Technology capability of Indonesian medium-sized shipyards for ship production using Product-oriented Work Breakdown Structure method (case study on shipbuilding of Mini LNG vessel)

Abstract

The intense competition in the field of new shipbuilding business today requires shipyards to increase their productivity in terms of quality, cost, on-time delivery performance, and flexibility. Product-oriented Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS)-based steel ship production technology has played a vital role in the shipyard’s success in competition. A block and modular assembly approach using the PWBS method was prepared to guide shipyards. This paper presents a study on the technology capability of four selected Indonesian medium-sized shipyards and one leading shipyard as the benchmark in using the PWBS method. The technology capability in shipbuilding is measured using the technometric assessment model by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), which consists of four indicators; technoware, humanware, infoware, and orgaware. The results show that the shipyards’ Technology Coefficient Contribution (TCC) is between 0.5 and 0.7 (TCC maximum 1.0). This value indicates that the four shipyards in this case study are capable of building ships based on PWBS method. However, some aspects have to be improved to ensure the method is implemented properly, including: better design software that could prepare comprehensive production engineering documents, production lane with more automation, and more crane capacity. Of course, large additional investments must be supported by continuous orders for new ships with relatively the same type and size of ships, so that they are more productive and gradually able to compete in the global market.

Keywords:

• shipyards
• shipbuilding
• PWBS method
• technology capability
• technometric

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Research and development of mini LNG vessel is a part of the National Research Priority Program of Indonesia, 2020–2024, related to the global regulation and government policy in industry sectors. Numbers of this typical vessel are needed to distribute LNG to remote islands within the country. A ship design of Mini LNG was developed by the Agency of Assessment and Application of Technology of Indonesia in 2021. The vessels are expected to be built in the national middle-sized shipyards. However, low productivity of the shipyards needs to be overcome by the application of Product-oriented Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS) method as widely implemented in high competitive shipyards in the world. This research work was conducted to evaluate and measure technology capability of the shipyards in building the ships using advanced production technology based on the PWBS method both block and modular construction approach.

1. Introduction

In view of an archipelago country, Indonesia requires many small and medium-sized ships to ensure inter-island connectivity and the need for industry operations within the country, including Mini Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) ships to supply LNG for electric power plants and other industries throughout Indonesia. A Mini LNG vessel of 36 Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) has been designed for LNG distribution in remote areas. This type of ship is needed in large numbers, and its construction is expected to be carried out domestically. However, the productivity level of national shipyards is still very low, impacting long delivery times and large production costs. Hence, the construction of this type of ship needs to be linked to the development efforts of the national shipbuilding industry with technology and production management oriented to high productivity. On account of the largest archipelago country in the world, Indonesia needs to ensure inter-island connectivity by using maritime transportation. The importance of the transportation equipment industry has been defined by the National Industrial Development Master Plan Year 2015–2035 in the 10 industry priorities, as known as “Rencana Induk Pembangunan Industri Nasional (RIPIN).”

Maritime transportation in Indonesia plays a key role in the inter-island connectivity. LNG shipping illustrates this point clearly. As an archipelago country, the majority of natural gas transportation in Indonesia was done via pipelines and vessels. Typically, small-scale LNG vessels are attracting special attention in Indonesia due to the need to transport LNG to supply demand within the country using ships. The natural gas market is globally growing in size (Raju et al., 2016), and the use of LNG will likely increase significantly within the next two decades (Al-Yafei et al., 2021, 2021) due to global regulation and promotion to use clean energy. In the shipping sector, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has established a limitation of CO₂ volume for ships. The regulation has been also ratified by the Indonesian Government since 2020. This, of course, a large number of various types of new ships will be procured for both ocean-going and inter-island shipping. Table 1 shows the potential market for new buildings to serve inter-island transportation, as obtained from the Association of Indonesian Ship and Offshore Facilities Industry Companies (IPERINDO, 2019), including the need for Mini LNG vessels for electrical powerplant for remote islands, as obtained from a feasibility study by Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology Indonesia (BPPT, 2021).

Table 1. Market potential for new shipbuilding in Indonesia

No	Type of Vessel	Size	Total
1	Mini LNG	1324–7809 M3	30
2	General Cargo	≤10.000 DWT	618
3	Bulk Carrier	≤70.000 DWT	21
4	Container	≤1.800 TEU’S	245
5	Oil Tanker	≤30.000 DWT	215
6	Ferry Ro-Ro (Roll on-Roll off)	≤6.000 GT	218
7	Tug Boat	≤3.000 HP	336
8	Supply Vessel	≤3.000 HP	31
		Total	1714

Sources: IPERINDO (2019) & BPPT (2021).

Growing of new building orders in Indonesia itself is a big chance of the national shipbuilding industries to build domestically, but they have to be more competitive than overseas shipyards. So far, some of the national shipyards have long experience in building various types of ships mostly from the government order. They have low capability to compete in free market due to low productivity, particularly in terms of production cost and time delivery. They have difficulty gaining profit from new building orders, even some of them have been suffering from losses due to delays.

