The use of Projective Analysis (PAN) modeling tools to establish the value of increased agility in responding to increasingly multi-sided demands being made on operational capabilities. The approach addresses the need to reduce cohesion costs by creating economies of alignment as well as economies of scale and scope.

1. The Value of Agility
Philip Boxer BSc MBA PhD
September 21st 2013
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
1

2. Contents
•
The Study
– Objective
– Design
– Conclusions
•
The End-to-End Process
– Demand Analysis
– Structure Modeling
– Analyzing Value for Defence
•
Next Steps
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
2

3. THE STUDY
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
3

4. Study Objective
Scope
– Surface fleet with a variety of vignettes spanning the full range of concurrent mission
types and capability space
Objective
– Pilot an approach that can answer what reconfiguration of the existing surface
capability would maximize the effectiveness of the existing surface capability within
budgetary constraints
Assumption
– That the effectiveness of given configurations of Force Element in particular Mission
Situations can be provided as input to the study
Limitation
– Very limited availability of data on architecture of Information Superiority Capabilities
and their costs
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
4

5. Study Design
•
Preparation
–
•
–
–
–
•
–
•
Write a report that articulates the use of the
projective analysis method and application of
PAN tools, and summarizes the results of the
modeling and analysis
–
–
–
•
We chose a large-scale scope for the end-toend process.
Study
–
Collect and capture relevant data using a
matrix that represents the multi-sided
demands being made on operational
capabilities
Develop the appropriate modeling approach
(planning the appropriate use of PAN tools
best suited for the selected capability subset)
for both the baseline data and proposed
variations
Develop models and analyze their
architectural properties, including costs
Identify options and provide associated
economic analysis using the projective
analysis method and PAN tools
Closure
Preparation
–
Define and document the scope of the pilot
project
Study
–
•
Dominated by need to develop additional
non-warfighting vignettes and to collate data
into data templates. Availability of data very
limited.
Insufficient time gap between workshop
developing vignettes and the modeling
workshop, compounding the data problem.
We might have added a C4ISTAR SME*, but
chose to go for 1st approximation.
The models had limited detail on the
Alignment Processes and their costs, which
limited analysis of stratification. A
workaround was used on alignment costs.
The savings identified were too large, having
understated alignment costs and overstated
the variation in costs of use.
Closure
–
The end-to-end process was completed, gaps
in data were identified, and a 1st
approximation result obtained.
* SME – Subject-matter Expert
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
5

6. Study Conclusions
•
Surface Fleet capabilities are confronted with an increasing proportion of mission
situations in which Force Elements need to collaborate in changing or
unpredictable ways.
•
Maximising effectiveness within budgetary constraints requires changes to the
architectures of both Force Elements and Alignment Processes.
•
A modular approach using corvettes and fleet auxiliaries with corresponding
changes to C4ISTAR capabilities shows an average saving of 35-45% on the force’s
total operational costs of cohesion, which increases to 40-50% when taking into
account the value of the reduced variation in these costs
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
6

7. END-TO-END PROCESS
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
7

8. Process Steps
1: Demand Analysis
– Describe the variety of demands, defined in terms of the differing nature of the
Alignment Processes needed to produce cohesive responses to this variety
2: Structure Modeling
– Identify the architecture of the Force Elements and Alignment Processes
3: Analysing Value for Defence
– Identify the costs of these architectures and any proposed changes, and value their
impact on the cohesion costs across the variety of demands identified
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
8

9. 1: DEMAND ANALYSIS
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
9

10. Through-Life Capability Management (TLCM)
•
The UK MoD is engaged in a major change programme to evolve its acquisition
processes
– Since 2005 publication of the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS), the UK MOD has been
evolving its acquisition process to implement the processes, infrastructure and culture
to deliver Through Life Capability Management (TLCM)
•
•
TLCM is defined as: “…an approach to the acquisition and in-service management
of military capability in which every aspect of new and existing military capability is
planned and managed coherently across all Defence Lines of Development (DLoDs)
from cradle to grave.”
TLCM faces a challenge in the way it delivers a double agility:
– Agility in the acquisition of new equipment capabilities and fielding them across the
DLoDs, and
– Agility in the operational responsiveness of fielded forces to rapidly changing and
asymmetric forms of threat.
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
10

