.e., establishing a matrix of terminology with common definitions and data
distribution methods, SIID integrates tangent yet related support functions. The ability
to manipulate common data simplifies the search process. The combined effect of
common structured data, input and validated once, yet, available across operational boundaries
can significantly reduce the administrative overhead associated with identifying alternate
use technology and reuse potential.
The extension of SIID mechanisms simplifies arrangement and conversion of dissimilar
data. Common data appears transparent in a designated user format. In place of the
current practice of duplication at high cost, a data management-based host-device can
be programmed to create new unanticipated uses of data at minimal cost. Grouped
information can be modeled and altered to conform to evolving needs. Commonplace
technologies within sea frame "A" become the esoteric solutions to problems plaguing
sea frames "B," "C," and "D" fast builds at little to no additional cost to the Navy.
Uniform data encourages development of trend information within and among
processes being monitored. Users can paper test (model) resultant trends against many
scenarios to optimize solutions. In the same manner as data moving from design to production,
shipbuilding trends can be reapplied to help in optimizing modified engineering designs
and configurations based on content and context without increased costs.
The proposed solution as offered to SWE/NAVSEA is the tip of a yet unmapped
information manipulation iceberg. The use of an integrated knowledge-based system
allows definition of concepts that can be reasonably transferred to other uses.
Quantified decisions allow the prioritization of variables against fixed rules similar to an
engineering design of experiment. The manner in which you view definitions will refocus your
thoughts.
Potential product changes, simulated to predict the effects on time and cost, before
commitment of resources, reduce investment. Depiction of modeled results as three
dimensional spread sheets is possible and realistically attainable. As we gain
experience, the proposed solution becomes more than a generic methodology. It is a real time
lesson learned, to manage, and train, cadre for future efforts within the universe of the
shipbuilding information being reapplied.
Segment Indexed Integrated Data base (SIID) methodology is proprietary. Use of SIID
is a cornerstone upon which unique data definition and automatic technology transitioning
is constructed. A reference library of previous studies allows for the further reduction of
development expenses for new or modified builds. Use of SIID logic is a prime factor in
the achievement of Return on Investment from any ongoing weapons' system
development.
PLAN OF ACTION
1. Obtain a list of contractors and participants by LCS Project from Navy NAVSEA with
authorization to contact them under this contract.
2. Contact each contractor and participant to obtain copies of sample reports,
manuals, planning documents, software manuals and formal notes for each project
identified in 1 above by NAVSEA.
3. By project create word lists with definitions. If definitions are not provided, either
request delineation or suggest definitions based upon best practices. (See Draft
Task Order following this section)
4 Within each project assure that the words used are unique.
5. Within each Project assure that the definitions provided are unique.
6. Prepare a list of duplicate words and/or definitions for correction by the Project
Contractor.
7. Integrate the words and definitions for generic Sea Frame and Mission Packages
8. Repeat step 4.
9. Repeat step 5.
10. Prepare a list of duplicate words and/or definitions for presentation to the NAVSEA
Contract Monitor. NAVSEA must authorize a meeting with contractors in order to
obtain agreement to definitions that may affect understanding of ongoing or
proposed work.
11. Create a Glossary of Shipyard Process Terms with definitions.
12. Create a where used index of definitions within process instructions and production
plans by project.
13. Prepare a Final Report and Presentation.
Phase One DRAFT TASK ORDER (For either employee or independent contractor)
Preface:
This order will become effective when the following three conditions are met:
All hourly estimates and costs per hour per category are entered in the document.
This document is signed by Thomas V. Sobczak and the Independent Contractor
selected to accomplish the task(s).
A valid Government contract number with the name and location of the
Contracting Officer is affixed to this document.
By accepting this Task Order the Independent Contractor (if so decided) agrees to
submit to an audit, if and when, required by the designated Contract Management Agency.
WORK TASK
The selected independent contractor or employee (to be decided) will perform
evaluations of information, as yet undefined, resident in manuals, reports, drawings,
etc. or on the Internet, in File Transfer Protocol (FTP) archives, in Government owned
archives and data repositories, in the archives of contractors to the Government and
in such storage facilities that may be located and made available for evaluations of
appropriate information worldwide.
The selected independent contractor or employee must have available the following
search engines and be conversant in the algebra necessary to structure a query for each
should the information sort be available electronically:
Google.com
Technorati.com
Alltheweb.com
WebFerret.com
clusty.com
ixquick.com
accoona.com
mooter.com
metacrawler.com
copernic.com (Copernic Agent accesses 1254 unique databases)
Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants will provide access to the foregoing, if necessary, and
to similar search engines that might be deemed more appropriate to the research
undertaken.
First Part: The independent contractor or employee will be provided with a
document in order to create a list of words, set of words as appropriate. He or she will be
expected to identify, list, and define all words and ideas that might be included. Synonyms
and close approximations should be explored. Your records must cite the source of the
word(s) you locate including the publisher and date of publication. It is important that you
validate your source.
Note: in previous examinations of words we have found that eighty-five percent of the
universe is located initially. The remaining words and ideas appear as the study
progresses. Information sources will be provided by Thomas V. Sobczak as needed to
define and focus your results. As required, the information sources beyond those
provided are in possession of Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants and are available to you.
Once a list of all appropriate words, ideas and concepts is organized, the definition(s)
of each word or phrase must be compared to all others in order to eliminate duplicate and
redundant word sets. Highlight those word(s), ideas, or concepts where you locate
conflicting definitions for the same word, idea, concept. Pass this list to your coach for
resolution as a part of your weekly report.
On each Tuesday morning, you must provide a written summary of the work
accomplished in the previous week that includes the lists and definitions created and the
time spent in doing exploratory research in word ontology. Include any conflicting definitions
so your coach may become involved. Also, include an estimate of estimated time to complete
the Task. Be advised that the estimate will be treated as a best guess so strive for realism.
