By NAVAIR Public Affairs Office

When the question arose whether it was worth the time (during intense scheduling pressures) to deperm or demagnetize new Navy ships, NAVSEA called on their technical warrant holders for the answer. Deperming is thought to substantially reduce a ship’s vulnerability to mines, but was it worth the extra time and money?

Technical warrant holders are the true technical experts or “go-to” people. Each of these warrant holders have established pyramids of engineering resources (managers and engineering staff) to perform work. This team of technical experts studied data, produced a white paper and educated the fleet decision-makers so an informed-decision could be reached. The ships will continue to be depermed.

Under the Navy’s Engineering and Technical Authority Policy (TA), a common process has been formalized to provide best-value engineering systems solutions to technical problems, products and processes throughout the systems commands.

Through the TA, warrant holders are empowered to execute accountability and technical integrity; provide technical expertise; set and maintain technical standards; ensure safety and reliability; manage and preserve the Navy’s engineering capabilities; integrate systems engineering; and team to provide a technical decision-making process. There are six types of technical warrant holders: platform design managers; chief systems engineers; cost engineering managers, technical area experts, technical process owners; and waterfront/depot chief engineers.

Now TA is being taken one step farther. According to the Navy Virtual SYSCOM Guidance 2005, Virtual SYSCOM is charged with “promoting clear communication and understanding of common systems engineering process between the Naval SYSCOMS.” Such communication will be particularly important as complex systems of systems and families of systems are integrated into tomorrow’s battlespace environment.

Ultimately, by creating this common approach and providing consistent terminology for independent technical authority, the fleet will be better able to conduct safe and reliable operations and more effectively carry out its mission.

“We will measure ourselves in terms of output and outcomes,” said VADM Paul E. Sullivan, Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command. “We must understand why we do what we do; why it costs what it costs; and we must have the analytical basis to support our decisions. Everything we do should focus on putting capabilities in the hands of the Warfighter. The Virtual SYSCOM’s Technical Authority and Systems Engineering initiatives are re-focusing its engineering community to do exactly that.”

The Virtual SYSCOM TA policy has been developed over the past four years by the Systems Engineering Stakeholder Group (SESG), which is currently aligned to support the Virtual SYSCOM Systems Engineering/Technical Authority (VS SE/TA) functional community. Chief engineers from NAVAIR, SPAWAR and NAVSEA co-lead the VS SE/TA and are currently implementing TA across their commands by developing common risk management and design review policy and processes.

Other SESG initiatives include development of a Joint Service Specification Guide for Air Vehicle/Ship Integration, a common configuration control process/policy, and a standard system engineering tool set for use across the Virtual SYSCOM.

Though the recent (3 Jan 2005) Virtual SYSCOM Joint Instruction 22 set policy to apply initially to NAVAIR, NAVSEA and SPAWAR, TA will also expand to apply to NAVFAC, NAVSUP and MCSC.

As it becomes part of every complex engineering venture, TA will be particularly relevant to the reconstruction of today’s Navy. The 21st century Navy places high demands on engineering talent, expertise and leading edge innovation. TA helps provide the roadmap for what’s needed and the organization to get there through a carefully balanced approach to engineering standards and execution.