The shipbuilding industry is highly competitive in the globalized market. Production technology can play an important role in addressing the issue of the competitive advantages for medium-big-sized shipyards, especially ones building new ships. It is believed that technology can increase ship quality and minimize cost by making more efficient and productive use of the same resources. Production technological capabilities are the foundation for shipyard business performance. Regarding the manufacturing process for new shipbuilding, technology is viewed as a tool for converting inputs into outputs. However, the main issue for medium-sized shipyards is a lack of production technology. Lack of production technology can reduce medium-sized shipyard’s business performance and competitiveness.

The term “technology” refers to a combination of hardware and software characterized by technoware, humanware, inforware, and orgaware (THIO). Regarding technology assessment, technometric is a powerful method used to evaluate the components of technoware, humanware, inforware, and orgaware in the shipyard. The framework was proposed by UNESCAP (1989). This method is particularly useful in studying technology content analysis.

A shipyard is an Engineering To Order (ETO) production system of the shipbuilding industry that designs and manufactures new shipbuilding in response to customers’ orders (Centobelli et al., 2023; Nam et al., 2018). In general, the customer provides specifications to shipbuilder based on (Mandal, 2017): the ship’s type, the weight or volume of shipment to be transported, the ship’s operating route, and the ship’s speed of cruising. ETO manufacturing systems present highly customized products under low volumes and long delivery times. For this reason, decision-making in ETO manufacturing systems is very complex. A lack of information can lead to an uncertainty problem in decision-making (Ciptomulyono et al., 2022). It has been reported that a shipyard can be considered as a complex system that is typically characterized by (Zennaro et al., 2019): a high degree of customization, low-volume of similar end-product, long manufacturing lead time, having no standard components, assembly of large-scale modules composed of numerous sub-assemblies; complex bill of materials, multiple skilled workers present in the identical workstation, required large shop floor area, and specific tools are required for moving parts or a subassembly from one workstation to another.

It has been believed that the PWBS method able to improve safety, work environments, better quality, and higher productivity (Okayama & Chirillo, 1982). However, previous works (Ma’ruf et al., 2006, 2009) have addressed the problem of technology capability in new shipbuilding medium-sized shipyards using PWBS production method. PWBS is suitable for large ships, but it is important for small-scale ships. It is still unknown whether production technology in medium-sized shipyards can build mini LNG vessels using modular assembly methods. Previous research has mostly not considered comparing technology capability on block and modular assembly methods. Therefore, our research questions are:

1. What stages should be included in a generic new shipbuilding process using PWBS?

2. How to determine the technological production capabilities of medium-sized shipyards to build mini LNG vessels using a modular assembly approach?

3. How is modular assembly different from block assembly?

The purposes of this study are:

1. Determining shipbuilding processes of mini LNG vessels using PWBS

2. Assessing the technological contents of medium-sized shipyards in shipbuilding using block and modular assembly approach

3. Comparing technology capability among the shipyards between block and modular assembly.

In this paper, a case study of Mini LNG Ship 36 TEU’s is used to evaluate the technology capability of some major middle-sized Indonesian shipyards in building the ship based on PWBS method. The ship’s specifications are as follows: length overall 56.25 m, length water line 50.57 m, length perpendicular 49.58 m, breadth (B-moulded) 12.40 m, depth (H-moulded) 3.50 m, draft (T-loaded) 3.50 m, crews 12 persons, maximum speed 12 Knots, main engine power 2 × 600HP, LNG ISO tank 36 TEU’s. In this case, the LNG ISO tank containers will be provided after the ship’s completion. As a result, from the ship production point of view, this type of ship is generally the same as other similar ships above 50 meters in length, where the ship’s hull is constructed based on the PWBS approach. For smaller sizes, the ship is mostly constructed based on System-oriented Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS) approach.

The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows: Section 1 describes the literature review. The research methodology is provided in Section 2. Section 3 presents the results and discussion. Section 5 summarizes the paper’s main findings and conclusions.

2. Literature review

2.1. State of the art

Daellenbach and Mcnickle (2005) categorized the hierarchy of a systems view of manufacturing as a narrow system of interest, wider system, and an environment of the system. In the literature (Black & Hunter, 2003; Groover, 2016; Hitomi, 1996), the term production system tends to be used to refer to people, machines, materials, and information that are all considered collectively to perform a company’s manufacturing operations. Furthermore, there are three basic categories of human participation in the processes performed by production systems (Groover, 2016): manual work systems, worker-machine systems, and automated systems. Most of the works of literature on technology content and capability assessment have been published; their studies mostly focus on the firm system level in mass-production industry (Alizadeh, 2012), as summarized in Table 2. Most of the technometric model described in the table enables the determination of the technology contribution coefficient at the firm level. However, in an engineering-to-order (ETO) and build-to-order (BTO) types of industry, there may be numerous production stages involved in a production system. The assessment of technology capability in shipbuilding production systems as a job-order industry has yet to be found. These studies would have been more useful if they had focused on technology capability assessment on the multi-stage production system of shipbuilding. Therefore, this study will be focused on a narrow production system in the shipbuilding business process as narrow system of interest rather than a firm system as wider system, as shown in the table.

