Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Value for defence


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Value for defence

  1. 1. Value for Defence Dr Philip Boxer Copyright © BRL 2013 1
  2. 2. Agenda• Overview• Variety of Demands/Threats• Architecture• Structure Modeling• Cohesion Costing Copyright © BRL 2013 2
  3. 3. Establishing the value of agility: the agility of a Force Package impacts on Value for Defence Modeling basic relationships between Force Analyzing architecture of layering in relation Costing Cohesion in Mission Elements and Alignment Processes to different geometries-of-use Situations traceventindividual_in_afghan-pakistan_border c_sitnindividual_in_afghan-pakistan_border unitorderborder_reaper_strike_cell traceventborder_male_on_station channelborder_reaper_strike_cell traceventborder_hale_on_station unitorderborder_caoc_atc_sync traceventborder_male_outputs traceventborder_sf_on_station unitorderafghan_border_strike traceventborder_male_strike unitorderborder_male_bm unitorderborder_hale_bm channelborder_male_bm channelborder_hale_bm unitorderborder_isr_cell traceventafghan_report unitorderborder_sf_cell channelborder_isr_cell channelborder_sf_cell 5-6col1 x 5 orchnafghan_border_strike 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 outcomeborder_hale_on_station 1 1 1 1 1 1 outcomeborder_male_on_station 1 1 1 1 1 1 outcomeborder_male_strike 1 1 1 1 1 1 outcomeborder_sf_on_station 1 1 1 1 khowborder_sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 khowborder_male_strike 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 khowborder_hale_global_hawk 1 1 1 designborder_hale_global_hawk 1 1 designborder_male_operator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 capyborder_hale_global_hawk 1 1 capyborder_male_reaper 1 1 1 1 1 capyborder_sf 1 1 1 1 1 systemborder_hale_global_hawk 1 1 systemborder_male_reaper 1 1 1 1 1 1 systemborder_sf 1 1 processborder_hale_global_hawk 1 1 processborder_male_reaper 1 1 1 1 1 processborder_sf 1 1 1 1 1 dprocessborder_hale_global_hawk 1 dprocessborder_male_reaper 1 1 1 1 Monte Carlo Simulation of impact of Variations in Real Option Valuation of impact of Demand on range of possible deployment costs changes in flexibility on range of costs 0.45 0.4 Large Scale 0.35 Scenario 1 Small Scale enduring 0.3Defence Expenditure Scenario 2 Medium Scale enduring Small Scale enduring 0.25 0.2 Value for Alternative Small Scale one-off Medium Scale enduring 0.15 0.1 0.05 Defence Scenario 3 Small Scale limited 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 50 25 00 75 50 25 0 75 15 22 30 37 45 52 60 67 75 82 90 97 10 11 12 12 13 14 Small Scale one-off Scaled Cost1 Scaled Cost2 Scaled Difference What Price Agility? Managing Through-Life Purchaser-Provider Relationships on the Basis of the Ability to Price Agility, Navigator White Paper, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, September 2008 Copyright © BRL 2013 3
  4. 4. Examples of results:a focus on economies of alignment generates significant savings Domain ResultNATO AWACS Significant interoperability risks at alignment levels, both technical and organizational. Needed to evaluate cost impact, but crossing organizational boundaries (equipment costs vs operational costs).NHS Orthotics Focus on Alignment Processes => 30% efficiency improvement and x10 payback over 10 years from improved patient mobility. But crossed organizational boundaries (impact on Social Services).UAVs Interdiction Total savings of about 40% through focus on creating economies in the of fleeting costs of alignment. Impact of UORs on cost of capability had doubled targets acquisition cost. Savings involved defining capability at different level.e-Government Swine Flu Changed architecture of search capabilities combined with focus on creating economies of alignment across departments produced savings of ~80%, but crossed organizational boundaries.BAE Systems Naval surface More modular elements combined with focus on creating economies of capability alignment could produce savings of ~40%, but changed level at which purchaser-provider relationship had to be defined. Copyright © BRL 2013 4
  5. 5. VARIETY OF DEMANDS/THREATS Copyright © BRL 2013 5
