<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>BUILDING NAVAL VESSELS: A HANDBOOK OF SHIPYARD COSTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/155432</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study investigates and analyzes the shipyard cost of naval combatants, i.e., the costs of those elements of the total ship system for which the shipbuilder is responsible, namely, the costs to the shipbuilder of the construction and assembly of the platform. The analysis, confined to the cost of frigate-sized follow ships, focused on wage scales for production-line and non-production line workers; overhead costs, including supplemental labor costs and fringe benefits; and costs of materials used by the shipyard. The study examines shipyard costs during the 1965/1969 period with costs currently experienced by the shipyard. Based on this analysis, the increased cost at the shipyard of frigate-sized naval combatants can be explained by the following factors: (1) the general inflationary trend within the U.S. economy; (2) increased overhead costs; (3) general increases in capital and energy costs; (4) underutilization of the full capacity of specific segments of the shipbuilding industry; and (5) increased complexity of the modern naval combatant. (Author)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/155432</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MODELING NAVY SHIP AQUISITION, FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE II, PART 1.</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/152102</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The project's objective is to develop a computer-based planning model which will permit the Navy to achieve an efficient work load distribution in the shipbuilding industry through a competitive allocation process.  The Phase I report, "Planning for Navy Ship Acquisition," (see MRIS No. 19 195773), presented the results of a feasibility investigation.  Based upon the positive findings of this initial feasibility study, the Office of Naval Research has funded the initiation of Phase II.  For the present study, "competitive allocation" is the allocation among shipyards of a Five Year Plan which uses the price benefits of competition and the stability benefits of allocation to result in a shipbuilding program which results in minimum cost to the Navy, given other objectives and constraints such as suitable quality of products, attainment of schedules, and maintenance of industry capacity.  To demonstrate the feasibility of modeling competitive allocation, a preliminary model was designed.  This model was based on the comparative efficiencies of individual shipyards and on their behavior in the marketplace.  When fully developed, it will be a tool to inform the Navy of: (1) The desired competitive allocation for Five Year and longer term plans; which distribution of work among yards costs the Navy the least?  (2) The acquisition methods needed to implement the competitive allocation; which yards are appropriate participants in competitions staged by the Navy?  Which yards are appropriate candidates for allocations of ships?]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/152102</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SHIP REPAIR PRICES WILL HARDEN IN THE 80S</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/153015</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The 1980s may offer fewer opportunities for shipowners to obtain ship repair work at quite the bargain basement prices that have been around in the last few years.  In the Far East, Singapore has raised its prices and the Japanese yards seem to be moving increasingly towards a position where they would prefer to repair a smaller number of ships--but at a profit.  In Europe there are signs, very notably in the UK, that Governments do not find the subsidization of ship repair quite such an attraction as they did a year or so back.  In the USA, of course, repair yards have always been in the business to make an honest profit rather than to provide employment opportunities as a philanthropic gesture. There has been quite some investment in the US repair industry of late.  This is continuing, and a return on that investment will be expected.  None of this means that shipowners will cease to get value for money.  It is an indication, though, that prices must become more realistic. Fewer yards are going to be in a position to "buy" work.  If the shipping industry is unable to sustain a more realistic ship repair price level, we can expect to see more redundancies and more ship repair yards closing down.  In providing the schedules of ship repair costs in the article the Salvage Association figures are based on a specification priced by its representatives in the areas concerned on the basis of average prices being encountered during negotiations in their particular area.  This cannot take into account the wide variations in the size of vessels and it is obvious that the largest vessels can only repair in a limited number of ports and even in those ports only very major repairers would be able to handle work on such ships. It is extremely difficult to find like to compare with like on a worldwide basis though it is possible to obtain consistently accurate results within any one area.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/153015</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MANAGING THE SHIPYARD PROCESS--KEY TO SUCCESS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/146904</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There is a basic management plan which controls the Naval Shipyard repair and modernization process.  Goals, milestones, policies, and ancillary support can be properly orientated by correctly defining this system.  The entire process can and must be optimized, but maximizing any particular part without regarding the total will lead to trouble.  In the course of optimization, changes and modifications must be made to present ongoing operations. These required changes will remain hidden and obscured in tradition and emotionalism if not measured against goals. This paper suggests a method of developing a successful process and discusses management methods to assure its success after its development.