Table 2. Summary of state of the art: comparison of previous works with the current study

Authors	Model	Methods	Case study	Research contributions area within system level
				Production system	Firm system	Business system	Industry system
Sharif (1988)	(UNESCAP (1989)	Technometric	Steel industry		√	√	√
Wiratmadja and Setiawati (2011)	(UNESCAP (1989)	SEM-PLS	Rattan industry		√
Mirzapour Al-E-Hashem et al. (2018)	(UNESCAP (1989)	Technometric	Automotive		√
Antesty et al. (2020)	(UNESCAP (1989)	Technometric	Automotive		√
Aqidawati et al. (2022)	(UNESCAP (1989)	Technical & economic assessment	Electric motorcycle battery		√
This study	(UNESCAP (1989)	Technometric	Shipbuilding	√

2.2. The build strategy

As mentioned above, a mini LNG vessel of 36 TEU’s is used in this case study, excluding the LNG ISO tanks since the tanks will be provided after launching the ship. Consequently, from the ship production point of view, this type of ship is generally the same as other similar ships above 50 meters in length, where the ship’s hull is constructed based on the PWBS approach. For smaller sizes, the ship is mostly constructed based on System-oriented Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS) approach.

At the production engineering stage, the ship’s hull is usually divided into blocks of a specific size according to the crane’s capabilities. The blocks are produced in parallel, which is integrated with the work of outfitting ships. The blocks are then lifted into the building berth to be erected (Park et al., 2014). In ship production, modular assembly is slightly different from block assembly. The broad use of the term module is sometimes equated with parts of a more extensive system that are structurally independent but work together (Baldwin & Clark, 2018). In general, the modular assembly is the same as the grand block, where the grand block consists of several blocks before being transported to the building berth, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Block method.

Figure 2. Modular method.

The modular assembly method has many advantages compared to the block assembly method. The modular assembly will further shorten the construction period in the building berth and will provide convenience for workers with a more comfortable working environment and better product quality, especially if the ship module is made under a covered workshop. Ben-Daya et al. (2016) also mentioned that modular design includes: simplification of product design, shorter design time, easy module removal and replacement, independent module inspection, lower skill level and fewer tools required in the field.

In modular assembly, the underlying technology in one or more functional elements changes, but the product architecture does not (Cantamessa & Montagna, 2016). Modular assembly is more complex than it appears. The true benefits of this type of construction can be realized only if specialized construction facilities, as well as carefully designed and laid out outfitting facilities that complement the build strategy, are available (Agarwala, 2019).

The following briefly describes shipbuilding business processes in the production system. The key aspects of shipbuilding business prosses can be listed as follows: process design, design review, production engineering, quality assurance, and production preparation, execution, also quality control. This system of shipbuilding business prosses was developed for the purpose of determining the system level to be assessed for technology content in shipbuilding—the basic business processes in new shipbuilding, as shown in Figure 3. Technoware, humanware, inforware, and orgaware are the four technological components that transform the inputs of a transformation facility into output.

Figure 3. Basic businessprocesses in new shipbuilding.

2.3. Product-oriented Work Breakdown Structure

Product-oriented Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS) concept is an advanced ship production method developed from Group Technology production method that is mainly adopted by modern shipyards to implement Integrated Hull-construction, Outfitting, and Painting (IHOP) to achieve the highest productivity in the shipbuilding process. The PWBS converts all complex ship fabrication methods into standard line of production processing and assembly, which can shorten the time required compared to traditional methods (Wan Abd Rahman et al., 2019). The PWBS employs Group Technology (GT) logic, a technique for employing mass production strategies for a wide variety of products in varying quantities. In ship construction, PWBS classifies the ship’s components into fabrication and sub-assembly parts to achieve a uniform and coordinated workflows (Koenig et al., 1997). Parts and subassemblies are classified based on common permanent characteristics based-on design and manufacturing attributes. Typically, the classification system specifies parameters such as shape, dimensions, tolerances, and material, as well as the types and complexity of machinery operations (Storch et al., 1996). First, PWBS classifies shipbuilding work into three categories: fabrication, hull construction, and outfitting. Second, PWBS categorizes resource products based on their resource requirements, such as material, workforce, facilities, and expense. Third, classifying based on the four product aspects; system, zone, problem area, and stage. In practice, the application of the PWBS method is the integration between hull construction work and outfitting (O/F) work, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Ship productionscenario based on PWBS model.