11. Agility
•
•
The operational agility of a Joint Capability Package is the variety of capabilities
that it can generate at campaign tempo.
The acquisition agility of a supplier is the variety of Force Elements that it can
provide at acquisition tempo.
Demand for operational
capabilities at demand/threat
tempo
Threat
Physical
Environment
Coalition
Contribution
Capability
Alignment Processes orchestrating
and synchronizing the use of Force
Elements at alignment tempo
Audit Process
Joint Capability Packages
Force
Elements
Training
Logistics
Equipment
Infrastructure
Personnel
Information
Organisation
Demand for Force Elements at
acquisition tempo
Doctrine
http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/operational/business/capabilitymanagement/capabilitymanagement_whatis.htm
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
11

12. The demand for multi-sidedness
•
•
The demand for operational agility creates a demand for multi-sidedness in the
way a Force Element can be used.
The multi-sidedness of the demands on a Force Element is the variety of different
forms of collaboration* demanded of it.
Current focus
Threat met by use of single
Force Element: a few very
capable vessels
Inter-State
Conflict
Force Elements
X
X
Variety of Mission
Situations
X
X
X
Non-inter-state
Conflict
X
X
1
* Geometries-of-use
.
Threat met by
composition of
many Force
Elements: different
types of vessel and
capability able to
work
collaboratively
2
3
Force Elements
purpose built to
meet most
demanding threats
5
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
6
7
Defence trend
X
X
8
9
10
Force Elements built to meet
a variety of threats through
working together
collaboratively
Copyright © BRL 2013
12

13. Variety of demands across Campaign Types
•
•
The larger proportion of operational time was spent in the top-right quadrant.
The trend across the whole range of Campaign Types is towards the pursuit of
greater asymmetry and therefore increasing variety.
1
13. Humanitarian
assistance &
distaster relief
.95
Concurrent Campaign Types
(aka Defence Operations)
OR
.05
AND
Standing
Overseas
Commitments
OR
.25
.25 .5
Limited
duration SS
(MS) Power
Projection
Limited
duration SS
(MS) Peace
enforcement
.95
Limited duration
SS (MS) focused
intervention
OR
Enduring medium
scale Military
Assistance to
Stabilisation &
Development
Enduring
Medium Scale
peacekeeping
.2
.8
Enduring
small scale PP
1
1
Enduring small
scale PK
1
One-off large
scale
deliberate
intervention
14.
Counter
Piracy
1
AND
OR
.05
many
1
1
14.
Counter
Piracy
9-10. CounterDrug Operation
Number of
managerially and
operationally
independent Actors
5-8. Noncombatant
evacuation
11. Mine &
obstacle
countermeasures
3. Anti-Surface
Warfare
2. Anti-Air
Warfare
4. Antisubmarine
Warfare
12. Ship to objective
manoeuvre
1. Littoral
Land Attack
11. Mine & obstacle
counter-measures
3. AntiSurface
Warfare
5-8. Noncombatant
evacuation
A vignette
A scenario/effects ladder relates each
vignette to its larger Campaign context
20%
13.
Humanitarian
assistance &
disaster relief
12. Ship to
objective
manoeuvre
1. Littoral Land
Attack
2. Anti-Air
Warfare
few
70%
9-10
CounterDrug
Operation
Insertion,
reconnaissance,
ISTAR
4. Antisubmarine
Warfare
10%
low
high
Variety of different types of
Mission Situation*
* Variety of geometries-of-use
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
13

14. 2: STRUCTURE MODELING
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
14

15. Current Approach
•
The MoD’s acquisition focus has been on the Force Elements capable of countering
the most demanding threats, encountered primarily in inter-state conflicts.
– The acquisition and deployment of a Force Element includes its systems-of-systems that
can be assumed to reside under a single operational1 and managerial2 authority.
– The costs of operational use are established through activity-based costing, focusing on
the costs across the DLoDs that directly contribute to the operational use of the Force
Element.
•
The costs of aligning the use of multiple Force Elements to the demands of
particular mission situations either remains implicit in the use of particular Force
Elements, or belongs to another type of enabling Force Element providing the
capability for Information Superiority (viz CCII and ISTAR).
– Capability acquisition is silo’d
1 Authority over
2
the way the Force Element is used as a part of an operationally deployed Force Package.
Authority over the way the Force Element is made available for use by operational authority.
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
15

