Enterprise Modeling

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

2. Contents Context and Stakeholder Analysis Problem and Need Design Alternatives Simulation Design Results and Conclusions

3. Contents • Context and Stakeholder Analysis • Problem and Need • Design Alternatives • Simulation Design • Results and Conclusions

4. IT Solutions Government Contractors • Project Sponsor: • Civilian and National Security (CNS) Division, Vangent, Inc. Adapted from the Federal Times, 2011 • Proposal Development is critical to gaining revenue • AoA: develop complex IT solution, crucial to proposal • 15-25 Proposals per year, of varied sizes • Federal Contract Spending decreased $40 billion from 2009 to 2011

5. Process Level 1Proposal Development Process Government Entity Requirements Selected Solution Acquisitions Committee Proposals Solicitation Government Contractor Technical Solution Development Technical Solution Development / AoA Bid Decision Proposal Writing Budget & Management Highly competitive: 5-10 competitors for each proposal

6. Process Level 2 Top Level AoA Process Solicitation Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions Ranked List of Alternatives High-level “Decision and Analysis Resolution” (DAR) model provided by Vangent sponsors

7. Task Category Classification 1. Labor Intensive: Little expertise required: parsing, documenting. TimeVariability = Low (±22%) 2. Decision Making: Expert required: difficult decisions, judgment calls. Time Variability = High (±54%) 3. Experience Recall: Expert required: subjectively making judgments based on previous experience. Time Variability = Medium (± 44%) 4. Networking: Personal dialogue and collaboration with co-workers and others. Time Variability = High (±100%)

8. Process Level 2Top Level AoA Process Solicitation Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions Ranked List of Alternatives High-level “Decision and Analysis Resolution” (DAR) model provided by Vangent sponsors

9. Process Level 3Phase 1: Define Problem Domain Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs

10. Process Level 2Top Level AoA Process Solicitation Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions Ranked List of Alternatives High-level “Decision and Analysis Resolution” (DAR) model provided by Vangent sponsors

11. Process Level 3Phase 2: Define Evaluation Criteria Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs

12. Process Level 2Top Level AoA Process Solicitation Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions Ranked List of Alternatives High-level “Decision and Analysis Resolution” (DAR) model provided by Vangent sponsors

13. Process Level 3Phase 3: Explore Alternate Solutions Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs

14. Process Level 2Top Level AoA Process Solicitation Define the Problem Domain Define Evaluation Criteria Explore Alternate Solutions Evaluate Solutions Ranked List of Alternatives High-level “Decision and Analysis Resolution” (DAR) model provided by Vangent sponsors

15. Process Level 3Phase 4: Evaluate Solutions Data acquired via knowledge elicitation from stakeholder SMEs

16. Current Issues in AoA Limited and variable availability of past research due to proprietary restrictions Limited and variable applicability of past research once gained Variable difficulty of AoA—need for past research

17. Current Issues in AoA Quality of AoA suffers from the information’s lack of availability and applicability One employee handles entire AoA, so potentially parallel processes are conducted in series Time spent for AoA results is an entirely overhead cost

18. Key Stakeholder Goals • Solutions ArchitectsPerform Analysis of Alternatives • Maximize productivity • Avoid overtime • Maximize labor rewards • Capture ManagersManage the transition from opportunity discovery to contract award.Oversees bid strategies, pricing, and teaming • Maximize probability of winning contracts • Increase AoA discriminability and quality • Proposal ManagersDevelop and manage the proposal plan and schedule • Maximize proposal/AoA throughput

19. Key Stakeholder Interactions Interactions Proposal Demand Solution Demand Tension:Managers and Solutions Architects Limited time and personnel resources to conduct AoAs.

20. Contents Context and Stakeholder Analysis Problem and Need Design Alternatives Simulation Design Results and Conclusions

21. Problem Statement During a time of national economic downturn, federal contract spending cuts have led to a decrease in available contract revenue and an increase in competition between government contractors. These factors have increased the time sensitivity of proposal development, specifically in the AoA process.

22. Need Statement Need validated with key stakeholders There is a need for Analysis of Alternatives process improvements to reduce the mean time duration by at least 33%, and the variabilityby 25%, while maintaining or increasing AoA proposed solution quality and keeping maximum costs below $100,000 per AoA.

23. Contents Context and Stakeholder Analysis Problem and Need Design Alternatives Simulation Design Results and Conclusions

24. Design Alternative Approach • Optimize AoA Staffing Levels • Target Parallel Tasks • Reduce mean time duration • Information Management System • Target efficiency increases • Reduce duration and variability

25. Optimize AoA Staffing Levels 1 Additional Solutions Architect collaborates to conduct AoA • Reduce mean time duration of AoA • Additional resource to conduct parallel tasks • Increases size of social network • Potential for conflict in making decisions • Cost: Approx. $200,000 salary including benefits per year Five year cost: $1,000,000

