🇦🇺Australia

Inadequate Schedule Drumbeat Rate Leading to Workforce Underutilisation

1 verified sources

Definition

Australia's Hunter class frigate program targets a 'drumbeat rate' of two years (24 months) between construction starts. Failure to maintain this cadence causes: workforce turnover, loss of cumulative learning effects, infrastructure decay requiring expensive reinvestment, and higher per-unit labour costs for successive builds.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: AUD 10-15M+ per ship restart cycle (infrastructure re-mobilisation, skilled labour recruitment/retraining, productivity ramp-up losses); 15-25% higher labour costs on first 2-3 ships after production gap
  • Frequency: Recurring across major naval projects; high current risk given AUKUS submarine program complexity
  • Root Cause: Critical path schedules not integrated with shipyard capacity planning; inadequate forward visibility of subsequent project starts; manual workforce and asset planning

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Australian shipyards lose AUD millions annually due to 'boom-and-bust' production cycles. Predictable critical path scheduling (e.g., 24-month drumbeat rate between ship starts) locks workforce and prevents costly facility downtime.

Affected Stakeholders

Master Scheduler, Capacity Planner, Workforce Manager, Finance/Cost Controller

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Unbilled Change Order Cancellations Without Compensation

AUD 50,000–250,000 per major shipbuilding project (5–15% of total change order costs), based on typical re-pricing labor (30–80 hours @ AUD 150/hr) and provisional supply commitments.

Excessive Administrative Rework from Change Order Re-Pricing

AUD 13,800–41,400 per change order (92–276 hours @ AUD 150/hour loaded labor rate). On a 10,000-ton frigate with 150–200 change orders, total waste = AUD 2.07M–8.28M.

Contract Dispute and Legal Liability from Poorly Documented Change Orders

Median dispute cost: AUD 200K–500K per project. Large-scale frigate contracts (AUD 2B+) risk AUD 2M–5M+ in dispute remediation, plus 12–24 month schedule delays (carrying costs, financing charges, opportunity cost).

Shipbuilder Price Re-Negotiation Risk and Customer Churn

Indirect loss: AUD 500M–5B in foregone future contracts or competitive disadvantage on next-generation tenders. Direct loss: AUD 50M–500M in disputed change orders, carrying cost on withheld payments, and legal remediation.

Verzögerte Rentabilitätssichtbarkeit in EVM-Berichten

Estimated 40-80 hours/month × AUD 150/hour (Project Controls role[3]) = AUD 6,000–12,000/month per project; multiplied across Defence contract portfolio (estimated 3-5 major programs) = AUD 216,000–720,000 annually

Fehlende Echtzeit-Rentabilitätskontrolle in EVM führt zu Kostenschleichern

Industry benchmark: 2–5% revenue loss from undetected cost creep in shipbuilding[4]. On typical AUD 500M Defence contract: AUD 10M–25M at-risk margin

Request Deep Analysis

🇦🇺 Be first to access this market's intelligence