Combining Analysis strands in a Main Gate Submission

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Analysis questions for Business Case How good does the ship need to be in its primary role? How balanced is the ship across all of its capabilities? Is the solution cost-effective? How many ships should be bought?

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Bring together three strands of analysis Platform Numbers Study Decision Conferencing Combat System OA

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Decision Conferencing Process Structured series of stakeholder meetings to: –identify significantly different options for capability functions –evaluate cost of each option and its benefits against a range of criteria –judge relative importance of differences between options and between criteria –use supporting tool to derive theoretically optimum outline design –modify theoretical design by applying additional judgement

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Benefits of Conferencing Approach Examined full breadth of the platform and combat system; Unearthed critical issues; Winnowed down the vast number of potential combinations of elements of the platform and combat system; Achieved a high degree of consensus across a broad range of MOD stakeholders; Identified areas requiring more detailed analysis; Provided a starting point (ball-park) for the prime contractors design process; Provided part of the audit trail at Main Gate for why the proposed design was appropriate and cost effective

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Concerns about the Conferencing Approach Fundamentally judgemental Does not take account of interactions between capabilities Complexity of judgements Apparent precision of outputs Limited consideration of scenarios Treatment of Life Cycle Costs

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Combat System Analysis Methods Area 1 –Military Judgement Panels - Soft –Monte Carlo Simulation Battle Model - Hard Area 2 –Parallel Applied Research Programme (ARP) Study –Performance figures for systems - Performance –Military Judgement Panel - with appropriate experts - Soft –insights from previous analysis work - Soft/Hard Area 3 –Parallel ARP study - Performance –OA to assess implications of performance - Hard

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Steps in Combat System Analysis Identify a number of combination options for each Area Evaluate each combination option with the techniques listed Extract findings on each combination option Extract findings on each system of interest Summarise implications for differing levels of capability through life

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Bringing it together Platform Numbers Study demonstrated the number of ships required Decision Conferencing process identified militarily acceptable options with good benefit/cost For systems identified as needing further detailed work, the Combat System OA identified the option level required to avoid significant shortfalls Comparisons were made of the cost and qualitative effectiveness of alternative combinations of options

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Combat System Option Individual System Options Findings on Individual System Options

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Features of the Analysis Consideration of evolution of capability (First of Class (FOC) and Class) –implications of many ships at FOC capability for several years Close working on high level and system level OA Combination of broad/judgemental and deep/analytical methods Results included both qualitative and quantitative

© Dstl 2001 Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence July 2001 Future Improvements Expend greater effort on problem structuring –bring in additional techniques –recognition that this brings much of the benefit and is key in driving the solution space Maximising the supporting evidence to the judgements Ensure the broad and deep analyses work together –e.g. broad - deep - broad approach