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 1980 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/146904</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PRELIMINARY SHIP COST ESTIMATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/91569</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The paper suggests a method for assessing the approximate capital cost of merchant ships in the very early stages of design.  It is intended as a guide to ship designers, students and others concerned at the beginning of a new project who may wish to know the ship cost, and how it changes with alterations to principal design variables such as dimensions, weights, powering or carrying capacity.  The method does not supplant more refined techniques used by professional cost estimators at later stages in the design, but it may be useful in circumstances where cost estimating expertise or actual shipyard costs are not immediately to hand.  Simple worked examples are included to demonstrate the application of the method.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 1979 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/91569</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A MANUAL ON PLANNING AND PRODUCTION CONTROL FOR SHIPYARD USE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/84738</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This Manual is a treatise on planning and production control intended for use by the middle level managers and supervisors in a commercial shipyard.  The basic theme is Production Oriented Planning, where planning for the use of resources is oriented squarely with the basic goal of the shipyard, which is to produce quality ships on time at a profit.  The manual is divided into Two volumes.  Volume I is divided as follows: Part I describes a problem that is common in shipbuilding, illustrating the difficulties involved in applying the proper resources in the right amounts at the correct time.  Part II discusses an approach to shipyard improvements by summarizing the basic shipyard function, problems encountered in shipbuilding, and how tightening up the existing planning and production control system will assist in resolving those problems.  It also looks at shipyard operations from the production point of view, and describes the benefits that might be accrued through production oriented planning.  Part III contains guidance for improving an existing planning and production control system.  Specifically, how to evaluate an existing system, how to develop the basic relationships between cost and duration that are needed for measuring improvements, how to identify those locations and functions needing improvement, and how to assemble the engineered standards needed to support the basic improvement process.  Part IV treats the question of overall system effectiveness by developing a method for cost benefit analysis to measure shipyard-wide improvements of tighter system, along with identification of those areas or features that do not pay for themselves and therefore should be abandoned or modified.  The use of automatic data processing is discussed in the context of the economic benefits it may provide. Also covered is how engineered standards will benefit specific portions of shipyard operations, and that the extent of their usage can provide a real measure of overall effectiveness.  Volume II, the supporting appendices, covers the following: A-General Shipbuilding Methods; B-Budgeting; C-Scheduling; D-Performance Measurement; E-Evaluation of Production Performance; F-Planning Group-Organization and Composition; G-Generation of Sample Engineered Standards; H-Automatic Data Processing; I-Basic Statistical Concepts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 1979 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/84738</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR SHIPBUILDING</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/74529</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A computer-based management information system devised by BSRA for use in medium-sized shipyards among its member firms is currently being implemented at the Dundee yard of Robb Caledon Shipbuilders Ltd. by BSRA staff.  The system has been demonstrated as useful for providing up-to-date, convenient information for shipyard management in a form not usually available in the typical shipyard.  This was brought about by successful implementation in another medium-sized shipyard without causing any great demands on the supervisory management of the yard.  The main point has been the co-ordination of contract data which is normally handled in a different manner by each of the departments concerned, e.g., estimating, production and accounting.  The discipline which the system imposes of collecting feed-back data on both man-hours and material costs in a regular and detailed fashion, allied to the routine production of fortnightly reports, has proved to be of great value.  The system is based on a Project Network Analysis (PNA) program adapted to meet special circumstances obtaining in the shipbuilding environment. (No Further info in article)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 27 Aug 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/74529</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PREDICTING OVERHAUL COSTS IN PUBLIC SHIPYARDS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/69075</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Historical cost control data are reviewed in a non-dimensional basis and a method is developed for fixed pricing large, high-risk overhauls in public shipyards. This method is then applied as a control measure to monitor the projection of end cost.  Recommendations are given which could improve the Shipyard Management Information System (MIS) and the shipyard's ability to utilize information contained in this system.  By using the fundamental concepts presented in this paper as an educational tool, funds administrators can further develop the cost prediction, analysis and control processes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/69075</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COMMERCIAL SHIPBUILDERS: RISK AND REWARD</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/40231</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article evaluates the risk and reward experience of the U.S. shipbuilding industry with government contracts.  Risk and reward are considered from the viewpoint of the contractor.  