Capability Planning and Analysis to Optimize Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Investments (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Examples of Processes Employed by Government and Industry for Providing Capability Planning and Analysis
3 Examples of Processes Employed by Government and Industry for Providing Capability Planning and Analysis
Pages 47-73
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 47... ...
Appendix C contains descriptions of additional organizational processes and tools that do not appear in this chapter.1 At the end of the chapter, Table 3-4 correlates the findings in this chapter with best practices. EXAMPLES OF GOVERNMENT PROCESSES FOR PROVIDING CAPABILITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS The scope of Air Force responsibilities to provide global, integrated ISR capabilities across strategic, operational, and tactical missions is extraordinarily broad 1The descriptions of the individual organizations' CP&A-like processes and tools vary considerably and are the result of the intent to provide an unclassified report.
|
From page 48... ...
3LTG Richard Zahner, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2, Headquarters, U.S.
|
From page 49... ...
In support of these decentralized and networked operations, Army Intelligence devised the Integrated Sensor Coverage Area (ISCA) construct, featuring three dis tinct ISR mission sets, shown in Figure 3-3: (1)
|
From page 50... ...
What is distinctive about this process is that the Army investment strategy to deliver ISR capabilities begins with a threat-and-environment-based definition of ISR requirements. These are then deconstructed into mission requirements and subsequently into three ISR mission sets, with variable sensing requirements.
|
From page 51... ...
mission requirements. SOURCE: LTG Richard Zahner, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2, Headquarters, U.S.
|
From page 52... ...
The U.S. Army's ISCA construct uses a process that links require ments analysis with force development and portfolio management in a way that helps synchronize planning and execution.
|
From page 53... ...
, the Expeditionary Force Development System (EFDS) , and the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)
|
From page 54... ...
and Concept of Operations (CONOPS) , approves the initial Key Performance Parameters and Key System Attributes, reviews program health, and authorizes the program to proceed to Gate 3 prior to Milestone A
|
From page 55... ...
oversees the development and execution of a balanced portfolio of military and national intelligence capabilities.7 Toward this end, the Battlespace Awareness (BA) portfolio builds the ISR investment strategy by balancing capabilities across TCPED, as shown in Figure 3-7.8 As shown, the OUSD(I)
|
From page 56... ...
NOTE: Acronyms are defined in the list in the front mat ter. SOURCE: Col Anthony Lombardo, Deputybitmap Director, ISR Programs, Agency Acquisition Oversight, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence)
|
From page 57... ...
SOURCE: Col Anthony Lombardo, Deputy Director, ISR Programs, Agency Acquisition Oversight, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence)
|
From page 58... ...
Used primarily to facilitate the understanding of ISR satellite capabilities and limitations, notably persistence and area coverage. Satellite Orbit Analysis Program (SOAP)
|
From page 59... ...
Ultimately, the output of the efforts is generally a report and/or a brief that presents alternatives in terms of priorities, cost, mission utility, and risk. Booz Allen Hamilton Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH)
|
From page 60... ...
that combines capabilities-based analysis, risk analysis, and optimization analysis to inform decision makers conducting port folio management.12 BAH capabilities-based analysis tools can be applied across different parts of the trade-off study process, depending on how both the process and the tool are customized for a particular portfolio or government customer. The benefits ascribed to this approach, as shown in Figure 3-9, are as follows: CBPfM "empowers leaders to make informed trade-off decisions, aligns resources with the organization's strategic priorities, and effectively coordinates portfolio capabilities to meet the demands of the warfighter."13 The CBPfM process, presented in Figure 3-10, follows the basic industry flow of needs analysis, gap analysis, and solution analysis, and includes cost, schedule, performance, and risk analyses.
|
From page 61... ...
SOURCE: Scott Gooch, Principal, and Christopher Anderson, Lead Associate, Booz Allen Hamilton. "Capabilities-Based Portfolio Management: Methods, Processes, and Tools." Presentation to the committee, January 5, 2012.
|
From page 62... ...
Simulation (Government owned) ISR FOCUS Integrated Decision Simulation: Tool product The repeatable FOCUS (Booz Allen Hamilton)
|
From page 63... ...
In this way, TASC described a quantifiable analysis across complex domains, informed by affordability, and with traceability from requirements to decision outcomes. The basic premise of the TASC approach is that complex domains of capability can be analyzed from different perspectives with tailored models and tools appro priate for each perspective, and the various segments of the analysis are integrated to provide traceability of cause and effect for the combined total impact, shown in Figure 3-12.16 For the ISR mission area, those perspectives include the following: sensor and collection platform performance; the network topology connectivity that enables the overall ISR mission; the command and control of the various assets; the communications capabilities and allocations; the vulnerabilities of the information architecture for the command, control, communications, and com puters (C4)
|
From page 64... ...
for ISR mission effects and CONOPS develop ment, JIMM (Joint Integrated Mission Model) for integrated operations analysis and detailed constructive analysis, and other tools provide the physics-based analy sis for the quantification of capability impacts.
|
From page 65... ...
analysts to create new metrics to explore issues without re-executing simulation. a-MINDTM with ANIITM Processing, Statistical relational models; Reduces analysis cycle Process: Exploitation, mission impact of network time by means of rapid automated Mission Impact Dissemination (PED)
|
From page 66... ...