3. Research methodology

The present study utilizes a case study research approach, as explained by Yin (2018), in which a small number of cases are chosen in their real-life context (comparative case study), and the assessments gathered from these cases are analyzed qualitatively (Dul & Hak, 2008). The study used a combination of methods, including assessment and interviews. The investigations at different shipyards were conducted using the same method to allow for a good comparison. The shipyards may be classified based on size and production technology capability into three main categories; small, medium, and big. Our study focused on classifying shipyards into two groups: best-practice shipyards and medium-sized shipyards. The first stage in our study is doing a literature review, determining the technology assessment method, and selecting shipyards to be studied for benchmarking. Benchmarking can be defined as comparing and assessing the production technology of medium-sized shipyards or its internal processes with those of best-in-class performers of the shipyard. Being chosen as the best practice shipyard for benchmarking in this study, shipyard X is a reputable global shipbuilding company in Indonesia. Figure 5 presents an overview of the research methodology.

Figure 5. Research framework.

The study was conducted as a field survey, with data being gathered via assessment. The assessment instrument was constructed based on UNESCAP model, a direct survey on site, and discussion with shipyard management. It aims to assess THIO components in the stage of shipbuilding processes by using two building approaches (block and modular assembly methods). In order to achieve reliability of the instruments we inserted keywords from the keywords the UNESCAP framework to each criterion of measuring instruments for degrees of sophistication and scoring procedures for the components of technology.

The assessments were carefully scored based direct survey and discussion with shipyard management on-site, and followed by focus group discussion of related experts to minimize subjectivity. The questionnaire-based research instrument was constructed and distributed to the top and middle-level management of the shipyard. This questionnaire aims to assess the level of sophistication technology components in the multi-stage production system of shipbuilding. Each question includes three scales of score for the respondent to indicate their level of agreement. A score of 10 is given to criteria considered best practice in the industry. While a score of 0 is given to the worst criterion in the industry. After this, data collection or assessment of technology contents in the shipyard production system is to be done. This is exemplified in the design stage in the work undertaken in the appendix. Furthermore, in a similar way, the following stage can be completed. In addition, the calculation of sophisticated technology components based on equations 1(1) $S{T}_i=\frac{1}{10}\left[\frac{{\sum }_k^K{t}_{ik}}{K}\right]k=1,2,\cdots K$(1) to 4(4) $S{O}_{\hspace{0.17em}}=\frac{1}{10}\left[\frac{{\sum }_n^N{O}_n}{N}\right]n=1,2,\cdots N$(4) is the next stage in the work by classifying technology components using UNESCAP model.

Overall technology contribution can be calculated based on the level of sophistication of technology components (ST_i, SH_j, SI, and SO) as follows:

• i. SOTA rating of Technoware for i-th item:

  (1) $S{T}_i=\frac{1}{10}\left[\frac{{\sum }_k^K{t}_{ik}}{K}\right]k=1,2,\cdots K$(1)
  Where $t_{ik}$ is the k-th criteria score for the i-th technoware item.For example: in a shipyard, items in technoware can be design workshop, fabrication workshop, sub-assembly workshop, assembly workshop, erection facility

• ii. SOTA rating of Humanware for j-th category:

  (2) $S{H}_j=\frac{1}{10}\left[\frac{{\sum }_l^L{h}_{ij}}{L}\right]l=1,2,\cdots L$(2)
  Where $h_{ij}$ is the i-th criteria score for j-th category humanware.The humanware includes workers, supervisors, executives, managers, and R&D personnel.

• iii. SOTA rating of Infoware:

  (3) $S{I}_{\hspace{0.17em}}=\frac{1}{10}\left[\frac{{\sum }_l^L{f}_m}{M}\right]m=1,2,\cdots M$(3)
  Where $f_m$ is the m-th criterion score for infoware at the shipyard production system

• iv. SOTA rating of Orgaware:

  (4) $S{O}_{\hspace{0.17em}}=\frac{1}{10}\left[\frac{{\sum }_n^N{O}_n}{N}\right]n=1,2,\cdots N$(4)
  Where $f_m$ is the n-th criterion score for orgaware at the shipyard production system

4. Results and discussion

The shipbuilding business process is complex, having numerous sub-systems and factors, thus needing help to fully comprehend. Therefore, it requires good production planning to ensure the production process runs smoothly and fulfills the ship’s technical specification and classification rules in an effective way. As a complex system it can be managed by breaking it down into sub-systems and studying each one separately. Hence, the business process of shipbuilding in detail based on the Product-oriented Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS) method can be employed, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Detail shipbuilding business prosses based on PWBS.

Mini LNG vessel is complex systems with numerous interacting sub-systems and components. For this reason, a mini LNG vessel with PWBS-based ship production is divided into 10 blocks and 6 modules, based on discussion results with shipyard experts and shipyard representatives, as presented in Figure 7. As it is shown, only two modules have a hull’s weight of more than 100 tons (M1 and M2), and the others are smaller; even its superstructure module (M5) has less than 20 tons in weight, as indicated in Table 3.

Figure 7. Block and Modul Division for production of Mini LNG ship.

