1 / 18

Portfolio and Scenario Analysis in the Evaluation of Cost-Efficient Weapon Systems

This paper discusses the challenges in evaluating weapon systems and proposes a multi-criteria portfolio model for cost-efficient weapon systems. It includes a numerical example and suggestions for future research.

rbradley
Download Presentation

Portfolio and Scenario Analysis in the Evaluation of Cost-Efficient Weapon Systems

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Portfolio and Scenario Analysis in the Evaluation of Cost-Efficient Weapon Systems Jussi Kangaspunta, Juuso Liesiö and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology P.O. Box 1100, 02015 TKK, Finland http://www.sal.tkk.fi firstname.lastname@tkk.fi

  2. Contents • Challenges in the evaluation of weapon systems • Multi-criteria portfolio model for weapon systems • Numerical example and future research • Conclusions

  3. Challenges in the evaluation of weapon systems • Cost-efficiency of weapon systems depends on both impacts and costs • Several impact dimensions (i.e. criteria) must be accounted for • E.g. enemy and own casualties, mission success probability • Impacts depend on the context • Mission (attack/defence), weather conditions, enemy strategies etc. • Impacts are often very non-linear • 16 artillery guns may not be twice as effective as 8 guns • There are strong interactions among systems • How should joint impacts be attributed to constituent systems? • Earlier work mainly focused on individual systems

  4. Impact assessment model • Estimates from ground battle simulator of Defense Forces • Battle scenario with pre-specified enemy, terrain and mission • Some of own forces kept at a constant level but others are varied • Numerous simulations with different portfolios of selected weapon systems • Simulation results could be extended by interpolation or regression methods Battle simulator Scenario Criterion 1 Own forces portfolio Enemy Overall impact of the portfolio Impact model Criterion 2 ... Criterion n

  5. Modelling of weapon systems • Weapon system portfolio • = number of different weapon systems • = number of weapon systems of the jth type in portfolio x • = cost of portfolio x • Feasible portfolios satisfy all relevant constraints • E.g. budget constraints C(x) ≤ B, logical constraints (incompatibilities etc.) • Impact assessment criteria • Portfolios evaluated with regard to different impact criteria • Enemy casualties, own casualties etc. • Overall impacts captured by an additive value function

  6. Incomplete information and dominance • Feasible weight set • E.g. rank-ordering for criterion importance • Portfolio x1 dominates x2if it has greater or equal overall impact for all feasible weights two criteria; w1≥w2 V(x1,w) V1 V2 V(x2,w) w1=1 w2=0 w1=0 w2=1 w1=.5 w2=.5

  7. Cost-efficient portfolios • Feasible portfolios that are not dominated by any less or equally expensive portfolio

  8. Numerical example based on realistic data • Three weapon systems • Only unit costs • Three impact criteria measuring different types of enemy casualties • Incomplete information on the value (i.e relevance) of the impacts • Analysis of different budget levels with a focus on cost-efficient portfolios

  9. Simulated and interpolated impact functions

  10. Impacts of weapon system portfolios

  11. Composition of cost-efficient portfolios

  12. Extensions and future research • Complementing simulation data with expert evaluations • Simulations can be augmented with judgmental expert evaluations of impacts • Experimental design of simulations and/or expert evaluations • Considering multiple battle scenarios • Cost-efficiency is highly context dependent • Can be integrated to model for instance using probabilities • Risk and/or robustness measures for portfolios can be formed • Considering cost-efficiency using core indices • “What proportion of evaluations supports that a given portfolio is cost-efficient?” • “What proportion of possible scenarios supports that a give portfolio iscost-efficient?”

  13. Multiple battle scenarios 1 p1 Overall expected value of the portfolio Weapon system portfolio p2 2 ... ... ps s

  14. Cost-efficiency using core indices 1/2

  15. Cost-efficiency using core indices 2/2

  16. Conclusions • Portfolio approach is necessitated by strong interactions • Evaluation of individual weapon systems makes little sense • These interactions are captured by the battle simulator results • Multi-criteria model aggregates several impact dimensions • Contextual importance of impacts captured through incomplete information • Cost-efficiency depends on both impacts and costs • Focus on the computation of cost-efficient portfolios

  17. References • Brown, G.G., Dell, R.F., Newman, A.M. (2004). Optimizing Military Capital Planning, Interfaces Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 415-425. • Bunn, D.W., Salo, A.A. (1993). Forecasting with Scenarios, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 68, pp. 291-303. • Fox, P. (1965). A Theory of Cost-Effectiveness for Military Systems Analysis, Operations Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 191-201. • Liesiö, J., Mild, P., Salo, A. (2007) Preference Programming for Robust Portfolio Modeling and Project Selection, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 181., No. 3., pp. 1488-1505. • Liesiö, J., Mild, P., Salo, A. (2008) Robust Portfolio Modeling with Incomplete Cost Information and Project Interdependencies, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 190, pp. 679-695. • Stafira, S., Parnell, G., Moore, J., (1997). A Methodology for Evaluating Military Systems in a Counterproliferation Role, Management Science, Vol. 43, No. 10, pp. 1420-1430. • Parnell, G., et. al. (1998). Foundations 2025: A Value Model for Evaluating Future Air and Space Forces, Management Science, Vol. 44, No. 10, pp. 1336-1350.

  18. Questions and comments?

More Related