16. High-level capability
Capabilities that a Force Element is built to
create by acting together with others
The Force Element is designed to
operate within a Task Force with its
own CCII, such that the Task Force
can act like a single Force Element
Alignment
dependent on
endo-systems
Directed SoS: CCII
architecture Starconnected
Cost of operational use
of the capability
2
Corvette
Capabilities that a Force
Element is built to create
acting alone
1
2
.
Alignment
dependent on
exo-systems
3
Surface
combatant
Collaborative SoS:
CCII architecture
fully networked
‘Containers
on Fleet
Auxiliaries’
Aircraft
carrier
1
Interoperability Risks
Capabilities are created that are
independent of the platforms on
which they are deployed
A subset of capabilities can be
deployed that are more dependent
on exo-systems
endo-system – systems-of-systems that are endogenous to the Force Element
exo-system – systems-of-systems that are exogenous to the Force Element
Copyright © BRL 2013
16

17. Current focus
Changing Architecture in response
to increasing multi-sidedness
Threat met by use of single
Force Element: a few very
capable vessels
Inter-State
Conflict
Force Elements
X
Variety of Mission
Situations
•
Threat met by
composition of
many Force
Elements: different
types of vessel and
capability able to
work
collaboratively
X
X
X
X
Non-inter-state
Conflict
X
X
1
2
3
Force Elements
purpose built to
meet most
demanding threats
4
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
6
7
Defence trend
X
X
8
9
10
Force Elements built to meet
a variety of threats through
working together
collaboratively
Proposed changes in architecture introduce:
– Increased modularity of Force Elements
– Increased reliance on exogenous systems-of-systems
•
Value for Defence is ability to meet variety of Mission Situations across range of
Campaign Types at reduced cost
– Value of changes depends on specific nature of variety
Reduced costs of
Alignment
Systems of Systems
exogenous to Force
Element
Alignment
Process
Architecture 1
Architecture 2
Force
Element
Equipment capability
.
Systems of Systems
endogenous to Force
Element
Reduced cost of
Force Elements
Copyright © BRL 2013
17

18. Balancing acquisition and operational agility
•
Balancing these two forms of agility and their corresponding costs involves
spanning a number of different layers of organization.
Institutional Forces
Suppliers
Theatre Command
Skills, Assets &
Equipment
Fielded assets
& equipment
Force
Elements
1
2
Composite
operational
capabilities
3
Acquisition agility, generating operationally
available capabilities across the DLoDs
Acquisition
Tempo
.
Mission Command
Operational Forces
4
Mission
synchronization
Scenario
Effects
5
6
Operational agility, aligning composite
operational capabilities to mission demands
Alignment
Tempo
Demand/
Threat
Tempo
Copyright © BRL 2013
18

19. Modeling Approach
•
Projective analysis is an approach to modeling and analyzing the relationships
across all six layers
Domain of interactions:
using surface assets
Organization of
TEPIDOIL generating
Force Elements
2,3
Organization
1
Realization
Skills, Assets,
Equipment &
Platforms
Supporting
organizations and
infrastructures
4,5
Orchestration of
Operational Capabilities
& Mission
Synchronization
Analyzing
multi-sidedness
Supply-side Demand-side
Skills, Assets,
Equipment &
Platforms
Fielded Assets,
Equipment &
Platforms
Force
Elements
1
2
3
Acquisition
Tempo
.
Effects
Ladders
Effects within
Mission Types across
Campaign Types
6
Operational
capabilities
4
Alignment
Tempo
Mission
synchronization
Effects
5
6
Demand/
Threat
Tempo
Copyright © BRL 2013
19

20. Structure Modeling
Accountability
Hierarchies
Demand
Domain of interactions:
using surface assets
Circular
Dependencies
Organization
Organization of
TEPIDOIL generating
Force Elements
2,3
1
Realization
Skills, Assets,
Equipment &
Platforms
Effects within
Mission Types across
Campaign Types
6
4,5
Orchestration of
Operational Capabilities
& Mission
Synchronization
Supply-side Demand-side
Social & Data Synchronisation
Structure & Function
of physical and
digital systems
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
20