Table 3. Module’s weight of Mini LNG vessel 36 TEU’s

BLOCK/MODULAR WEIGHT (W)-Mini LNG Vessel 36 TEU’s
BLOCK/MODULAR		Module (M)-1	Module (M)-2	Module (M)-3	Module (M)-4	Module (M)-5	Module (M)-6
POSITION		FR −2~FR17(+)450	FR17(+)450 ~FR37(+)150	FR FR37(+)150~FR57(+)150	FR 57(+)150~FR77(+)150	FR 77(+)150~FR87	FR −2~FR17
REF FROM AP (m)		−1,200 ~ 10650	10,650 ~ 22350	22,350 ~ 34350	34,350 ~ 46350	46,350 ~ 52200	−1,200 ~ 10350
W (TON)	HC	53.514	91.480	74.196	89.408	8.610	17.852
	MO	25.553	7.768	0.213	0.216	0.017	0.000
	HO	22.358	3.112	12.042	2.015	7.713	33.800
	EO	0.937	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.052	1.242
	TOTAL	102.363	102.360	86.451	91.638	16.393	52.895

All modules are planned to be constructed in separate areas and completed by planned outfitting works inside before moving to the building berth. In PWBS method, this modular assembly is commonly recognized as ring block or grand block, which aims to reduce the building berth’s construction period. However, building a ship by using the modular assembly method requires more crane capacity or using big capacity land transporter to move the ship’s modules to the building berth. Otherwise, the ship’s blocks are transported and erected directly at the building berth based on the availability of crane capacity. Based-on our investigation of the selected shipyards, they have a possibility of building the ship with modular assembly by space arrangement and using a land transporter that may be rented from outside

In this work, we conducted a case study involving five Indonesian shipyards. We selected shipyards with different characteristics, i. e. one represents best practice shipyard (X), and the other four shipyards (A, B, C, D) represent medium-sized shipyards. Table 4 provides cross-case comparisons of the selected shipyards. When studying a shipyard’s production system, broad production stages comprised of standard generic activities are identified. The first question in this study sought to determine a generic modern shipbuilding process using PWBS method.

Table 4. Summary of case analysis on technology components contribution

Technology Components		Case (Shipyard)
		Shipyard A	Shipyard B	Shipyard C	Shipyard D
Technoware	Basic aspects in shipbuilding	Availability of design software and hardware to develop production drawings based on PWBS method and production facilities to execute them properly as planned. The level of technology used in production processes and technology used in quality control and testing techniques could determine the productivity level.
	Component Contribution	Block: 0.71 Modular: 0.56	Block: 0.65 Modular: 0.60	Block: 0.62 Modular: 0.53	Block: 0.59 Modular: 0.52
Humanware	Basic aspects of shipbuilding	Skills and knowledge capability of human resources in preparing design, drawings, and production engineering documents as needed, capability and creativity of production workforce to perform all planned drawings and documents properly.
	Component Contribution	Block: 0.75 Modular: 0.73	Block: 0.75 Modular: 0.75	Block: 0.71 Modular: 0.67	Block: 0.73 Modular: 0.69
Infoware	Basic aspects of shipbuilding	Availability of design and production integration scheme, block assembly and erection sequences, quality plan and inspection and test plan (ITP), complete build strategy, procurement schedule, master and detail schedules, and operating manuals.
	Component Contribution	Block: 0.83 Modular: 0.78	Block: 0.62 Modular: 0.57	Block: 0.81 Modular: 0.69	Block: 0.73 Modular: 0.69
Orgaware	Basic aspects of shipbuilding	The role and effectiveness of the management structure of the company and project organization chart, marketing effort, system operating procedures (SOP), quality management system (ISO 9001 series), and human resource management.
	Component Contribution	Block: 0.77 Modular: 0.75	Block: 0.71 Modular: 0.63	Block: 0.79 Modular: 0.74	Block: 0.75 Modular: 0.75
Technology Coefficient Contribution (TCC)		Block: 0.76 Modular: 0.70	Block: 0.68 Modular: 0.64	Block: 0.73 Modular: 0.65	Block: 0.70 Modular: 0.66

Based on empirical study and results found in the literature, we have addressed generic shipbuilding processes. Figure 8 depicts typical block assembly sequences of a Mini LNG Vessel. Shipbuilding is an ETO industry, which means that a new ship is designed and built in response based on the ship owner’s order and delivered to the ship owner after completion. The stage of the shipbuilding processes is as follows: design, fabrication, sub-assembly, assembly, erection, and supporting are some general stages that could be included in a classification system.

Figure 8. Example of block and modular assembly sequences on Mini LNG vessel.

The second question in this research is how the technology capabilities of medium-sized shipyards can build the ship using modular assembly method. Nowadays, two steel-based shipbuilding alternatives exist, including bock and modular assembly methods. Both production process is basically the same, their difference is the size and weight of the block erected at the building berth. This would affect its engineering preparation and shipbuilding facilities. Therefore, further analysis of THIO’s capabilities is needed by calculating the Technology Coefficient Contribution (TCC) based on the results of the questionnaire survey.

