1. An Overview of the DoD Analytic Agenda Resources for Analysts
This Presentation is UNCLASSIFIED

2. Cautions
Some of you may know a lot about this subject, but please be careful in your questions not to mention any countries associated with the scenarios referred to in this scenario.
Please try to avoid acronyms that others may not know when/if you ask questions.

3. Analytic Agenda The Bottom Line Up Front
Goal is was make analyses more effective and relevant for decisionmaking
Focus debate on assumptions and issues, agree on Characteristics & Performance (C&P)
Help synchronize strategic planning activities throughout DoD
Provided a common starting point and framework for joint analyses
Scenarios characterize the range of defense challenges
Future joint warfighting CONOPS are developed/examined
Analytic assessments (baselines, data, and studies) are accessible and well documented
Designed as a collaborative, transparent, and continuously ongoing process—Joint Staff, OSD, Services, and COCOMs involved
Train and sustain critical mass of analysis experts
Managed by OSD Policy, Joint Staff (JS), and OSD/CAPE (formerly PA&E)
Supported planning, acquisition, experimentation, and training communities
At peak use, seeing 100s of users and 1000s of product downloads
Focused the debate on the scenario issues and assumptions not on the models, data, or methodology

4. DoD Analysis Community
OSD Policy, CAPE, Intel, etc.
USA G-3/5/7/8, CAA, etc.
Joint Staff J8, J5, J4, etc.
USAF A9, A8, etc.
COCOMs
JFCOM*, SOCOM, etc
USMC MCCDC, etc.
Defense Agencies DIA, DISA, DTRA, etc.
USN N81, N3/N5, etc.
Interagency
DoS, DHS, CIA, USAID, State
Allies
UK, AUS, CA, NZ
Industry, NGOs and FFRDCs
JFCOM was disestablished in 2010

5. Strategic Analysis Environment
Focus of the
Analytic Agenda
Theater
Level
Force
Level
Scenarios, CONOPS, and integrated data (in M&S tools) provide the environment/context for analyses at the few-on-few, one-on-one and physics/ engineering level of detail.
Combat/
Force Effectiveness
Few-on-Few
Combat
Utility
System
Effectiveness
One-on-One
Data/results from analyses at the few-on-few, one-on-one and physics/ engineering level of detail provide data and doctrine for use in aggregated M&S
Weapon
Systems
System
Performance
Physics/engineering
Components &
Subsystems
Subsystem effects 5

6. DoD Analytic Agenda Some History
Common themes emerged from comprehensive DoD reviews to assess strategy, force structure, budget, etc in the late 1990s:
Analysis performed by different Components produced inconsistent insights
No common set of scenarios, CONOPS, data, analysis tools, methods
Analysis not timely
“Analytic Agenda” introduced in the DPG (DoD-level guidance) in May 2002
“… to support implementation of the new Defense Strategy”
draft a directive that dictates a process for overseeing the collecting and sharing of joint data for current and projected adversary and US forces
Corresponding DoD Directive initially issued in Dec 2002, updated in Jan 2007
Includes current-year and future-year analysis products
DODI
DODI
The DoD Analytic Agenda was created to provide a common framework for developing scenarios, CONOPS, data, tools, methods – to support strategic analyses looking across the Department’s portfolios.

7. The Analytic Agenda Response
GOAL: Better, more responsive analysis to support decision makers
Based in Current Year to explore alternative concepts of operation
Based in Future Years to explore transformational concepts and test force structure alternatives (mid-term & long-term)
Improved Tools
More in-depth representations of warfare
C4ISR, Info Ops, SOF
Faster, more responsive, easier to use
Improved Data
Consistent Analysis that starts from common reference point
Collaborative development leads to better quality and quantity
More robust treatment of uncertainty
Analysis-ready data sets allow faster analysis
Analytic Transparency
Increased awareness OSD-wide of ongoing analysis
Reduce redundancy, increase synergism

8. Evolution in Analysis Capabilities
Before 2002
DoD-wide joint warfighting assessments every 4-5 years
MRS-05; DAWMS
Phases 1-3 of warfight
Limited DoD-wide management of models and data
Joint warfighting assessments by J8 with some support by CAPE
Component support upon request
Limited Transparency and availability of common data
After 2002
Senior leadership continuously involved and expect everyone to use AA products
Assessment from pre-conflict (Phase 0) to post-conflict (Phases 4-5)
Expanded scope (e.g. HD, IW, Counter WMD)
Active, collaborative management of data, tools, and initial model results
Common scenarios, data, models used Department-wide
Central source for products (JDS)
SAP and IW Analysis still a challenge
CAPE and J8 conduct warfighting analysis
Components actively engaged
Transparency & data availability – vastly improved