  6. 6. The demand for operational agility: agility depends on the variety of geometries-of-use supported• The demand for operational agility creates a demand for flexibility in the way a Force Element can be used.• The demands on a Force Element for flexibility is driven by the variety of different forms of collaboration* demanded of it. Traditional focus Threat met by use of single Force Element: a few very Force Elements Threat met by capable platforms composition of many Force X Elements: different Inter-State types of platform Conflict X and equipment capability able to Variety of Mission X work collaboratively Situations X X X X Non-inter-state X X X X Conflict Current focus X X X X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10* Geometries-of-use Force Elements Force Elements built to meet purpose built to a variety of threats through meet most working together demanding threats collaboratively Copyright © BRL 2013 6
  7. 7. Substituting a TacticalUAV multi-sided platform: creating indirect benefits through greater flexibilityControlling Mission Situations Composite Capabilities issue End-users Operational Capabilities Hard to see, effects difficult Easy to see, effects difficult Soldiers on the ground Arrest synchronization Strike synchronization Medium Altitude UAVHard to see, effects easy Indirect value through its impact High Altitude UAV on the way different Search Helicopter Attack Helicopter Communications Fast Patrol Boat collaborations can be formed Space sensors Tactical UAV Intelligence AWACs Fast Jet Ship X Individual in Afghan-Pakistan border X X X X X X X Disrupts terrorist command X X X X X X X Individual in Kabul Blue Zone X X X X X X Direct value through X Disrupts terrorist command X X X X X X substitution X Stinger Missiles in Baghdad City Centre X X X X X X X Neutralization of manoeuvrist threat X X X X X X Shoot-and-Scoot in Tribal Lands X X X X X X X X Neutralization of manoeuvrist threat X X X X X X X Terrorist Escape by Sea X X X X X X X X Disrupts terrorist command X X X X X X X The Multi-sided platform Copyright © BRL 2013 7
  8. 8. Variety of Demands across Campaign Types: What is happening to the variety of demands? • The larger proportion of operational time is spent in the top-right quadrant. • The trend across the whole range of Campaign Types is towards encountering increasingly asymmetric threats, increasing the variety of demands. Concurrent Campaign Types (aka Defence Operations) J OR many AND H Standing OR Overseas Commitments OR OR AND I J Limited Limited Enduring medium Enduring Iduration SS duration SS Medium Scale(MS) Power Projection (MS) Peace enforcement Limited duration SS (MS) focused scale Military Assistance to peacekeeping Enduring Enduring small Number of D Stabilisation & intervention Development small scale PP scale PK One-off large scale H managerially and deliberate intervention operationally independent Actors B C A Insertion, G reconnaissance, G ISTAR F F E C E few A A Campaign/Effects Ladder B D A Vignette/ relates each Vignette to its larger Campaign context low high Mission Situation * Variety of geometries-of-use Variety of different types of Mission Situation* Copyright © BRL 2013 8
  9. 9. The capability envelope:The variety of defence outputs demanded are increasing• “It is clear that the challenges of the future will demand even greater institutional agility in the face of major resource constraints and some profoundly worrying indications that the West may be losing the initiative in terms of dictating the way war is fought” (MoD, Future Character of Conflict, in Strategic Trends Programme2010.) many Envelope spanning full range of Campaign collaborative Types operations Number of managerially and operationally Envelope for independent Actors Campaign Types ‘special defined by ‘most conventional forces’ demanding’ Situations war-fighting operations few low high Variety of different types of Mission Situation* * Variety of geometries-of-use Copyright © BRL 2013 9
  10. 10. ARCHITECTURE Copyright © BRL 2013 10
  11. 11. Architecture for increasing agility:Increases reliance on systems-of-systems external to Force Elements• Proposed changes in architecture introduce: – Increased modularity of Force Elements – Increased reliance on systems-of-systems external to Force Elements• 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 Systems of Systems Alignment external to Force Element (exo-systems) Alignment Architecture 1 Architecture 2 Process Force Element Equipment capability Systems of Systems internal to Force Reduced cost of Force Element (endo-systems) Elements Copyright © BRL 2013 11
  12. 12. STRUCTURE MODELING Copyright © BRL 2013 12