It can be concluded that the selected shipyards are classified as good capability in building ships based on PWBS method, both block and modular construction. However, in order to be more effective in implementing the method, some aspects need to be developed, such as: design and engineering, crane facility and panel lane system. Furthermore, it is found that design and engineering capability is the most important factor for middle-sized shipyard in implementing the PWBS method. As shown in Table 4, the TCC value of the selected shipyards is between 0.68 and 0.76 for block assembly methods and between 0.64 and 0.70 for modular construction (TCC maximum 1.0), where the values are classified as good capability based on UNESCAP (1989) and Antesty et al. (2020).

Compared to the benchmarking shipyard X, the technology capability of the middle-sized shipyards is still much lower, as shown in Figure 9. The results obtained from the overall assessment of the block assembly method are presented in Figure 9(a). This spider web diagram represents the score (with the radial axis on a scale from 0 to 1) for four technology components. The diagram is effective in comparing the technology contents of shipyards in a single chart. This diagram can provide a direct indication of the components that are most likely to contribute to potential increases in the total contribution of components.

Figure 9. TCC comparison of block (a) and module (b) construction before erection.

The graph indicates that shipyards A and C are substantially more advanced in infoware than the other two medium-sized shipyards, shipyards D and B, respectively. This is partly because shipyards A and C often receive orders from government agencies and private companies that require multiple quality assurance certificates and standards. Meanwhile, it is apparent at the vertical axis that shipyards A and B have the highest level of technoware compared to shipyards C and D successively. Nevertheless, it appears that the technological level of humanware among the medium-sized shipyards is almost similar. Moreover, the technological level of orgaware in shipyard B is lower than the three others detected as shown in the figure. The lack of orgaware in Shipyard B may be due to the lean organization in the venturing framework, as indicated in Table 4.

The next section of the assessment result was concerned with the modular technology component. Figure 9(b) compares the Technoware, Humanware, Infoware, and Orgaware (THIO) results obtained among the five assessments of shipyards. As can be seen in Figure 10(b), the technology component contribution of four medium-sized shipyards reported to be significantly different from the best practice shipyard. It is clear from the spider web diagram that the greatest contents of modular technology were provided by Shipyard X. Furthermore, and shipyard B is a greater score in technoware than the other three medium-sized shipyards. There was slightly more modular technoware in Shipyard B than in shipyard A. It is almost certain that more technoware capabilities in building modular ships are the result of design engineering facilities and capacities. Nevertheless, compared with shipyards A, C, and D, Shipyard B is more lack of infoware. One reason why the level of technoware in Shipyard B has declined is that they have preferred to focus on innovation in engineering design rather than provide a primary source of human creativity associated with a tool-based task consisting of facts, systemized concepts, and profession-specific rules. Moreover, the lack of orgaware in Shipyard B was detected, as shown in Figure 10. A possible explanation for this might be due to the implementation of a lean organization. Another important finding is that the technological level of humanware among medium-sized shipyards is almost similar.

Figure 10. Technoware contribution.

What emerges from the results reported here is that there was a lower level of modular technology capability in medium-sized shipyards than block technology. This interesting finding could have been generated by a lack of resources, uncertain time of material/part availability for implementing modular design, and uncertain order of new shipbuilding. These findings suggest that to employ modular assembly, the shipyards should encourage the level of technological level in technoware by enhancing engineering design focused on modularity design and improving the capacity of physical tools for fabrication and assembly. This suggestion is associated with Haines and Sharif (2006) emphasized that technological innovation means more sophistication.

Turning now to the study evidence on technology components contribution. The contribution of modular technology components in each stage can be observed from Figure 10 until Figure 13 as follows. Generally speaking, these figures present chart compares values of technology component coefficients over shipbuilding stages. The column bar chart presents technology component coefficients of four stages of shipbuilding processes from design to module erection among four medium-sized yards. It is clear from Figure 10 that the level of technoware higher in the first three stages than in the last two stages, the block assembly and module erection stage. Design and fabrication are vital stages of shipbuilding processes to contribute technoware components. Several factors could increase design and fabrication capability, including advanced software and hardware availability to develop production drawings that integrate the outfitting works, both on-block stage and on-modular stage. Shipyard B has the highest level of technoware component coefficient at 0.17 in the design stage among the medium-sized shipyards. The availability of design software is generally seen as a factor strongly related to technoware component coefficients in the design stage. In summary, the figure indicates the capability in the block and module assembly stage is still low, due to lack of crane capacity and integration of hull construction and outfitting works.

The results of the humanware component coefficients are presented in Figure 11. It is apparent from the chart that there are few differences among shipyards. In humanware aspect, most shipyards have long-experienced engineers in shipbuilding. However, they could not develop their capability due to limited engineering facilities, lack of production management in dealing with complex production systems, and uncertain shipbuilding orders. This situation makes the capability in infoware and orgaware aspects could not be developed as well. As a benchmark, shipyard X has the capability of building ships using PWBS method more effectively because of its building capacity and technology developed to apply advanced ship production methods. As the biggest state own shipyard and dedicated as the center of excellence shipbuilding in Indonesia, it had been facilitated by advanced technology and well-trained personnel from overseas. Figure 12 provides a comparison infoware contribution among the shipyards. It is apparent from this table that very few variations of infoware contribute to the design stage among medium-sized shipyards. By contrast, the distinction of infoware contributions in fabrication, sub-assembly, bock assembly, and module erection among the medium-sized shipyards have more variation. Moreover, the differences in orgaware contribution among the medium-sized shipyards are highlighted in Figure 13.