Concentration is therefore placed on financial risk, the underlying factors which create financial risk, the sharing of such risk between the contractor and the government, and the relationship between risk and reward in industry.  The contractor's risk can be defined as the inability to project the level of future rewards with certainty.  Profit is only one measure of this reward. Equally important to a corporation is the ability to project future cash flows.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1975 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/40231</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RELATIVE COST OF SHIPBUILDING</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/20490</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Report to Congress on the Relative Cost of Shipbuilding in the Various Coastal Districts of the United States.  The report is prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 213 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and describes the relative cost of construction or reconditioning of ocean vessels in shipyards in the various coastal districts of the United States together with recommendations on how shipyards may compete for work on an equalized basis.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 1974 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/20490</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF US NAVAL SHIPBUILDING COSTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/9032</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This Report examines the investment cost of U.S. naval ships in order to determine whether alternative procurement practices might lead to reduced costs.  The analysis has been limited to privately owned shipyards in the United States and other selected countries and has only been concerned with that portion of the work carried out in the shipyard (i.e., it has not considered Government-furnished equipment).  The Report identifies three ways in which the procurement cost of U.S. naval ships could be reduced. First, research indicated that between 1951 and 1965 the U.S. Navy could have aggregated its ship purchasing so as to realize fully those cost reductions typically associated with volume procurement.  Second, the U.S. naval shipbuilding industry could have exhibited more efficiency than it did given U.S. factor costs.  Third, the U.S. Navy could purchase ships from selected foreign shipbuilders at reduced cost.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1973 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/9032</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE PROBLEMS OF ESTIMATING COSTS OF NAVAL SHIPS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/9033</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Problems discussed in this paper are those relating to methodology for estimating costs of new naval vessels at the preliminary design stage.  Traditional approaches are discussed and evaluated with the benefit of numerical results.  The importance of economic and engineering variables is considered and alternative procedures are proposed for their use.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1973 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/9033</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RELATIVE COST OF SHIPBUILDING</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/9721</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This fiscal 1973 study report to the Congress shows the cost differential between the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coast shipyards to be relatively small.  Bids from the various areas do not reflect the theoretical variations in costs.  As in the past the recommendation is made that geographical cost differences be considered not sufficiently significant to justify any remedies to equalize costs between the coastal districts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1973 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/9721</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SURVEY OF COST DIFFERENTIALS AND OTHER FACTORS-PRIVATE VS. NAVAL SHIPYARDS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/4059</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report discusses findings on cost differentials and also the capability of private yards to work on Navy vessels.  Exhibits presenting correspondence with the Navy and their responses are included in an appendix to the report.  The primary sources of information for the analysis were: (a) Financial and Operating Statements, Navy Industrial Fund, June, 1970.  (b) Shipbuilding and Repair Cost Data Questionnaires.  (c) Shipyard Capability Evaluation Questionnaires.  (d) Correspondence with Department of Navy officials.  (e) Correspondence with private shipyard industry members.  The information gathered from these sources was supplemented with statistics published by the Bureau of the Census, the Internal Revenue Service, and Dun & Bradstreet.  The approach used to measure what is termed the "Total Cost Differential" between work performed in private versus Naval yards was to compare both the man-hours expended by private and Naval yards to accomplish like jobs and the cost of a man-hour of effort in private and Naval yards.  The man-hour, or performance, comparisons were based on the DLG conversion program.  The comparison of the cost of a man-hour of effort was based on computations of the Value Added per Production Worker Hour in private and Naval shipyards.  Value Added per Production Worker Hour is a standard measure reported by the Bureau of the Census.  The results of the survey indicate that based on the DLG conversion program information, the Naval yard is expending 39 to 52 percent more man-hours than the private yard to accomplish a similar job.  It was also found that an hour of production worker time costs 49 percent more in Naval shipyards than in private shipyards. The combined impact of these two factors yields a Total Cost Differential of approximately 109 to 124 percent.  This indicates that measured on a Value Added basis, the cost of performing ship work is over twice as high in Naval shipyards as it is in private shipyards.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 1972 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/4059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>