slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG).  PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG). 

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG).  - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 141 Views
  • Uploaded on

Operations Analysis in Civilian Organizations. Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG).  . 15 October 2004 David F. Davis Director, Peace Operations Policy Program (703) 993-1703 Ddavis@gmu.edu http://popp.gmu.edu. Background.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG). ' - jalene


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Operations Analysis in Civilian

Organizations

Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG). 

15 October 2004

David F. Davis

Director, Peace Operations Policy Program

(703) 993-1703

Ddavis@gmu.edu

http://popp.gmu.edu

slide2

Background

The international intervention in Iraq consists of both military and civilian organizations. Operations Research support to this intervention has been overwhelmingly focused on the military dimension.

This focus is cultural. The military is used to it, and the civilians are not. This presentation covers one analysis that was done for the Coalition Provisional Authority during the period of May – August 2004. Although this analysis informed some of the decisions, it is not possible to say that the analysis caused any decisions. However, it was a start.

slide3

The Allocation

How can we propose a reallocation of the $18.4B?

This effort consumed the Embassy, although it was never a major issue in the CPA. This dichotomy may well be the source of many books over the next several years.

Beginning in May 2004, the IRMO Planning office began to look at this issue from a goals based perspective.

slide4

A Diversion

Analysis to plan:

Unified Concept Plan – ORHA

Strategic Plan – CPA

Legislative Requirements – CPA/Embassy

Mission Performance Plan – Embassy

slide5

MPP High Level Goals

Security

Economic

Eliminate

Terrorism

Economic

Development

DGS

The analysis was an attempt to show the relationship between the ‘plan’ and the $18.4B.

Democratization and the Rule of Law

Political

slide6

MPP Strategic Goals

1 Counter Terrorism

2 A Strong Reliable Regional Partner

5 Sustainable Growth

3 Complete and Verifiable Disarmament

9 Social, Environmental, Health and Education

4 A Democratic and Free Iraq

10 Refugees and IDPs

slide7

PMO Categories Impacting MPP Strategic Goals

Security and Law Enforcement

Electricity

Transportation and Telecommunications

Oil

Water Resources and Sanitation

Health

Justice, Public Safety Infrastructure and Civil Society

Education, Refugees, Human Rights and Governance

slide8

USAID Sectors Impacting MPP Strategic Goals

Ports and Airports

Public Utilities and Infrastructure

Health

Education

Emergency

Local Governance and Civic Action

Economic Recovery, Reform and Sustained Growth

slide9

Ongoing or Completed

Million US$ (June 04)

USAID project money only, does not include program overhead and direct salaries

PMO as of 14 June 2004, USAID as of 17 June 2004

slide10

Ongoing or Completed

Million US$

USAID project money only, does not include program overhead and direct salaries

slide11

How should we be spending the money?

If we are to be spending the money to further the goals of the Mission, then we should try to understand how each of the projects and activities contribute to those goals. This will require some innovative thought on the part of all stakeholders: US, International Partners and the Iraqis.

  • The IRMO Planning approach to this problem uses both quantitative and qualitative techniques of Management Science and Operations Research.
  • Identify projects and activities within funding sectors by source of funding and primary agent (PCO, USAID, IC, Iraqi)
  • Score these projects, within sectors, on the project’s/activity’s contribution to the second level Goals of the COM.
  • Score the second level Goals on their contribution to the overall Mission.
  • Determine the combined scores for each alternative allocation strategy.

The choice of allocation strategy will be made by the leadership, not the analyst.

slide12

Identify contribution of projects and activities to the sectors.

The advocacy briefings indicated that in sector priority lists exist in almost every case. These priority lists and the contribution of the project to the mission goals could be used to provide for project scoring within sector.

However, this initial effort is focused on determining an investment strategy, not individual sector spending plans. The scoring must represent the general utility expected of a project within a sector.

slide13

Review

Scoring:

Contribution of Projects to Goals

Contribution of Projects to Sectors

Contribution of Goals to Mission

slide14

Utility Functions – fi

U

1.0

U = M(2)*A + B

X

U = M(1)*A

A, in $

A(1)

A(N)

slide15

In Sector Utilities

Utilities (1.0 Maximum)

($1000s)

slide17

The Model

Allocate resources to the sectors in order to maximize the total utility (effectiveness), subject to the requirement that the total resources do not exceed $M (currently set to $18.2m).

Maximize

Where wi is the Weight of Sector i, ui is the utility of Sector i , ai is the distribution to Sector i, and fi is defined as a piece-wise linear function.

S.T.

And

slide18

Alternative Comparisons

Change from Base

slide19

Alternative Allocations

GAO Sector Description

slide20

Relative Scores

The combination of effectiveness and importance allows for a calculation of the overall score.

slide21

The Issues

Culture of Analysis

Intent of the Office v. Background of the Director

Asking questions for which answers are desired