Enterprise Modeling

Enterprise Modeling Improving the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Process for IT Solutions Government Contract Proposals Saad El Beleidy PeymanJamshidi Jared Kovacs Gabriel Lewis

Agenda Context Stakeholder Analysis Scope, Problem and Need Design Alternatives Simulation Design Project Plan and Budget Risk Management Syst 490-Fall 2011

Context • IT Solutions Government Contractors • Provide technology or services to government entities • Gain 100% of revenue from successful proposals • Operate in a very competitive environment, with competition expected to increase with government budget cuts Syst 490-Fall 2011

Project Sponsor • Civilian and National Security (CNS) Division, Vangent, Inc. • Vangent, Inc. is an IT Solutions contractor in the D.C. area • CNS Division responds to 15-25 Requests For Proposals (RFPs) per year • Large, multi-million dollar proposals • Often complex, dealing with a large scope of technology • 5-10 competitors for each proposal • To remain competitive, must be efficient in highly time sensitive proposal development process Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Level 1Proposal Development Process Government Entity Requirements Selected Solution Acquisitions Committee Government Contractor Solicitation Proposal Technical Solution Development Technical Solution Development Bid Decision Proposal Writing Budget & Management Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Level 2Technical Solution Development Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Alternatives Analysis Integration of Assets Solicitation Ranked List of Alternatives Assets for Proposal Solution to be Proposed Model developed based on team research and knowledge elicitation from Vangent sponsors 7 Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Level 3 Top Level AoA Process Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions Solicitation Ranked List of Alternatives High-level “Decision and Analysis Resolution” (DAR) model provided by Vangent sponsors Syst 490-Fall 2011

Ranked List of Alternatives AoA output for “Case Management Platforms” (Vangent, Inc) Vendors Considered: Custom Developed Siebel IBM Microsoft Total Scores Syst 490-Fall 2011

Current Time Issues in AoA • Takes ~20% of total time for Proposal Development • On the critical path for Proposal Development • A significant proportion of the proposal cannot be written until the solution has been determined • Limited re-use, past work is lost • One solution architect handles entire AoA, so potentially parallel processes are conducted in series instead Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Type Classification • Labor Intensive: • Little expertise required: parsing, documenting TimeVariability = Low • Decision Making: • Expert required: difficult decisions, judgment calls Time Variability = High • Experience Recall • Expert required: subjectively making judgments based on previous experience, Time Variability = Medium • Networking • Personal dialogue and collaboration with co-workers and others Time Variability = High Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Level 4Analysis of Alternatives Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Level 4 Define Problem Domain Process Types: Labor Intensive Decision Making Experience Recall Networking Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Level 4 Define Evaluation Criteria Process Types: Labor Intensive Decision Making Experience Recall Networking Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Level 4 Explore Alternate Solutions Process Types: Labor Intensive Decision Making Experience Recall Networking Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs Syst 490-Fall 2011

Process Level 4 Evaluate Solutions Process Types: Labor Intensive Decision Making Experience Recall Networking Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs Syst 490-Fall 2011

AoA Process Summary Syst 490-Fall 2011

Stakeholder Analysis • Key Stakeholders • Directly involved in the solutions development process • Solutions Architects • Perform market research and collect component specs from vendors • Organize the development effort of potential solutions • Perform analysis of alternatives • Capture Managers • Identify, track, and review bid opportunities • Develop a winning bid strategy • Oversee pricing, identify resources required, and manage process execution • Proposal Managers • Develop and manage the proposal plan and schedule • Structure, develop, and write proposals around the RFP Syst 490-Fall 2011

Stakeholder Analysis • Primary Stakeholders • Beneficiaries of successful proposals • Executives • Provide high-level drivers, goals, and objectives to be met by the organization • Solicitors • Customers; interested in buying an IT solution • Send out an RFP • Vendors • Hardware, software, service suppliers • Communicate data and specifications with solutions architects • External Stakeholders • Indirectly impacted by proposed solutions • Public • Solicitor’s customers Syst 490-Fall 2011

Key Stakeholder Interactions Interactions Proposal Demand Solution Demand Tension: Limited time and personnel resources to conduct solutions development. Syst 490-Fall 2011

Key Stakeholder Goals • Capture Managers • Maximize probability of winning proposals • ↑Solution discriminability • ↑Solution quality • Proposal Managers • Maximize proposal throughput • Solutions Architects • Minimize solutions development effort • Minimize labor hours per week Syst 490-Fall 2011