Figure 11. Humanware contribution.

Figure 12. Infoware contribution.

Figure 13. Orgaware contribution.

4.1. Managerial implication

Our findings have several managerial implications as follows:

1. First, medium-sized shipyards have a lower level of modular assembly approach capability compared to the block construction approach due to the limitation of crane capacity. This finding suggests that medium-sized shipyards should take innovation in design and process. Furthermore, medium-sized shipyards must support and organize training programs for their employees in order to increase their competency in adopting modular method practices.

2. Second, the level of technoware higher in the first three stages; design, fabrication, and sub-assembly than in the last two stages; block assembly. This implies that medium-sized shipyards may take collaboration in multi-yards. Both technoware and infoware may be shared with all medium-sized shipyard partners as this relationship evolves more closely to that of a collaborative relationship. Therefore, order continuity plays an important role in maintaining long-term collaborative relationships. For this reason, the role of Government is very important to integrate.The government program to procure a number of mini LNG vessels with the development of technology capability of Indonesian shipyards leading to high productivity.

The above findings, however, may be somewhat limited by evidence that building small ships are more effective using the System-oriented Work Breakdown Structure (SWBS) method because small ship consists of very limited identical parts due to short parallel middle body. This study also suggests that technology innovation to improve PWBS applications and high productivity in medium-sized shipyards involves engineering capabilities and production facilities with more automation. However, the addition of large investments certainly requires sustainable shipbuilding orders with high levels of productivity. High productivity can also be achieved through collaboration with other shipyards in the vicinity, or operating within a shipbuilding industry cluster. In overseas shipbuilding industry in practice, most shipyards have focused on building certain types and sizes of ships, and creating shipbuilding collaboration within a shipbuilding cluster, in order to be more competitive in the global market. This collaboration model is a potential for further research in order to create the competitiveness of the national shipbuilding industry in the global market.

The availability of shipbuilding resources in the territory not only reduces the costs but it also makes rare resources available that would be more reachable. Lazzeretti and Capone (2010) argues that shipbuilding clusters are an important determinant of competitiveness due to several factors which are known. Firstly, because of knowledge diffusion in the surrounding area, the concentrated activity of a specific industry in a particular region allows for the formation of a specialized employee pool. Secondly, being a part of a cluster enables access to specialized vendors who are geographically close, reducing transportation costs. The third issue concerns knowledge impacts, which are the faster and less expensive spread of knowledge as a result of geographic closeness, more frequent contacts, and the development of trust among employees who develop symbolic value in reputation.

4.2. Conclusion and recommendation

This research work aims to assess the technological capabilities of medium-sized shipyards in building mini LNG vessels and other vessels of relatively similar size, using the PWBS method. Based on this study, it can be concluded as follows:

• Design and engineering capability has very significant contribution to the development of shipbuilding based on the PWBS method.

• The middle-sized shipyards in this case study are capable in building ships, where the TCC value of the shipyards is between 0.68 and 0.76 for block construction and between 0.64 and 0.70 for modular construction.

• The technology capability of modular construction in medium-sized shipyards is slightly lower than block construction, particularly due to limitation of crane capacity.

• The value of technoware can be increased by advanced design software to prepare better production engineering, and production lane with more automation facilities.

• The value of infoware can be increased by proper integration planning of the whole production activities.

Based on the above conclusions, it is strongly recommended for medium-sized shipyards to facilitate design and engineering software that capable to develop production engineering based on PWBS method, and also production facilities that capable to integrate hull construction works and outfitting works in advance before block erection in building berth. This study also suggests that technological innovation in design for production is needed to improve shipyard productivity with more automation. However, the return on investment certainly requires sustainable shipbuilding orders or sufficient economies of scale. Alternatively, middle-sized shipyards could develop production collaboration among them based-on their capabilities. A proper collaboration model may become a potential research work.

Author statements

Buana Ma’ruf and Mohamad Imron Mustajib contributed equally as the main contributor to this paper. All authors have accepted full responsibility for the content of this manuscript and have given their approval to the final version.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by LPDP (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education) under the program Riset dan Inovasi untuk Indonesia Maju (RIIM) batch I, managed by BRIN (Research and Innovation Agency). The second author (Mohamad Imron Mustajib) is a postdoctoral fellow under BRIN. Many thanks to our research partners (PT Industri Kapal Indonesia, PT Terafulk Megantara Design, IPERINDO, and others), also the selected five shipyards who had contributed as research respondents, and involved in focus group discussion.