NB: Necessary work sheets and structured forms for identification and data collection,
with instructions concerning use, will be provided by Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants.
They remain the property of Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants
Plan Item 3: Using the word(s), ideas and concepts provided and expanded upon
determining if any words located describe research and/or construction involving that
word(s) or idea. The word as originally entered for the first document must be repeated
for each data source (Agency, Contractor, etc.). The task is time consuming, repetitive
and often boring. This said, it is important that no word or document is skipped over.
Documentation must be maintained with appropriate references to provide traceability
from your current location back to the next higher level. When the first word(s) is finished,
move to the second and repeat the process. Keep repeating the process until your word(s)
and ideas are exhausted.
It is important that prior to beginning a search using the Internet, you read and
understand the rules used to format a search query for each engine. As an example to
find references focused only to term you might use:
Thomas Sobczak
Thomas V Sobczak
Thomas V. Sobczak
"Thomas V. Sobczak"
will each produce a different number of returns? In the first three, the words are treated
incrementally. Only the last will produce the desired focused results. Be careful to
assure that words are properly spelled and reasonably associated. Again, read and
understand the search engine rule set.
Documentation is an imperative to prevent confusion during your exploration. Using a
lined pad, indicate the name and location of the search engine. Next, print the search
terms exactly as you entered them upon the search engine. Now, conduct your search.
When you receive a result screen, copy the time of the search and the number of hits.
Do not be frustrated by large numbers of hits. Search engines do not focus. If you
address the search loosely, you will generate dubious hits. Read the search engine help
screens.
Simply by scanning the output on page one of your list, you will be able to know if you
are moving in the right direction. Do not become frustrated if your result does not appear
to be appropriate. Take a step back and review your request and its structure. Did you
tangent away from your topic? Did you misinterpret something? If you are not
satisfied, try the same exact word search on a different engine. If you change the path
you have taken you must adjust the documentation with appropriate notation concerning
the logic for the change/adjustment. Remember, document, document and documentation
guarantees a true picture of your efforts. The client deserves a professional result.
NB: Necessary work sheets and structured forms for identification and data collection,
with instructions concerning use, will be provided by Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants.
They remain the property of Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants
Your first valid and certified word definition will have you smiling. Locating a
meaningful definition is only the beginning. You will forget the boring and time
consuming. Be careful not to become over confident. Validate your result for every word.
When you locate a result that meets the search criteria, i.e., definitions and/or activities
that are about your search word(s), identify the page location and make a summary in
explanation. Add this to your documentation.
On each Tuesday morning, you must provide a written summary of the work
accomplished in the previous week that includes the lists of actions taken and the results
identified and documented, and the time spent in accomplishing your searches. Include
an estimate of estimated time to complete Part Two.
Plan 7: Once you have identified research and/or activities relating to the search
word(s), a more detailed effort can happen coincidentally with the on going search
process.
Again, documentation is an imperative. As you have located a word, next you must
define what the definition is, who created it, and where the definition first appeared, if it is not
already available. The foregoing run on sentence is the meat of our exploration. It is
important that as much documentation as is available for each word is appended to
your report. Equally important is a determination from another source who might certify the
validity of your find. Research/experimentation from a single source should be color
coded Red. Multiple source identification should be coded Green. Information that cannot be
certified by a second source is coded Blue. The Blue items will be addressed by your
coach so as to allow you to continue your task unimpeded.
On each Tuesday morning, you must provide a written summary of the work
accomplished in the previous week that includes documentation of the results identified
and the time spent in doing definition.
NB: Necessary work sheets and structured forms for identification and data collection,
with instructions concerning use, will be provided by Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants.
They remain the property of Thomas V. Sobczak, Consultants
ACTIVITY (i.e., sea frame or component, mission package):
_____________________ ________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
ESTIMATE (The estimate provides a snapshot of the time assumed to be needed to
accomplish the Task based upon the Word(s) provided)
Person Task $ per Hr Hours Total OH
1.
2.
3.
Contract No. Date Issued Contracting Officer
Contractor Date Thomas V. Sobczak Date
PROOF OF PERFORMANCE
Dr. Sobczak will present NAVSEA with a monthly progress letter that explains the activities
undertaken, results of the activities and the costs incurred in the period and cumulative
costs to date. As appropriate copies of Slides/Foils, Reference Materials and any other
documents created as a part of the project will be attached with a suitable explanation.
NAVSEA POTENTIAL GLOSSARY AND DICTIONARY STANDARD
This standard will define the fields subsumed by the umbrella discipline of ship
construction. Any and all topics associated with ship construction and refurbishment
will be included.
Terms and associated definitions will be drawn from authoritative sources both
government and industrial. Every attempt will be made to meet the requirements established
by the American National Standards Institute, the International Organization for
Standardization and suitable US Government and Industry standards.
This document will, when it is complete, will supercede all previous documents of this
type existent in the NAVY.
The purpose of this document is to improve the ship construction and refurbishment
process by providing authoritative common source information (defined words) made
available for general use by program and contractor personnel.
Sections will be added that define the requirements and associated applicable
documents.
Uses of the words identified and defined will be rendered in a unique manner as they
are identified.
Upon acceptance of this unsolicited proposal, a multi-page detailed explanation of this
topic will be included for all words. It will cross reference concepts such as "contrasts
with," "synonymous with," "references" or "see for further explanation." The goal of the
completed document is to provide an easily acceptable definition of the terms identified
and presented to the reader for reference.
RESUME (of the key contributors to the success of this Proposal:)
NB: All Contractor staff are certified disabled or woman owned small business
independent contractors.
Thomas V. Sobczak (Certified Disabled under the ADA)