77th Symposium Group E

77th MORSS
US Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, KS
16-18 June 2009

Composite Group E

Acquisition

WG 24, WG 25, WG 26, WG 27, WG 28

WG 24 - Measures of Merit

CHAIR:
Bonnie McIlrath, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-7566, bonnie.j.mcilrath@us.army.mil

CO-CHAIRS:
Donna Cote, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-9250, donna.m.cote@us.army.mil
Duane Riddle, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-9213, duane.riddle@us.army.mil
Ben Anderson, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-7563, ben.a.anderson@us.army.mil
Jessica Meyring, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-6873, jessica.meyring@us.army.mil

ADVISOR:
Joseph Anderson, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-6867, joseph.s.anderson@us.army.mil

The focus of Working Group 24 (WG 24) – Measures of Merit (MOM) is integral to the theme for this year’s Symposium, “Responding Globally, Leading Analytically.” 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, however, is their reliance on quantifiable measures to gauge outcomes. Operations Research within 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 and when 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.

• Human Factors / social sciences

• 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. Force

• Command and control of a hybrid force

Both completed work and works-in-progress are welcome.

WG 25 - Test and Evaluation

CHAIR:
Ms. Lyn Padgett, Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Agency, (703) 432-0957, Lyn.Padgett@usmc.mil

CO-CHAIRS:
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
Peggy Wisdom, Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), (505) 853-6471 , margret.wisdom@afotec.af.mil
1Lt Kiel Martin, Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), (702) 404-2675, Kiel.Martin@nellis.af.mil

ADVISOR:
R. John Anderson, Joint Fires Integration and Interoperability Team (SAIC), (850) 882-6700 x7518, robert.anderson.ctr@eglin.af.mil

The 77th MORS Symposium theme – “Responding Globally, Leading Analytically” is clearly appropriate for our Working Group. Test and Evaluation (T&E) 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 a 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 (TEMP). In keeping with this year’s theme, we solicit papers, both completed work and works-in-progress, which 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 us in WG 25 at the 77th MORSS.

WG 26 - Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

CHAIR:
Annette Baldwin, 505-846-8311, annette.baldwin@kirtland.af.mil

CO-CHAIR:
Stephen Baca, 505-846-8375, john.baca@kirtland.af.mil
Anna Castillo, (505) 853-1467, anna.castillo@kirtland.af.mil
Johnny Anthony, (505) 923-1887, anthonyj@battelle.org

ADVISOR:
Joe Auletta, 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 the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) have highlighted several analytic challenges that future AoAs need to come to terms with. Specifically they 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 (CBAs), 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. Papers can be completed work or works-in-progress.

WG 27 - Cost Analysis

CHAIR:
Daniel Dassow, The Boeing Company, (314) 234-9098, daniel.d.dassow@boeing.com

CO-CHAIRS:
Tom Burns, The Boeing Company, (714) 317-1634, thomas.j.burns2@boeing.com
Rick Cline, The Boeing Company, (714) 791-0913, richard.g.cline@boeing.com
Raymond Kleinberg, US Army TACOM, (586) 574-8717, raymond.kleinberg@us.army.mil
Timothy Long, Northrop Grumman, (703) 556-2340, timothy.long@ngc.com
Terry Mitchell, Lockheed Martin Mission Services, (720) 479-3043, terry.mitchell@lmco.com
Cindy Noble, TRADOC Analysis Center, (913) 684-3259, cindy.noble@us.army.mil
Dr. Michelle D Quirk, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, (703) 767-6388, mihaela.quirk@dtra.mil
Wilson Rosa, AFCAA/FMI, (703) 604-0395, wilson.rosa@pentagon.af.mil
John Wallace, AFCAA / FMF, (703) 692-6002, john.wallace@pentagon.af.mil

ADVISOR:
Dr. William H Jarvis, NASA, Independent Program Assessment Office, (202) 358-3771, wjarvis@hq.nasa.gov

Cost analysis is integral to the 77th MORS Symposium theme “Responding Globally, Leading Analytically.” 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 Department of Defense (DoD) funds, development, 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 development, procurement and operations 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 interagency operations, System of Systems and Network Centric Operations; maintenance and intellectual property issues of historical cost databases; and streamlining the acquisition process. Presentations may be for work both completed or work-in-progress. 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:
John R. Tindle, Northrop Grumman Information Technology/TASC, 719-622-5205, john.tindle@ngc.com

CO-CHAIRS:
Donald Buckshaw, Innovative Decisions, Inc., 443-472-3061, dbuckshaw@innovativedecisions.com
LTC Gerald Kobylski, USMA, 845-446-2364, Gerald.kobylski@usma.edu
LTC Brian Sperling, Dept of Systems Engineering, USMA, 845-938-4399, brian.sperling@usma.edu
Mark Meade, Northrop Grumman Information Technology/TASC, 719-622-5569, mark.meade@ngc.com
Bill Hensley, The Kenjya Group, Inc., 410-740-4045, bill.hensley@ohio-kenjya.com
Dr. Drew Miller, Col, USAFR, Consultant, Institute for Defense Analysis, 402-952-5339, drdrewmiller@aim.com

ADVISOR:
Lt Col (S) KiraBeth Therrien, Space & Missiles System Center (SMC)/National Security Space Office (NSSO), 571-432-1388, Kirabeth.therrien@osd.mil

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 (WG 28) invites papers describing completed work or work-in-progressthat 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.

Composite Group A • Composite Group B • Composite Group C

Composite Group D • Composite Group E • Composite Group F