1. Equipment Capability Measurement - An Integrated Approach John MoorePrincipal Consultant, CORDA Ltd Rob Laker Analyst, CORDA Ltd John Roe DD (Capability), DEC(UWB) © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved

2. 2 Overview 1. Equipment Capability Management in the UK MoD 2. Towards an Integrated Capability Evaluation Process 3. Integrated Capability Evaluation: Implementation 4. Summary & Conclusions

3. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 3 1. Equipment Capability Management in the UK MoD Equipment Capability Capability Management The Capability Audit Equipment Prioritisation Issues

4. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 4 Military Capability: Definition “The ability: –to bring together maritime, ground and air components into coherent joint forces under unified command, fully capable of achieving the government’s strategic objectives; –to deliver appropriately motivated, manned, trained and equipped force packages, at the required levels of readiness and with the necessary support, to achieve the full range of agreed military tasks.” Source: Director Equipment Plan, UK MoD

5. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 5 Military Capability: Components Six ‘Lines of Development’: – Equipment – Concepts and Doctrine – Sustainability and Infrastructure – Training – Force Structure – Manpower This paper focuses on Equipment Capability Source: The Equipment Capability Directors’ Handbook, UK MoD

6. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 6 Equipment Capability: Definition “The capacity afforded by an equipment to a unit or force element to perform a task in a given environmental or operational context. – Together with manning, force generation and training. It contributes to Military Capability” Source: Director Equipment Plan, UK MoD

7. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 7 Capability Management: Customer and Supplier Equipment Capability Customer (ECC) DEC(---) Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) IPT Integrated Project Teams (IPT) Directors Equipment Capability (DEC)

8. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 8 Equipment Capability Customer: Structure DCDS(EC) CM(SD)CM(Strike)CM(M) CM(IS) DEC(UWB) DEC(AWB) DEC(DSR) Joint Capabilitie s Board (JCB) Capability Managers 1* CWG IPT 3* 2* Directors, Equipment Capability Capability Working Groups Integrated Project Teams [Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Equipment Capability)]

9. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 9 Capability Management: the Planning Cycle CAP Audit Equipment Plan (EP) Cross-DEC Prioritisation/BoI EP Options (Savings and Enhancements) DEC - level Prioritisation/BoI Option Generation Strategic Guidance * The Joint Capabilities Board (JCB) is the source of strategic direction to the Equipment Programme *

10. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 10 Capability Management: The Capability Audit Workshop-based Capability evaluated against ‘Capability Goals’ Capability scoring expressed in ‘traffic-light’ terms NB The above example is hypothetical Scenario: Warfighting/Covert Surveillance Capability: Classification – MoE: Probability of correct classification

11. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 11 Capability Audit: The Capability Tree NB The above example is hypothetical

12. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 12 Capability Audit: ‘Traffic-Light’ Output NB The above example is hypothetical

13. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 13 Capability Management: Equipment Prioritisation Based on Decision Conferencing – Using Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) technique Workshops at DEC and JCB level

14. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 14 Equipment Prioritisation: MCDA ‘Towers’ NB The above example is hypothetical

15. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 15 Equipment Prioritisation: MCDA Order-of-buy NB The above example is hypothetical

16. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 16 Capability Evaluation: Issues Linkage between Audit and Prioritisation – Audit outputs are disaggregated … – … but MCDA inputs are highly aggregated Process relies on MCDA technique for ‘what-ifs’ –Can’t capture synergies and redundancies –Can’t cope with large variability of costs – Can’t cope with strong linkages between towers – MCDA scores have no real-world meaning

17. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 17 2. Towards an Integrated Capability Evaluation Process Common framework for Audit and BoI processes Quantitative capability scoring Consistent rules for combining and trading-off scores Capture synergies and highlight capability gaps Output: – common scale for all levels of capability – easily interpreted in real-world terms

18. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 18 Capability Scoring: Benchmarking Formalisation of Cap Audit process Expresses OA outputs in Capability terms

19. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 19 Capability Scoring: Elicitation Capability scores obtained from a stakeholder workshop

20. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 20 Capability Scoring: The Capability Matrix To answer the ‘so-what’ question, must be able to: Generate collective low-level cap scores Aggregate cap scores to any level in the capability tree NB The above example is hypothetical

21. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 21 Collective Scoring: the Equipment Portfolio Equipment Portfolio (1 = funded, 0 = unfunded) Programme 5 9 8 4 Cost 1 0 1 0 Capability Tree Calculation of collective capability scores

22. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 22 Robust Capability Aggregation: Capability Weights

23. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 23 Robust Capability Aggregation: Example Non-linear aggregation: –Low score (=> shortfalls) highly weighted – High scores (=> overprovision) low-weighted NB The above example is hypothetical

24. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 24 3. Integrated Capability Evaluation: Implementation The Cost-Capability Management Toolkit (CCMT) – Capability Analysis Support Tool (CAST) – BoI Evaluation Support Tool (BEST) Defence Equipment Capability Analysis for Investment Decisions (DECAID)

25. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 25 Implementation: CAST and BEST CAP Audit Equipment Plan (EP) Cross-DEC Prioritisation/BoI EP Options (Savings and Enhancements) Option Generation Strategic Guidance BEST CAST Cap Matrix

26. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 26 CAST Outputs: Cap Summary NB The above example is hypothetical

27. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 27 CAST Outputs: ‘Traffic-Light’ Output NB The above example is hypothetical

28. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 28 BEST: Overview Capability Matrix Spend v time ISD/OSD data BoI Evaluation Support Tool (BEST) Capability v Cost Capability Timeline Interdependency/ Incompatibility Constraints From CAST tool

29. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 29 BEST: Cost-Capability Outputs Synergy Redundancy NB The above example is hypothetical

30. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 30 BEST: Capability Timelines NB The above example is hypothetical

31. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 31 The successor to CCMT: DECAID DECAID –Defence Equipment Capability Analysis for Investment Decisions Integrated capability tool combining functions of CAST and BEST Development now in progress, for delivery October 2003

32. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 32 DECAID - Requirements Integrate CAST and BEST –remove inconsistencies and redundancies Increase usability Improved functionality Increase maintainability

33. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 33 DECAID: Example Screen NB The above example is hypothetical

34. © CORDA Ltd 2003. All rights reserved 34 4. Summary & conclusions Integration of capability evaluation processes is crucial to progress in capability management – both in MoD and in Industry Off-the-shelf solutions are not adequate CCMT & DECAID represent a radical solution CCMT & DECAID represent a general solution “This process is three years ahead of anything that other DECs are doing” Comment at a DEC(UWB) BEST workshop, May 2003