NAVAL ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES

IMPROVING CAPABILITIES-BASED PLANNING

Committee on Naval Analytical Capabilities and Improving Capabilities-Based Planning

Naval Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning NAVAL ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES IMPROVING CAPABILITIES-BASED PLANNING Committee on Naval Analytical Capabilities and Improving Capabilities-Based Planning Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-00-G-0230, DO #20, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09516-6 Additional copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, The Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904, Washington, DC 20001; and The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning COMMITTEE ON NAVAL ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES AND IMPROVING CAPABILITIES-BASED PLANNING JOHN D. CHRISTIE, LMI, Chair PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND and Pardee RAND Graduate School JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services SAMUEL D. KLEINMAN, Center for Naval Analyses R. BOWEN LOFTIN, Texas A&M University at Galveston L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California GENE H. PORTER, Nashua, New Hampshire ANDREW P. SAGE, George Mason University ELAINE SIMMONS, Office of the Secretary of Defense WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Study Director MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Consultant

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning NAVAL STUDIES BOARD JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Vice Chair ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN D. CHRISTIE, LMI ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., ITT Industries DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia NILS R. SANDELL, JR., BAE Systems WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia RICHARD L. WADE, Exponent DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ELIHU ZIMET, National Defense University Navy Liaison Representatives RADM JOSEPH A. SESTAK, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through October 1, 2004) MR. GREG MELCHER, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Acting N81 (from October 2, 2004, through November 8, 2004) RADM SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of November 8, 2004) RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 Marine Corps Liaison Representative LTGEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through September 30, 2004) LTGEN JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (as of October 1, 2004)

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning Preface The Department of Defense (DOD) has made capabilities-based planning a core concept for its future work. The Department of the Navy has made a good start at transforming its efforts to that style of planning, and in April 2004, it requested the National Research Council, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board, to establish a committee to assess naval analytical capabilities and the Navy’s capabilities-based planning. A fast response was requested. The terms of reference for the Committee on Naval Analytical Capabilities and Improving Capabilities-Based Planning are provided below. John D. Christie, senior fellow at LMI, chaired the committee. Biographical information on the committee membership and staff is presented in Appendix A. The committee met once, from July 27 to July 29, 2004, to conduct a workshop at the J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center of the National Academy of Sciences, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The committee heard presentations from the Department of the Navy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Staff, and then outlined an initial draft report (see Appendix B for the workshop agenda). The months between the workshop and publication of this report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, gathering additional information, reviewing and responding to external review comments, editing the report, and conducting the required security review to produce a public report. Because only a single workshop was convened for this project, the report’s findings are dependent to some degree on the expertise and background of its members. The committee attempted to reach an appropriate balance in addressing the terms of reference while not reaching conclusions based on limited data and

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning information collected from the Navy and other elements of the Department of Defense. The objective of the report is to provide the Navy with useful, timely results and to address the most important near-term actions that the committee believes the Navy should take to improve its capabilities-based planning and analysis activities. TERMS OF REFERENCE At the request of the Department of the Navy, the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council convened a workshop to assess current Department of Defense initiatives and the Department of the Navy’s progress in transitioning from a requirements-based to a capabilities-based organization. The committee was also tasked to provide recommendations aimed at improving the organizational structure of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations to best position the Chief of Naval Operations to fulfill his Title 10 (U.S. Code on Armed Forces) responsibilities. Specifically, the terms of reference for the study are as follows: Examine analytical processes and methods used by the Navy and other elements of the Department of Defense for capabilities-based planning. In particular, review ongoing studies (e.g., the Joint Defense Capabilities Study) and identify what has been learned to date (i.e., what works well and what has not succeeded); Assess current Navy capabilities-based planning processes and evaluation tools, as well as related activities being pursued within different elements of the Department of the Navy. In particular, evaluate the following: (1) the availability of appropriate data, scenarios, and analytic tools; (2) the adequacy of analytic skills and environments within the Navy; (3) the timeliness of the naval-related activities; and (4) the utility of the products; Address the key elements for successfully implementing capabilities-based planning. Determine methods and processes that N81 and others in the Navy can use to leverage their own (and others’) activities for the benefit of the corporate Navy’s integrated capabilities-based planning efforts and the interoperability of the Navy and joint staff capabilities-based planning processes; and Recommend a capabilities-based planning approach for the Navy based on the above considerations.

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Larry Burns, General Motors, Edward A. Frieman, University of California, San Diego, Richard L. Kugler, National Defense University, David M. Maddox, Arlington, Virginia, John Tillson, Institute for Defense Analyses, Raymond M. Walsh, Sr., Fairfax, Virginia, and Larry D. Welch, Institute for Defense Analyses. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Gerald P. Dinneen, Lexington, Massachusetts. Ap-

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning pointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   14      Background,   14      The Navy’s Current Problem and Challenge,   16      Capabilities-Based Planning Over the Longer Term,   18      Focus of This Report,   19      Organization of This Report,   20 2   KEY ELEMENTS OF CAPABILITIES-BASED PLANNING AND ANALYSIS   21      Definition of Capabilities-Based Planning,   21      Basic Approach for Capabilities-Based Planning,   22 3   REVIEW OF THE NAVY’S ANALYTICAL PROCESSES AND METHODS   30      The Committee’s Approach,   30      The Conceptual Framework,   32      The Analytic Framework,   36      Future Building Blocks,   52      Implementation—Moving Toward First-Class Analysis,   53

OCR for page R1
Naval Analytical Capabilities: Improving Capabilities-Based Planning 4   NAVY PARTICIPATION IN CAPABILITIES-BASED PLANNING PROCESSES OF THE OSD AND OJCS   59      Highlights,   59      Background,   60      Navy Program Planning,   68      Recommendations,   71 5   POTENTIAL FUTURE EFFORTS   73      Additional Inputs,   73      Additional Assessment Areas,   75     APPENDIXES         A   Committee and Staff Biographies   79     B   Workshop Agenda   85     C   Acronyms and Abbreviations   89