9. Analytic Agenda Products Future-Year
Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS) – OSD/Policy in Charge
The Strategy: A page high-level description of postulated conflict
Red/Blue strategy & objectives, operational concepts, warning times, macro-level force commitments
Participation/coordination: Joint Staff, CA&PE, COCOMs, Services
Multi-Service Force Deployments (MSFD) – Joint Staff (J-8) in Charge
The CONOPS: A 200 page description of how the postulated conflict unfolds – includes database
Orders of Battle, strategy/tactics at the operational level, axes of attack, defensive dispositions, TOEs, force allocation to missions, OPTEMPO/sortie rates, readiness factors, munitions, sustainment
Quarterly conferences attended by people: Services, COCOMs, DIA, OSD
Analytical Baselines (ABs) – Joint Staff (J-8) and OSD/CAPE in Charge
Analysis of the DPSs and MSFDs resulting in data files, briefings, and papers
Current Year: COCOMs assisted by the Joint Staff (J-8)
Out Year: OA and MCS studies led by Joint Staff and OSD/CAPE with Service, DIA, and COCOM participation

10. Analytical Baselines The Complete Process
DOD Senior Leadership
Joint Staff Approved
Strategy
Defense Planning Scenarios
Multi-Service Force Deployment
Irreg
New
Tech
Extremism
SSSP
WMD
MCO1
MCO2
MCO3 SD
HLD
ISP
Catastrophic
Products support Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution across DoD (acquisition, concept development, experimentation, training & testing)
CAPE participates at all stages and is the primary developer of future-year analytical baselines
CAPE Director approves release of future-year analytical baselines
CAPE Approved
Future Year Analytical
Baselines
Component-Level Studies
(JCIDS, AOAs, ….)
Policy Approved
PPBE
Process
Other Studies
QDR
Winter Study
MCRS
JPG
Operational Availability
Future Year
Analytical
Baseline
Studies/Wargames etc 10

11. DPS and MSFD Development Process
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
OSD(P)
Approved
Comment Resolution New Draft
Policy Guidance
Policy (IDA) Drafts DPS
JPG
DPS
J8 and DIA Lead development of Strategic Concepts
O-6 Chop
Scenario Selection
GO/FO Chop
OSD, Joint Staff, Agency, Service & COCOM Participation
MSFD
J8 and DIA develop Strawman Blue and Red CONOPS
plus
Forces and Data Development
JPG
MSFD
Final Coord
MSFD Conference
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
Comment Resolution and Final Adjudication
DJS
Approved

12. DPS and MSFD Development Process
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
OSD(P)
Approved
Comment Resolution New Draft
Policy Guidance
Policy (IDA) Drafts DPS
JPG
DPS
Contains Policy Guidance and Blue/Green/Red/Brown strategic level concepts
Replaces “Illustrative Planning Scenarios” (IPS)
Mid (201X) and Long Term (202X) timeframes (regularly updated)
Variable parameters to explore and widen trade space
Provide a credible set of scenarios for DoD analytical efforts:
JCIDs analysis (AoAs, EoAs, FCB assessments etc)
Acquisition & Program Analysis
Studies (e.g., Operational Availability)
J8 and DIA Lead development of Strategic Concepts
O-6 Chop
Scenario Selection
GO/FO Chop
OSD, Joint Staff, Agency, Service & COCOM Participation
MSFD
J8 and DIA develop Strawman Blue and Red CONOPS
plus
Forces and Data Development
JPG
MSFD
MSFD Conference
Final Coord
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
DJS
Approved

13. DPS and MSFD Development Process
Provides order of battle-like detail (forces, units, equipment, CONOPS)
Developed through collaborative effort, led by the Joint Staff
OPFOR, Neutral, US, and Allied Data
Supports:
Campaign Analysis (Conventional, Irregular, etc)
Acquisition Program Analysis (e.g., FA-22, JSF)
Operational Test & Evaluation (e.g., ATEC, AFOTEC)
Studies (Mobility)
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
OSD(P)
Approved
Comment Resolution New Draft
Policy Guidance
Policy (IDA) Drafts DPS
JPG
DPS
J8 and DIA Lead development of Strategic Concepts
O-6 Chop
Scenario Selection
GO/FO Chop
OSD, Joint Staff, Agency, Service & COCOM Participation
MSFD
J8 and DIA develop Strawman Blue and Red CONOPS
plus
Forces and Data Development
JPG
MSFD
MSFD Conference
Final Coord
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
DJS
Approved