Primary Stakeholder Goals • Executives • Maximize Profitability • ↑Revenue from won contracts • ↓Resource/ Proposal Development costs • Solicitors • Maximize Solution Utility • Meet Requirements • ↑Solution Quality • ↓Contract costs • Vendors • Maximize Competitiveness • ↑ Product Marketability • ↑ Data Accuracy Syst 490-Fall 2011

Stakeholder Conflict • Managers vs. Solutions Architect • Increased proposal throughput to meet demand means longer hours, higher stress for the Solutions Architects. • Solutions Architects don’t want to have to work overtime (nights/weekends) to meet demanding deadlines. • Typically, increasing the quality of an intellectual labor process increases the time necessary for completion. • How to meet Goals • Maximize Proposal Throughput • ↑Process Efficiency • Minimize Solutions Development Effort • ↑ Current Vendor Data Availability • ↑ Past Market Research Data Availability Syst 490-Fall 2011

Scope Process Level 3 Top Level AoA Process Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions Solicitation Ranked List of Alternatives Mean time duration of the AoA process as well as the variability of the mean Syst 490-Fall 2011

Problem Statement The current process for AoA has notable time-inefficiencies and there is a potential for an improved process with the same performance but lower time consumption. Syst 490-Fall 2011

Need Statement Need for mean time reduction validated with key stakeholders Need for time variability reduction to be validated with key stakeholders There is a need for a system to increase proposal development efficiency by reducing the mean time needed for Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) by at least 33%, and the variability of the same by 25%, while maintaining or increasing AoA proposed solution quality. Syst 490-Fall 2011

Design Alternatives Syst 490-Fall 2011

Mission Requirements The systems shall reduce the mean time required for AoA by at least 33% The systems shall reduce variability in mean time required for AoA by 25% The systems shall allow storage of current and retrieval of past technical solution material The systems shall function in various proposal sizes (1 month, 6-months and year-long proposals) The systems shall allow inter-personal coordination on technical solution development efforts Syst 490-Fall 2011

Alternative 1Added Architect Alternative 1 Additional Solutions Architect collaborates to conduct AoA • Reduce mean time required for AoA by taking advantage of potentially parallel processes • Reduce mean time for “Experience Recall” tasks by increasing experience pool of architects Syst 490-Fall 2011

Added Architect Alternative Syst 490-Fall 2011

Added Architect Alternative Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions • Time Reduction • Parallel Processes Syst 490-Fall 2011

Alternative 2Database Alternative Division-wide database to facilitate in AoA by allowing for storage, retrieval and sharing of technical solution material • Reduce mean duration of all AoA sub-processes by enabling re-use of past technical solution material • Reduce duration variability by changing some “Decision Making” and “Networking” tasks to “Labor Intensive” Ex. Intravation Inc. Virtual Proposal Center Ex. Custom Developed Database Syst 490-Fall 2011

Database Alternative Syst 490-Fall 2011

Database Alternative Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions • Provide reference of past analyses • Retrieve Past Criteria from similar proposals • Retrieve Past Proposal Requirements • Maintain List of SME’s • Retrieve Past Alternative Material Syst 490-Fall 2011

Alternatives Summary Time Decrease Process Type Conversion Syst 490-Fall 2011

Simulation Design Syst 490-Fall 2011

Time Probability Distributions Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs Syst 490-Fall 2011

Key Model Assumptions Solutions Architect works on 1 sub-process at a time Only 1 proposal is being worked on at any given time Syst 490-Fall 2011

Top Level Arena Model Termination Process Time Delay Initialization Restrict to 1 proposal at a time Restrict total to 25 proposals Weights Assignment Efficiencies Assignment Monte Carlo Discrete Event Simulation Simulates 25 proposals for 1000 replications. Syst 490-Fall 2011

Delay Definition Weights based on team understanding of process. To be validated with key stakeholders Syst 490-Fall 2011

Delay Definition Syst 490-Fall 2011

Preliminary Simulation Results As-Is Average System Time: 108.38% Testing system that halves labor intensive process times in Problem Domain. Ex. Automated Requirements Development System Test system with Average System Time: 100.26% % Decrease: 7.49% Syst 490-Fall 2011

Future Work • Expand scope to include quality of AoA output • Measure quality of AoA output • KepnerTregoe Analysis • Find alternatives that impact AoA output quality • Expand alternatives to meet requirements • Measure time variability of AoA sub-processes • Expand on current alternatives • Explore further alternatives • Simulation • Collect time and complexity data for process level 4 • Model process level 4 • Simulate and validate “As-Is” process model • Simulate alternatives models • Evaluate Alternatives • Develop utility function of AoA time and quality • Analyze results • Develop Recommendations Syst 490-Fall 2011

Enterprise Modeling