  13. 13. Balancing acquisition and operational agility:Achieving a double agility demands a layered architecture• Balancing these two forms of agility and their corresponding costs involves spanning a number of different layers of organization. Institutional Forces Theatre Command Suppliers Operational Forces Mission Command Fielded assets Composite Mission Skills, Assets & Force Scenario & equipment operational synchronization Equipment Elements Effects capabilities 1 2 3 4 5 6Acquisition agility, generating operationally Operational agility, aligning composite available capabilities across the DLoDs operational capabilities to mission demands Demand/ Acquisition Alignment Threat Tempo Tempo Tempo Copyright © BRL 2013 13
  14. 14. Modeling Approach:There is no such thing as agility in general…• Projective analysis is an approach to modeling and analyzing the relationships across all six layers with respect to a chosen variety of demands Domain of interactions Organization of Effects within Effects TEPIDOIL generating Mission Types across Ladders Organization Force Elements Campaign Types 2,3 6 Realization 1 4,5 Orchestration of Skills, Assets, Operational Capabilities Analyzing Equipment & multi-sidedness & Mission Platforms Synchronization Supporting organizations and infrastructures Supply-side Demand-side Skills, Assets, Fielded Assets, Mission Force Operational Effects Equipment & Equipment & synchronization Elements capabilities Platforms Platforms 1 2 3 4 5 6 Demand/ Acquisition Alignment Threat Tempo Tempo Tempo Copyright © BRL 2013 14
  15. 15. Structure Modeling:Five aspects span the different levels of detail Accountability Hierarchies Demand Domain of interactions Organization of Effects within TEPIDOIL generating Mission Types across Organization Force Elements Campaign Types Circular 2,3 6 Dependencies Realization 1 4,5 Orchestration of Skills, Assets, Operational Capabilities Equipment & & Mission Platforms Synchronization Supply-side Demand-side Social & Data Synchronisation Structure & Function of physical and digital systems Copyright © BRL 2013 15
  16. 16. relationships Modeling of basic different layers Alignment Systems-of-systems architecture is layered Analysis of patterns ofCopyright © BRL 2013 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 q 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 traceventamc_msi_out traceventid_conflict traceventesm traceventiff_out traceventlink_in traceventradar_out unitorderamc_it traceventsystem_status unitordermsicp_it traceventmission_record traceventlink_interoperability traceventcomms_out traceventdatalink_out Architectural Analysis of Layering: traceventmission_situation unitordersccp unitorderidl_changes unitorderamcp unitorderamc_logistics unitorderesm_it unitordermsicp unitorderradar_it unitordersor_it unitorderthales traceventcomms_in traceventcomms_interop unitordercomms_logistics simplexes unitordermission_command unitorderops_wing unitordertesting channels 3_trans unitorderflight_deck traceventmission_set unitordercomms_it unitordere3a_logistics from different traceventon_station unitordernav_logistics traceventnav_output geometries-of-use unitorderinertial_it unitorderother_assets Interoperability Risks traceventidentity_tracks unitorderdatalink_logistics unitorderesm_logistics unitorderiff_logistics unitorderradar_logistics unitordersccp_logistics unitordersources_of_repair unitorderclearcase unitorderlan_it traceventcps_outputs traceventlan_output 13 1 k • Analyzing the Alignment Processes separately from the individual Force Elements makes it possible to analyze the interoperability risks across the16
  17. 17. COHESION COSTING Copyright © BRL 2013 17
  18. 18. Cohesion Costing:Cohesion cost = Cost of using Force Elements + Cost of Alignment• 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 Composite Mission Skills, Assets & Fielded assets Force Scenario operational synchronization Equipment & equipment Elements Effects capabilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 Demand/ Acquisition Alignment Threat Tempo Tempo Tempo Copyright © BRL 2013 18
  19. 19. Analysis of Value for Defence:Reducing both the average and the variation in total operational costs• 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 * Agility = property of the force package enabling it to do more things with the same underlying force elements. The total operational cost of approach ‘b’ across the variety of mission situations Value for Defence from: 1. Reduction in average level of defence expenditure through Value for Defence from: impact of trade. 2. Change in spread/variance in levels of defence b expenditure, based on the a’b’ a The total operational cost of difference between the two approach ‘a’ across the variety of curves ‘a’ and ‘b’ mission situations Probability Levels of total operational expenditure on Concurrent Campaigns Copyright © BRL 2013 19