21. Architectural Analysis of Stratification
•
•
Analyzing the Alignment Processes separately from the individual capabilities
showed the relative complexity of these processes in the vignettes placed in the
top-right quadrant of the capability space.
The delta architecture introduced modularity into both the Force Elements
generated and the Alignment Processes.
* top-right quadrant
in the capability space
Layers 4-6:
Complexity of Alignment Processes
Hi
Lo
V1 - Littoral land attack
Hi
Layers 1-3:
Complexity of
Force Generation
Lo
V11 - Clearance of
landing beach
V12 - Ship to objective
manoeuver
V2 - Anti-air warfare
V4 - Anti-submarine
warfare
V13 - Disaster Relief*
Modeling of basic
relationships
.
V3 - anti-surface warfare
V5-8 Non-combatant
evacuation*
V14 - Counter-piracy
interdiction*
V9 - Ship stop and
search*
V10 - Interdiction of gofasts*
Analysis of patterns of
Alignment
Copyright © BRL 2013
21

22. 3: ANALYSING VALUE FOR DEFENCE
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
22

23. Cohesion Costing
•
A different costing model is needed to identify the total operational costs of
responding to particular types of mission situation – cohesion costing.
– Cohesion costing combines the costs of use of particular Force Elements with the costs
of aligning their use in combination in relation to particular types of mission situation.
Costs of Cohesion
Costs of use
Costs of alignment
Skills, Assets &
Equipment
Fielded assets
& equipment
Force
Elements
1
2
3
Acquisition
Tempo
.
Composite
operational
capabilities
4
Alignment
Tempo
Mission
synchronization
Scenario
Effects
5
6
Demand/
Threat
Tempo
Copyright © BRL 2013
23

24. Analysis of Value for Defence
•
•
The value of an architectural change is the impact of both the reduced average
and the reduced variation*
‘Real Option’ pricing allows a value to be assigned to the change in
spread/variance
The total operational cost of approach ‘b’ across
the variety of scenarios
Value for Defence from:
1. Reduction in average level of
defence expenditure through
impact of trade.
2. Change in
spread/variance in levels of
defence expenditure, based
on the difference between
the two curves ‘a’ and ‘b’
b
a’b’
a
The total operational cost of
approach ‘a’ across the
variety of scenarios
Probability
Levels of total operational expenditure on
Concurrent Campaigns
* Agility = property of the force package enabling it to do more things with the same underlying capability set.
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
24

25. Value to be captured by Terms-of-Business
Agreement (ToBA)
TLCM+: Through life management of (collaborative
system-of-system-based) capability
ToBA
provider purchaser
TLAM/TLCM: Through life management of
(equipment-based) capability
Purchaser-provider
boundary defining
value for defence
provider purchaser
Smart: Acquisition of equipment or
platform spanning its life-cycle
provider purchaser
Skills, Assets &
Equipment
Fielded assets
& equipment
Force
Elements
1
2
3
.
Composite
operational
capabilities
4
Mission
synchronization
Effects
5
6
Copyright © BRL 2013
25

26. END-TO-END PROCESS CONT’D
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
26

27. End-to-end Process
Capability
Space:
SMEs
What variety of
vignettes?
campaign
effects
strategic
context
Relative frequency &
duration of vignettes
Effects
Ladders:
Campaign context to
vignettes
Vignettes:
external
events
existing mission
threads
SMEs
.kbs
Stratification
analysis:
layers of alignment
base
model
larger impact
of changes
alternative
architecture(s)
Monte Carlo
distributions
structure,
orchestration &
synchronization
FE architecture,
threads & internal/
external events
Delta surface
architecture:
Vignette
occurrence:
Modeling effects
generation:
Data Templates:
base case
stratification
Modeling delta:
SMEs
Cohesion costing
templates:
delta structure,
orchestration &
synchronization
5-layer analysis
.xls
Costings:
SME* Workshops
SME* sourcing of data
Analysis
Mission type
occurrence:
L/M/H confidence
costs
SMEs
Base & Delta
Costings:
Cohesion costing for
each vignette
Costs delta &
Variations:
variation in total
annual costs
Present Value of
savings:
long term impact of
delta architecture
Real option
valuation:
Additional value of
reducing variation
* Subject-matter Experts (SME’s) used to overcome limitations in data currently available
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
27

