Assessing Transition of Security Operations in Afghanistan

1. Assessing Transition of SecurityOperations in Afghanistan Progress Report 4 March 2010

2. Agenda • Problem Statement • Methodology • System Design Update • Values and Metrics Update • Preliminary Results • Friction Points • Earned Value Management

3. Problem Statement • The goal of the research is to develop a value model that assesses the transition of security lead from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and US Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) to the Afghani government and Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) • Deputy Director, Force Integration and Training (CJ7) / CSTC-A defined five lines of operation (LOOs) that support the goal of transferring security operations • Accelerate ANSF growth • Achieve security for the Afghan population • Marginalize malign actors • Achieve legitimate, responsive, and accountable governance • Facilitate community development • Develop metrics and an accompanying decision support tool to measure progress against the five LOOs • Stakeholders • Force Integration and Training cell of NTM-A/CSTC-A (sponsor) • NTM-A/CSTC-A • Coalition military leadership • U.S. government leadership

4. Methodology Project group organized into two subgroups • Values and Metrics • Research values and metrics • “Requirements” to win a counter-insurgency conflict • Assessments of ANSF, security, Afghani government, and community • Develop value model with sponsor • System Design • Development of user interface, input forms, storage, usable output • Integrate values, metrics, and value model from other team into the system

5. Technical Approach – System Design System Input: the quantitative portion of the value model in a standardized survey format, completed by military units System Processing and Storage: completed survey templates are configuration controlled and ingested into data storage. User querying capabilities allow the retrieval of data (by unit and/or AOR and/or date range) to research trends Analysis Output: Condensed and easily understood presentation for decision makers 5

6. Concept of Operation • Surveys from 5 main military regions • CJ7 processes surveys and requests status report CJ7 Processes Surveys Requests Status Report Military Regions

7. System Design Update • Past Week Progress • Finalize Functional and Non-Functional Requirements (Data, Maintenance) • Data Compiler Prototype • Finalize Concept of Operation • Way Ahead • Refine interface and status report requirements • Expand Compiler Capacity

8. Operational Scenario

9. External System Diagrams

10. System Analysis Diagram

11. Functional Architecture

12. Functional Decomposition

13. Technical Approach – Value Model Qualitative Value Model: the identification of an objective hierarchy relating fundamental and means objectives Quantitative Value Model: the articulation of the decision maker’s preferences towards the attributes, and the means of measuring each attribute V(x) = ∑wivi(xi) where wi = weight of attribute i vi = value of attribute i at score xi 13

14. Values and Metrics Update • Past Week Progress • Refined value structure • Removed overlapping parameters • Removed or modified parameters with problematic metrics • Sent to sponsor for feedback • Researched range of variation • Near Term Goals • Complete range of variation analysis • Elicit weights and utility funtions • Personal meeting unlikely • Elicit by phone / email

15. Value Function Status • 54 values identified • 56 metrics developed • 56 possible ranges of variation determined • Theoretical where data unavailable • Awaiting data or feedback to strengthen • Awaiting partial or complete data for 43 of the identified metrics

16. Value Structure(1 of 5)

17. Value Structure(2 of 5)

18. Value Structure(3 of 5)

19. Value Structure(4 of 5)

20. Value Structure(5 of 5)

21. Range of Variation (ROV)aka “Range of a value measure” • Definition: “The possible variation of the scores of a value measure” -Gregory S. Parnell • Important precursor to determining DM value (or utility) function *OR681, GMU

22. Sports Car .7 .3 Performance Reliability .1 .35 .25 .3 Braking Acceleration Handling Top Speed Elicitation of Weights and Utility (1 of 3) • Weight is the relative importance of a value and are elicited from DM; must sum to one at each level under each node • Weight of values under Sports Car must equal 1 • Weight of values under both Performance and Reliability must each equal 1

23. Elicitation of Weights and Utility(2 of 3) • Several methods to elicit weights • Direct weights • Swing weights • Rank Sum • Utility is the value the DM assigns to a specific point along a range of variation • How much better is a Top Speed of 150 mph than 120 mph? 90 mph? • Often used to assess risk attitude

24. Weights and Utility Curves(3 of 3) • Elicit utility through lottery or certainty equivalence • Weights and utility can be linear, piecewise, exponential, or an S-curve *OR681, GMU

25. Preliminary Results • Functioning test system using input forms

26. Friction Points • No approval from JIEDDO to work with classified material • Portions of data and final project expected to be classified • Can use fabricated data to demonstrate function and sponsor can populate with correct information in secure environment • Distance and interaction of sponsor • No face-to-face meetings possible • Flow of information is sporadic • Use local point of contact for weight elicitation and fabricate unavailable data

27. Earned Value Management

28. Cost Index

29. Visit Our Project Website http://mason.gmu.edu/~dugarte/index.html

30. Questions?

31. BACKUP SLIDES

32. Work Breakdown Schedule

33. Metrics and Range of Variation(1 of 7)

34. Metrics and Range of Variation(2 of 7)

35. Metrics and Range of Variation(3 of 7)

36. Metrics and Range of Variation(4 of 7)

37. Metrics and Range of Variation(5 of 7)

38. Metrics and Range of Variation(6 of 7)

39. Metrics and Range of Variation(7 of 7)