14. Analytical Baselines A Starting Point for Strategic Analysis*
Strategy
Defense Planning Scenarios
Multi-Service Force Deployment
National Leadership
OUSD (P)
Joint Staff
OPLANs
CONPLANs
Threat CONOPS
Data
COCOM
DIA
JPG
Future Year:
Current Year:
Service Studies
Joint Studies
Wargames
COCOM Studies
Munitions Requirements
Analytical Baselines
Future Forces, Units, and Equipment (FUE)
Characteristics and
Performance (C&P)
Environment
Targets
Current: CJCS approved
Future: OSD/CAPE approved
Quick Look Studies
“Strategic Analysis*”
QDR
AoAs
MCS
ISR Capability Needs
*”Strategic Analysis. An analysis of force sufficiency and effectiveness conducted by the DoD Components to support the development and evaluation of the defense strategy. Such analyses address both forces and enablers (e.g., inter-theater and intra-theater lift capability).” [DoDD ]

15. DoD’s Evolving Analytical Challenge
Increasing complexity of the new strategic environment
New Focus: Addresses a broader range of global challenges

16. Paradigm Shifts in Defense Planning Scenarios (DPS)
2007 15

17. DPS Scenario Construct
For
Illustrative
Purposes Only
Old
“Point Solution”
Format
New
“Bounded Variable”
Format
MTW “X”
Current Blue CONOPS
X days warning
Red chem use
HNS = Total
Overflight = Yes
Base access = Yes
Coalition = N/A
UN sanctions = No
MCO “X” 201X
Legend
Blue CONOPS
Pre-empt
Swift. Def.
Win Decisively
Warning X days
0 days
Baseline Values
Base case – selected variable from which excursions may be run
Red chem use Late
Early
HNS Total
None
Limited
Overflight All
None
Some
Specific case set by senior decision makers.
Base access All
None
Some
Coalition Global Support
None
Regional
UN Sanctions Yes No
Partial
Least
Stressful
Most
Stressful

18. M&S Tool Registry Functionality Matrix
The DoD Analysis M&S Tools are listed in the following matrix and are associated with the functionalities for which the tool is commonly used in the DoD analysis community. The matrix also categorizes the tool as:
Campaign (C),
Mission (M),
Engagement (E) or
Engineering (Eng).
Campaign tools depict theater and global scenarios and interactions with scenarios that tend to be measured in days to months.
Mission tools depict many-on-many and force level interactions with scenarios in hours to days.
Engagement tools depict one-on-one interactions with scenarios measured in minutes to hours.
Engineering tools depict physics or engineering level detail. The feeder tools indicate which type of analysis tools that it supports with output data.
The tool characterization is not rigid, but is determined by the JDS tool manager and changes over time.

19. Core OSD/JCS Analysis Tools
- Dropped
- Archived
See Backup Slides for additional models

20. Analytical Baselines The Payoff
+ Analysis
To encourage internal consistency
“Warm” databases ready to support Department-level analyses and aligned with selected models
Analytical Baseline: A package comprising a scenario, concept of operations, and integrated data used by DoD Components as a foundation for strategic analyses
Scenario
Location
Year
Objectives
CONOPS
Red
Blue
Green
Other Data
Characteristics and Performance (C&P)
Forces, Units, and Equipment (FUE)
Environmental (terrain, weather, …)
Targets
Data Aligned with
Set of Models
Comment Resolution and final adjudication
Comment Resolution and final adjudication

21. Almost Final Thoughts
The Analytic Agenda provided a common starting point…
More Effective:
A deeper understanding of key issues
Better data via collaborative development
Aligns analytic efforts with development and budget cycles
More Efficient:
Quicker response to important questions
Better understanding of differences among competing analyses
More Relevant:
Supports COCOM planning activities
Supports Capabilities-based planning activities
Supports Quadrennial Defense Review activities

22. Wrap-up So What Happened to the Analytic Agenda?
Where Are We Now with Respect to a Standard Set of Approved Scenarios?
Where Should the Wargaming and Simulation Communities Stand on the Topic of Common Scenarios and How They Should be Used?

23. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS?

24. Acronyms AA Analytic Agenda AB Analytical Baseline
C&P Characteristics & Performance
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
COCOMs Combatant Commanders
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DIA Defense Intelligence Agency
DISA Defense Information Systems Agency
DJS Director of the Joint Staff
DoS Department of State
DPS Defense Planning Scenarios
DPG Defense Planning Guidance
DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency
FFRDC Federally Funded Research & Development Center
FUE Forces, Units, and Equipment
ISP Integrated Security Postures
JDS Joint Data Support (Office)
JFCOM Joint Forces Command
MCCDC Marine Corps Combat Development Center
MSFD Multi-Service Functional Description
SOCOM Special Operations Command
SSSP Steady State Security Postures
USAID US Agency for International Development