, which supports risk analysis in collection architectures; and the Mission Engineering and Systems Analysis (MESA) process paired with the Horse Blanket Enterprise Architecture Methodology and visualization tool (H-BEAM)
|
From page 67... ...
RadiantBlue, Inc. RadiantBlue, Inc., is a specialized provider of information technology develop ment, consulting, and program support services for the DoD and the intelligence community.19 As with TASC, RadiantBlue implements the mission utility analysis and physics-based capability and architecture assessment phases of an MRA process using its "Blue Sim" Tool, an ISR high-fidelity simulator with agile software that easily accommodates new assets, payloads, and requirements scenarios.
|
From page 68... ...
The following sections describe RadiantBlue's study process (shown in Figure 3-14) .20 Essential Study Documents in Place, Study Kickoff, Study Trade-Space Definition The first three steps illustrated in the RadiantBlue process description define the details of the requested study, including study tasks, the study trade space, and desired outcomes, as well as a set of study messages and themes to guide the de velopment of study output products.
|
From page 69... ...
Includes all of the key ISR Language Translation wideband network node types to include routing, processing, Data Reduction storage area network (SAN) storage, exploitation, etc.
|
From page 70... ...
16 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Patriot_RoundD_Case16_IR_GBON_MQ445_2Ball.txt Complete 17 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Patriot_RoundD_Case17_IRAF_GBOFF_MQ4_1Ball.txt Complete 18 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Patriot_RoundD_Case18_IRAF_GBOFF_MQ445_1Ball.txt Complete 19 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Patriot_RoundD_Case19_IRAF_GBOFF_MQ4_2Ball.txt Complete 20 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Patriot_RoundD_Case20_IRAF_GBOFF_MQ445_2Ball.txt Complete 21 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Patriot_RoundD_Case21_IRAF_GBON_MQ4_1Ball.txt Complete · Messagesand themes 22 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Patriot_RoundD_Case22_IRAF_GBON_MQ445_1Ball.txt Complete 23 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Patriot_RoundD_Case23_IRAF_GBON_MQ4_2Ball.txt Complete 24 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 Patriot_RoundD_Case24_IRAF_GBON_MQ445_2Ball.txt Complete 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Patriot_RoundD_Case25_CO_GBOFF_MQ4_1Ball.txt Complete 26 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Patriot_RoundD_Case26_CO_GBOFF_MQ445_1Ball.txt Complete Preliminary Study ProgressReview Preliminary Tradespace Execution · Review of preliminary results Engineering TEMsand/or · Set up all available components · Review/accept software changes Data gathering · Run available systems and architectures · Incorporate system, target set and · Detailed system TEMs · Prototype MOP, MOE, MOU products vignette changes and parameter · Prototype study deliverables discussions Internal Model Assessment constantSettleTimeSecs · Data gathering from velocityRollDegPerSec · Currency of existing models accRollDegPerSecSq external organizations jerkRollDegPerSecCubed · New models needed velocityPitchDegPerSec accPitchDegPerSecSq · Maturity of existing vignettes jerkPitchDegPerSecCubed velocityYawDegPerSec Software Integration and Test · Vignettes or target sets needed accYawDegPerSecSq jerkYawDegPerSecCubed · Standard regression tests Internal Software Assessment · Custom tests based on CRs Production Tradespace Setupand Execution · Existing CRsneeded for this study · All software updates · Any new software requirements · All new models and model updates Final Model Refinement and Tradespace · All target sets and vignettes with updates Execution · Understanding low level model outputs Customer Delivery · Formal QA/QC of inputs and outputs · Low level model tuning · Delivery of products · Selected re runs as required · Outbriefs with customer's target audience End Study Product Refinement · Debrief and next directions · Full MOP, MOE, MOU Final Study Product Completion with customer development · Final Analytical product updates · Full deliverables development · Final Study Deliverable updates Multiple iterations of these process steps with customer involvement as required FIGURE 3-14 RadiantBlue process description. SOURCE: RadiantBlue.
|
From page 71... ...
Production Trade Space, Study Products, Final Study Products With the refined study direction vector, updated executable(s) , and updated models, the study team then sets up the full production trade space that includes all of the key models, target decks, vignettes, CONOPS, and software features.
|
From page 72... ...
RadiantBlue's modeling, simulation, and analysis capability fo cuses on the physics-based capability and architecture analysis and mission utility analysis found in MRA. The BlueSim tool, combined with RadiantBlue's methodology, has been used to successfully support trade-space studies of vari ous ISR and processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED)
|
From page 73... ...
Examples of Government and Industry Processes for CP&A 73 TABLE 3-4 Best Practices and Corresponding Findings Best Practice Finding Process includes consideration of "enterprise" ISR systems Findings 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 and/or capability. Process is transparent, responsive, scalable, and repeatable.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.