Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG).

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 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.

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.

A Diversion Analysis to plan: Unified Concept Plan – ORHA Strategic Plan – CPA Legislative Requirements – CPA/Embassy Mission Performance Plan – Embassy

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing or Completed Million US$ USAID project money only, does not include program overhead and direct salaries

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.

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.

Review Scoring: Contribution of Projects to Goals Contribution of Projects to Sectors Contribution of Goals to Mission

Utility Functions – fi U 1.0 U = M(2)*A + B X U = M(1)*A A, in $ A(1) A(N)

In Sector Utilities Utilities (1.0 Maximum) ($1000s)

Sector Weights

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

Alternative Comparisons Change from Base

Alternative Allocations GAO Sector Description

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

The Issues Culture of Analysis Intent of the Office v. Background of the Director Asking questions for which answers are desired

Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG).