|
| |
76th MORSS
United States Coast Guard Academy
10-12 June 2008
Composite Group E
Acquisition
WG 24: Measures of Merit
CHAIR: Joseph Anderson, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-6867, joseph.s.anderson@us.army.mil
CO-CHAIRS: Matt Boetig, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-9250, matthew.boetig@us.army.mil; and, Claire Mulcare, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-7575, claire.s.mulcare@us.army.mil
ADVISOR: LTC Brad Pippin, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-7564, bradley.pippin@us.army.mil
The focus of Working Group 24 – Measures of Merit – is integral to the theme for this year’s Symposium, Expanding Analysis for a More Secure World. Operations Research is a field that includes various tested and true methods for conducting analysis, as well as methods that are still being explored and discovered. One feature that all methods share, though, is that they rely on quantifiable measures to gauge success. Operations Research in the military is no different.
We are a nation at war against a global enemy; one that dynamically adapts to strike at U.S. military forces and our Homeland where we least expect. Concurrently, our military forces are transforming to best defeat this enemy in the modern operational environment. We must challenge the traditional MOMs used to measure success, and develop new MOMs to help us understand the enemy and environment. While the U.S. continues to transform its forces to meet current and future needs, the analytic challenge is to develop appropriate measures that will assist decision makers and reduce the risks that U.S. military forces face in conflict.
WG 24 solicits papers that successfully use measures of merit to identify, define, and reduce the risks that our military forces are facing, or will face, along with processes to ensure that the transformation of our military forces will enable the U.S. to continue to shape the international environment. Papers should focus on, but are not limited to, the development and use of MOMs for problems being addressed within the following focus areas:
- Conducting operations in Urban and restrictive environments.
- Methods of limiting or reducing collateral damage.
- Joint Force effectiveness and force allocation processes.
- Situational awareness and understanding of the battle-space.
- Protecting and sustaining U.S. Forces.
- Command and control of a hybrid force.
WG 25: Test and Evaluation
CHAIR: R. John Anderson, Joint Fires Integration and Interoperability Team (SAIC), (850) 882-6700 x7518, robert.anderson.ctr@eglin.af.mil
CO-CHAIRS: LTC Greg Chesterton, Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA), (703) 432-0965, gregory.chesterton@usmc.mil; Stephen R. Boothe, US Navy COMOPTEVFOR, (757) 282-5546 x3185, boothes@cotf.navy.mil; Allan D. Fehlings, SAIC, (703) 676-0428, allan.d.fehlings@saic.com; Ari Paez, 59th Test and Evaluation Squadron (USAF), (702) 652-4864, aristides.paez@nellis.af.mil; Alan Davis, US Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), (703) 681-0686 al.davis2@atec.army.mil; and, Peggy Wisdom, Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), (505) 853-6471, margret.wisdom@afotec.af.mil
ADVISOR: Gregory T. Hutto, 53d Test Management Group (USAF), (850) 882-0607, gregory.hutto@eglin.af.mil
The 76th MORS Symposium theme – “Expanding Analysis for a More Secure World” – is clearly appropriate for our Working Group. Test and Evaluation is a fundamental analytical activity leading to fielding new and improved combat capabilities. Over the past 30 years, T&E has added additional fundamental elements and activities to reduce fielding risks: operational and live fire testing, modeling and simulation as a precursor to test, as well as the push for more contractor-controlled testing as part of acquisition reform in developmental test. The Secretary of Defense has challenged us to re-invent the foundations of T&E yet again by pulling together these all-too-often disparate activities into integrated testing and seamless verification. In a truly integrated test team, we are seeking to remove the seams among contractors, government developers and operational testers: planning and executing tests as single test team. The challenge to the T&E community is to make integrated test more than words in an instruction or intentions in a Test and Evaluation Master Plan. In keeping with this year’s theme, we solicit papers that address new techniques that can be merged with proven standards that might make this new foundation for T&E a reality. We also encourage submission of papers from individuals that have not previously attended this Working Group. Please join WG-25 at the 76th MORSS.
WG 26: Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
CHAIR: Major Tony Veerkamp, Air Force Material Command, Office of Aerospace Studies (505) 853-1464, Tony.Veerkamp@kirtland.af.mil
CO-CHAIRS: Ms. Annette Baldwin, Air Force Material Command, Office of Aerospace Studies (505) 846-8311, annette.baldwin@kirtland.af.mil; Mr Philip Sauer, National Security Agency, (443) 479-5818, pssauer@nsa.gov; and, Mr. Robert H. “Chris” Chisholm, Support Systems Associates Inc., (321) 431-0966, cchisholm@ssai.org
ADVISOR: Mr. Joseph F Auletta, Air Force Material Command, Office of Aerospace Studies (505) 846-8214, Joseph.Auletta@Kirtland.AF.mil
The Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) is the analytic bridge between the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the DoD acquisition process. AoAs provide key support and critical data to decision-makers responsible for the expenditure of billions of US tax dollars. The primary focus of an AoA is to evaluate life cycle cost and operational effectiveness as they relate to identified Defense capability shortfalls and gaps. An AoA is expected to illuminate capability advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives; consider joint operational plans; examine sufficient feasible alternatives; characterize key assumptions, variables and sensitivities to change in either; as well as assess technology risk and maturity. Risk has become an increasingly important AoA consideration to include operational, integration, cost, schedule, and performance risk evaluation. During execution, AoAs serve as an educational forum for complex and often unique issues as they demand communication and understanding amongst decision makers, stakeholders, and study staff members at all levels.
Recent AoAs as well as recent emphasis by OSD and JCS have highlighted several analytic challenges that future AoAs need to come to terms with. Specifically this deal with expanding the breadth of the analysis, reducing the time the analysis takes, and improving the analytic insights in areas which have traditionally been “too hard to analyze”. There is also a need to consider all alternatives in relation to the Joint Environment. The AoA Working Group invites presentations on work including Analysis of Material Approaches (AMAs), Functional Solution Analyses (FSAs), Capability Based Assessments (CBA), and AoAs. Priority will be given to papers that present results from analyses, describe analytic innovations to address trades across non-homogeneous trade spaces, and/or new approaches/applications to analytically include evaluation of enablers (logistics, C4ISR, etc.) within the scope of the study. In addition, information technology analyses required by the Clinger-Cohen Act present their own unique demands and papers in this field are especially sought, as are analytic approaches to cost any of these areas in the context of JCIDS/AoA analyses.
WG 27 – Cost Analysis
CHAIR: Daniel Dassow, The Boeing Company, (314) 234-9098, daniel.d.dassow@boeing.com
CO-CHAIR: William H. Jarvis, OSD/PA&E (CAIG), (703) 695-7282, Will.Jarvis@osd.mil
ADVISOR: Justin Moul, IT Division, Air Force Cost Analysis Agency, (703) 602-9263, justin.moul@pentagon.af.mil
Cost analysis is integral to the 76th MORS Symposium theme “Expanding Analysis for a More Secure World.” Political, budgetary and evolving security realities require increasing scrutiny of costs and management of risks for development, procurement, and operation of weapon and support systems envisioned to transform tomorrow’s forces and to provide a more secure world. To successfully compete for limited DoD funds, production and deployment evaluations must present significant analysis of projected business cases. Though always key for milestone decisions, detailed affordability and risk assessments are now absolute requirements. In light of changes contemplated for future forces and force structure, these analyses now have a more far-reaching impact on procurement than ever before. Reliable assessments of risk-adjusted costs and benefits of various alternative solutions to potential concerns are vital to sound decision making. Providing realistic estimates for all phases of proposed systems’ total ownership costs (TOCs), early enough in the design process to support trade-off decisions affecting life cycle costs, presents a significant operations research challenge. Understanding how the potential costs and risks, associated with acquisition and production strategies, fit within the overall DoD enterprise presents an addressable challenge through sound application of operations research concepts.
The Cost Analysis Working Group strives to investigate better ways to support DoD’s approach to managing acquisitions and supporting economic analysis. The group is seeking papers and speakers that address these important concerns. All submissions or proposals relating to military cost analysis, military economic analysis, and related disciplines are welcome. Preference will be given to those presenting study results that incorporate creative uses of operations research tools to develop improved cost estimates and analysis to better support informed decision making. Also, effective methods for presenting the results of complex operational analysis in a clear, concise, and easy to understand manner are always of interest. Topics for consideration in a panel discussion format, and recommendations of subject matter experts willing to participate, are also solicited.
Presentations are also sought that address OR's contributions to Cost Analysis and expanding the analytical capability within Cost Analysis: cost impact of technology insertion; projecting and managing costs for evolving threats and terrorism; optimizing the management and replacement of aging infrastructure; understanding the cost implications of technology insertion; portfolio analysis and decision support frameworks; costs and benefits of developing open standards and open architectures; costs and benefits associated with joint operations, System of Systems and Network Centric Operations; maintenance and intellectual property issues of historical cost databases; and streamlining the acquisition process. One session will be devoted to a senior review and critique of a cost analysis. Volunteers from the OR and Cost Analysis communities are sought for a Senior Roundtable discussion of the critical cost analysis issues and how OR can be better integrated into cost analysis. All OR professionals and cost analysts with innovative methods for analyzing and managing cost and risks are welcome.
WG 28: Decision Analysis
CHAIR: Maj Kira Jeffery, SAF/US, 571-432-1388 , KiraBeth.Jeffery@osd.mil
CO-CHAIRS: LTC Brian Sperling, United States Military Academy , 845-938-4399, Brian.Sperling@usma.edu; Dr. Drew Miller, Institute for Defense Analysis, 402-952-5339 , drdrewmiller@aim.com; Donald Buckshaw, Innovative Decisions, 443-472-3061, dbuckshaw@innovativedecisions.com; John Tindle, Lightning Solutions, Northrup Grumman, 719-622-5205, John.tindle@ngc.com; Gerald C. Kobylski, United States Military Academy, 845-446-2364, Gerald.Kobylski@usma.edu; and, Bill Hensley, The Kenjya Group, 410-740-4045, Bill.Hensley@OHIO-KENJYA.com
ADVISOR: Nisha Shah, The Boeing Company, 314-234-1196, nisha.r.shah@boeing.com
Decision Analysis is a branch of operations research that models complex, uncertain, decision situations by decomposing the situations into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then quantifying and evaluating the possible outcomes, as well as the multiple, often competing, objectives that military leaders and decision makers must consider. The modeling paradigms that have been developed to support decision analysis fall into two general categories: 1) assessment of a decision maker's preferences and evaluation of the choices using a single-stage, multiple objective model (e.g. Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis, Quality Function Deployment, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Value Focused Thinking); and 2) identification and quantification of key uncertainties and sources of information along with their effects upon the objective(s) using a multi-stage decision model (e.g. influence diagrams, decision trees, belief nets). Both paradigms may explicitly consider the constraints imposed on decision makers by the dimension of time and limited resources. Some modeling tools are oriented toward helping decision makers solve one-time decision problems. Additionally, decision analysis models are being incorporated as components of larger "intelligent systems" which use other techniques, such as linear programming and artificial intelligence, to support automating command and control systems, fault detection, and resource allocation. Working Group 28 invites papers that focus on applications of decision analysis to support decision-makers in six areas: high-level conceptual study (very limited data), acquisitions and source selections; planning (multi-stage decision-making under conditions of uncertainty/risk); budgeting, programming and resource allocation decisions; probabilistic inference using imperfect information (prediction or estimation); and decision aids and automated tools.
|