28. Results from End-to-End Process
many
14.
Counter
Piracy
Number of
managerially and
operationally
independent Actors
3. Anti-Surface
Warfare
13.
Humanitarian
assistance &
disaster relief
12. Ship to
objective
manoeuvre
1. Littoral Land
Attack
2. Anti-Air
Warfare
20%
few
Insertion,
reconnaissance,
ISTAR
4. Antisubmarine
Warfare
10%
low
high
Variety of different types of
Mission Situation
A Peak
Z-axis: ‘Number
of overlapping
Orchestrations
X-axis: Orchestrations of Force Elements
2. Complexity of supporting multisidedness
Layers 4-6:
Complexity of Alignment Processes
* top-right quadrant
in the capability space
Hi
Lo
V1 - Littoral land attack
V11 - Clearance of
landing beach
Hi
V3 - anti-surface warfare
V5-8 Non-combatant
evacuation*
V14 - Counter-piracy
interdiction*
V12 - Ship to objective
manoeuver
Layers 1-3:
Complexity of
Force Generation
V2 - Anti-air warfare
V9 - Ship stop and
search*
V10 - Interdiction of gofasts*
V4 - Anti-submarine
Lo
warfare
V13 - Disaster Relief*
– There needs to be less redundancy in the provision of
capabilities by Force Elements combined with a greater focus
on the Alignment Processes per se.
Variation in monthly costs per vignette
6.0
5.0
4.0
ACU ,000/month 3.0
2.0
1.0
V13 - Disaster Relief
V9 - Ship stop and search
V2 - Anti-air warfare
V1 - Littoral land attack
V3 - anti-surface warfare
V12 - Ship to objective …
base cohesion costing
0.0
V4 - Anti-submarine warfare
What are the consequences of this multi-sidedness for
engineering architecture of Force Elements and Alignment
Processes?
V5-8 Non-combatant evacuation
•
3. Complexity of 2 agilities
4. Costs per vignette
delta cohesion costing
V14 - Counter-piracy interdiction
– Significant multi-sidedness met by separate complex starconnected orchestrations of Force Element
Jagged complex star-connected orchestrations
Y-axis: Number of
Force Elements
needing to
interoperate for
this Orchestration
V10 - Interdiction of go-fasts
What is the level of multi-sidedness created by the current
variety of demands?
1. Variety of demands
V11 - Clearance of landing beach
•
70%
9-10
CounterDrug
Operation
5-8. Noncombatant
evacuation
11. Mine &
obstacle
countermeasures
hybrid delta cohesion costing
Normalized probabilities of duration by vignette
1.00
0.80
V1 littoral land attack
0.60
V11-12 Ship to objective
V13 Humanitarian assistance & disaster relief
probability
V14 Counter Piracy
0.40
V2 anti-air warfare
V3 anti-surface warfare
V4 anti-submarine warfare
0.20
V5-8 Non-combatant evacuation
V9-10 Counter-Drug Operation
0.00
0
2
4
6
-0.20
8
10
12
14
months/year
5. Variation in vignette duration
Average Annual Savings by Mission Type
30
25
20
ACU ,000 15
– A modular approach shows an average saving of 35-45% on the
force’s total operational costs of cohesion, which is increased
to 40-50% through reduced variation
.
10
5
Limited Duration SS/MS PP (9)
Limited duration SS/MS FI (7)
Limited duration SS/MS PE (8)
Enduring SS PP (4)
Enduring MS PK (5)
Enduring MS Military assistance (6)
One-off LS DI
0
Enduring SS PK
What are the expected savings when implications are
successfully met?
Standing Overseas Commitments
•
6. Savings per vignette
Normalized costs
Normalized savings
0.4
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.3
0.30
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.25
probability
0.20
base
0.15
delta
0.10
0.05
0.05
0
0
100
200
ACU ,000
300
400 -0.05
0.00
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
ACU ,000
7. Changes in cost variation
Copyright © BRL 2013
28
200 -0.05
probability

29. NEXT STEPS
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
29

30. Next Steps
•
•
Given the potential impact of the approach for the MoD, a first step must be
creating more awareness within that organization of this level of analysis
Therefore, it is strongly recommended organizing a 1-day workshop for key
people involved in strategy
– What is multi-sidedness and how does it impact the MoD’s approach to generating
capability?
– What is necessary to increased effectiveness in an environment of increasingly multisided demands?
– What were the results of this pilot study?
•
After this, next steps can be defined, for instance
– To repeat the study with a refined scope and more solid data
– To identify the consequences and next steps for the MoD
– To identify the consequences and next steps for ToBA
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
30

31. END
.
Copyright © BRL 2013
31