26. Information Management Alternatives • Implementing a File Management System • Database searching capability improves availability of information in the AoA • Increases efficiencies of task categories, improves re-use of past research • Implementing a Content Management System • Enhanced capabilities greatly improves availability of information in the AoA • Increases efficiencies of task categories, improves re-use of past research • Maintaining a Sanitized Repository • Adds new content to the information pool • Changes high-variability task categories to low-variability categories

27. File Management System • Benefits • Integrates with current system • Organized file structure • Promotes collaboration • Easily scalable • Drawbacks • Requires permissions for file access • Limited search functionality • Cost: Intravation Initial Cost: 100 User License GDIT(Parent Company) has 25 user license; $1000 one time fee per active user First Year Cost: $77,000 Annual Maintenance: $1600 Five Year Cost: $83,000

28. Content Management System • Benefits • Robust searching and indexing • Preconfigured user roles based upon content–access needs • Authentication, check in/out, tracking • Workflow management • Drawbacks • High complexity • High learning curve • Expensive Technical Support • Cost: Documentum Initial Cost:100 User License Cost: $110,665 System Cost: First Year Cost: $129,000 Annual Maintenance: $19,000 Five Year Cost: $203,000

29. Sanitized Document Repository • Benefits • Quality of information improvement • Promotes availability • Increases applicable content • Virtually eliminates security risks • Provides quicker access to data • Minimal technical support • Drawbacks • Low initial benefit • Cost Estimate 12 labor hours per AoA Five Year Cost: $150,000

30. Contents Context and Stakeholder Analysis Problem and Need Design Alternatives Simulation Design Results and Conclusions

31. Simulation Design • Monte Carlo Discrete Event Simulation of the AoA • 1000 Replications • Each Replication covers 25 Proposals (1 year) • Key Model Assumptions: • Solutions Architects work on one task at a time • Only one proposal is being worked on at any given time • The four task categories adequately captureAoA time consumption • All tasks are of equal importance to the quality of AoA output

32. Simulation Design AoA Process Definition Task Category Efficiencies AoA Mean Duration Simulation Model AoA Difficulty AoA Duration Variability Information Availability Quality Metric Information Applicability Number of Technologies

33. Simulation Video

34. Task Time Delay Equation

35. Task Quality Metric Equation

36. Design of Experiment Matrix • A1: Staffing Levels • A2: Sanitized Repository • A3: File Management • A4: Content Management

37. Contents Context and Stakeholder Analysis Problem and Need Design Alternatives Simulation Design Results and Conclusions

38. Simulation ResultsPercent Decrease in Mean Duration 33.00% A1: Optimized Staffing Levels; A2: Sanitized Repository; A3: File Management; A4: Content Management

39. Simulation ResultsPercent Decrease in Duration Variability 25.00% A1: Optimized Staffing Levels; A2: Sanitized Repository; A3: File Management; A4: Content Management

40. Simulation ResultsQuality Metric Using a Sanitized Repository is the only proposed alternative that directly affects quality. 0.74 Baseline ~10% Increase in Quality A1: Optimized Staffing Levels; A2: Sanitized Repository; A3: File Management; A4: Content Management

41. Stakeholders’ Utility Function .238 .048 .143 .571 Value Hierarchy obtained via Stakeholder values elicitation weighted with the Swing Weight Method

42. Alternative Utility Ranking A1: Optimized Staffing Levels A2: Sanitized Repository A3: File Management A4: Content Management Meet The Need Don’t Meet The Need

43. Sensitivity Analysis Percent Change in Criteria Weight Necessary to Change Utility Rank

44. Cost-Benefit Analysis Meet the Duration and Variability Reduction Need Do Not Meet the Duration and Variability Reduction Need A1: Optimized Staffing Levels; A2: Sanitized Repository; A3: File Management; A4: Content Management

45. Cost-Benefit Analysis Closest to Desirable Region Meet the Duration and Variability Reduction Need Do Not Meet the Duration and Variability Reduction Need More Desirable A1: Optimized Staffing Levels; A2: Sanitized Repository; A3: File Management; A4: Content Management

46. Recommendations • Optimize Staffing Levels and Maintain a Sanitized Repository (A1, A2) • Percent Reduction in Time Duration: 44% • Percent Reduction in Duration Variability: 38% • Percent Increase in Quality: 10% • Total Utility: 3.95 • Max Expected Cost per AoA: $50,000 • Total Implementation Cost: $230,000/year

47. Recommendations (Potential Value, if Cost Reduced) • Optimize Staffing Levels, Maintain a Sanitized Repository, and Implement a Content Management System (A1, A2, A4) • Percent Reduction in Time Duration: 52% • Percent Reduction in Duration Variability: 50.00% • Percent Increase in Quality: 10% • Total Utility: 4.25 • Maximum Expected Cost per AoA: $78,000 • Total Implementation Cost: $111,000 plus $249,000/yr

48. Questions?

49. Backup Slides

50. Syst 495-Spring 2012 Project Plan Enterprise Modeling Project 1.0 Project Definition 2.0 Requirements Development 3.0 Solution Development 4.0 Modeling and Testing 5.0 Results Analysis 6.0 Communications and Management WBS – Top Level