Disclosure statement

The authors declared that there were no apparent conflicts of interest or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Research and Innovation for Advanced Indonesia (RIIM) [B-802/II.7.5/FR/6/2022]; BRIN Postdoctoral Fellowship [15/II/HK/2023].

Notes on contributors

Buana Ma’ruf

Buana Ma’ruf is a Professor in marine technology at The National Agency of Research and Innovation of Indonesia (BRIN). He graduated at the Hasanuddin University (Indonesia, 1986), Master’s degree in ship production technology at Strathclyde University (UK, 1992), and Doctoral degree in marine technology at the Institute of Technology Sepuluh Nopember (ITS, Indonesia, 2007). He has 11 years working experiences in state-own shipbuilding companies (1992–2003), senior lecturer in post-graduate studies at ITS since 2009. He has been a member of the Royal Institute of Naval Architects (RINA) since 2005. He certified as Executive Professional Engineer from the Institution of Engineers of Indonesia (PII) in 2020, and Chartered Engineer (CEng) from the UK’s Engineering Council in 2021.

Mohamad Imron Mustajib

Mohamad Imron Mustajib is an associate professor at the Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Universitas Trunojoyo Madura (UTM), Indonesia. He is currently post-doctoral fellow at BRIN.

A. Bisri

A. Bisri is a senior engineer at BRIN.

Suwahyu Suwahyu

Suwahyu is a senior engineer at BRIN.

Endah Suwarni

Endah Suwarni is a senior engineer at BRIN.

Nurcholis Nurcholis

Nurcholis is a senior engineer at BRIN.

Rina Rina

Rina is a senior engineer at BRIN.

Syaiful Bahri

Syaiful Bahri is an engineer at BRIN.

Moh. Muria Armansyah Sugiarto

Moh. Muria Armansyah Sugiarto is an engineer at BRIN.

Bagus Fadhilah Nur Imani

Bagus Fadhilah Nur Imani is an engineering at BRIN.

Shinta Jihar Akif Rahadi

Shinta Johar Akif Rahadi is an engineer at BRIN.

Appendix

Appendix A. An example instrument assessment for the design stage

No.	TECHNOWARE	Score						HUMANWARE	Score						INFORWARE	Score						ORGAWARE	Score
		Block			Modular				Block			Modular				Block			Modular				Block			Modular
	Hardware & software design facility and system integration							Manager, supervision/technician/engineer							Quality Manual, Build Strategy							Organization of engineering, design
1	Manual facilities are available	1	2	3	1	2	3	Having basic engineering drawing skills	1	2	3	1	2	3	General information shipbuilding is available	1	2	3	1	2	3	There are personnel/technicians assigned for engineering design work.	1	2	3	1	2	3
2	Powered facilities and CAD software with limited specifications are available	2	3	4	2	3	4	Able to carry out standard and routine design features using computer-aided design	2	3	4	2	3	4	Basic descriptions, including equipment and process shipbuilding, are available	2	3	4	2	3	4	Engineering design works are assigned in non-permanent groups/teams with multi-tasks	2	3	4	2	3	4
3	A CAD software and hardware facilities for general purpose are available	3	4	5	3	4	5	Able to operate advanced features of computer-aided design	3	4	5	3	4	5	Standard operating procedures, equipment set-up details, and work instructions are available	3	4	5	3	4	5	Engineering design works are assigned in permanent groups/teams with the specific task	3	4	5	3	4	5
4	CAD software and hardware facilities for special purposes are available	4	5	6	4	5	6	Able to produce a standard design computer-aided design and engineering	4	5	6	4	5	6	Build strategy documents for shipbuilding are available	4	5	6	4	5	6	Engineering design works are assigned to the permanent department	4	5	6	4	5	6
5	Automatic hardware and software design and engineering facilities are available.	5	6	7	5	6	7	Able to adapt/modify existing designs	5	6	7	5	6	7	Build strategy document of shipbuilding including assembly and block erection sequence, and O/F installation are available	5	6	7	5	6	7	Engineering design works are assigned at the production system level	5	6	7	5	6	7
6	Advanced computer hardware and software design engineering facilities are available. A notable example is CAD/CAM	6	7	8	6	7	8	Able to work under non-standard and non-routine decisions with a low physical effort to obtain an improvement	6	7	8	6	7	8	Build strategy document of shipbuilding including assembly and block/module erection sequence, O/F on-unit, on-block, on-board, and on-quay, are available	6	7	8	6	7	8	Engineering design works are assigned at the manufacturing system level	6	7	8	6	7	8
7	An integrated system engineering design and facilities are available	7	8	9	7	8	9	Able to work under non-standard and non-routine decisions with a low physical effort to obtain an innovation	7	8	9	7	8	9	Build strategy document of shipbuilding including assembly and block/module erection sequence, O/F on-unit, on-block, on-board, on-quay, and inspection and testing plan (ITP) are available	6	7	8	6	7	8	Engineering design works are assigned in enterprise system/firm level	6	7	8	6	7	8