Supporting Material is available for this work. For more information, follow the link from
the Table of Contents to "Accessing Supporting Material".
Table of Contents
Pilot Project to Map the Causal Relationships
Of
The Conduct-Operations-Capability Program
Within
Defence's Performance Management Framework
Mr. Gordon Kubanek, P.Eng. TDV Global Inc.
170 Laurier Avenue, West Suite 605 Ottawa ON K1P 5V5 Canada
613 -231-8555 613-231-3970 g.kubanek @ tdvglobal.com
Abstract
Defence's Planning, Reporting and Accountability Structure (PRAS) identifies capability
gaps; however, no precise causal relationships have been established to help Defence's
leadership make decisions that will improve one capability shortfall without exacerbating
a problem in another capability area. Of particular interest were the capability gaps
related to the Conduct Operations Capability Program (COCP). This pilot project closely
examined the principal cause-effect relationships related to planning and launching of
new military operations, with a view to describing the institution’s strategy-to-results
linkages in a clear, measurable fashion. The project resulted in a set of four stock-&-
flow sector maps governing the COCP of Defence's capability-based program. The
project's team members believed that this project has helped Defence move one step
closer to achieving its corporate vision of implementing an integrated defence
management framework. Moreover, the overall achievement of the pilot project was
the team’s ability to relate the operational-forces-specific measures and indicators
contained in the Performance Management Framework (PMF) to the capability goals &
gaps outlined in Defence's capability-based-program.
Key Words: performance measurement, performance management, balanced
scorecard, capability based planning
Introduction
The management environments in which both private and public-sector organizations
and institutions operate are far too complex in their structures and internal business
processes for any one individual, or management team, to have a clear, coherent view
of how they work together as a total system—that is, how particular actions or events
can trigger a cascading series of ever-more indirect effects. At most, what the
management team sees and understands are the workings of a tiny fraction of such
complex adaptive systems. Consequently, senior managers regularly make decisions
with little or no appreciation of the full range of ensuing consequences, both intended
and unintended. Furthermore, individual managers often find themselves making
decisions that, by virtue of their consequences, are not really theirs to make in the first
instance.
Lacking a systemic vision of causality (i.e. cause and effect) management teams have
no way of knowing why corporate-level policies often produce results directly opposite
to those that they intended. Often, policies that have been adopted to resolve a
business problem prove to be the root cause of surprising and baffling negative effects.
Then, as the unintended consequences worsen, the management team is pressured to
more stringently apply the same policies, thereby fuelling a vicious downward spiral.
SD provides managers with the methods, tools and techniques to design organizational
structures and policies that—both in theory and practice—are consistent with their
corporate vision, mission, goals and objectives. Invariably, a SD model highlights how
the policies and decisions implemented by the management team create the very
problems confronting their organizations.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the results of a SD-related, proof-of-concept
pilot project undertaken by Director General Strategic Planning (DGSP) to map the
principal cause-effect relationships of the COCP sub-system, with a view to establishing
direct linkages to Defence’s PMF.
Defence Context
The synchronization of the 29 Key Result Expectations (KREs) and Defence Tasks
contained in Sustaining Agenda—running the business—with the Change Initiatives of
the Change Agenda—changing the business—coupled with the prioritization and
allocation of resources, drives the integration of Defence’s framework for modern
management and forms the basis for developing its business model, accountability
regime, and associated PMF.
The PMF has evolved steadily since its inception in the fall of 1997, with a view to
achieving accurate, meaningful performance reporting across the breadth of the
Defence institution. The PMF employs a ‘Balanced-Scorecard-like’ approach consisting
of four Key Perspectives—Operational Forces, Resource Management, Defence Team,
and Contribution to the Government of Canada (GOC)—that are subdivided into 16
measurement areas and supporting indicators connecting Defence’s functional
processes and activities with its strategic goals.
Based upon the Planning, Reporting and Accountability Structure (PRAS), Defence
Strategy 2020 and Defence Plan 2001 (DP01) a detailed analysis of current capability
goals and gaps is outlined in the Personnel, Research & Development, Infrastructure &
Organization, Concepts & Doctrine, Information Technology, Equipment & Material
(PRICIE) perspective of the Capability Based Planning model. Although the capability
gaps have been identified in the ‘PRICIE’, no precise cause-effect relationships between
the various areas has been established to help Defence’s senior managers make
decisions that will improve one capability shortfall without exacerbating a problem in
another capability area.
Of particular interest at this time are the capability gaps as they relate to COCP.
Because this is a dynamic problem a methodology that can analyze dynamic complex
issues, like SD, is a necessity.
Objective
A SD model, when key internal players are involved in the group model-building
process, can help uncover the unintended consequences of policies and decisions and
then identify key performance-related leverage points. The SD-related pilot project’s
objective is to help Defence’s Performance Measurement Core Action Team (PMCAT)
develop a better understanding of the causal linkages that interact dynamically across
the COCP, ‘PRICIE’ and PMF.
To accomplish the above-cited objective the model-building process closely examined
the principal time delays related to planning and launching new operations, and
quantified, where possible, the current qualitatively defined capability goals and gaps.
The model-building process involved key stakeholders and people possessing relevant
information—the PMCAT—with a view to building a rich model that reflects not only
formal organizational policy, but also unofficial policy that managers use to inform their
decision-making processes.
Project Approach
Central to the pilot project’s success was the ability of the Lead Facilitator and Project
Manager to collect, correlate, analyze, synthesize and integrate the vast quantities of
Defence data, information and knowledge necessary to reflect, in quantitative SD terms,
the cause-effect linkages that interact dynamically across the COCP, ‘PRICIE’ and PMF.
To ensure a complete and thorough understanding of the requirement, the consultant
team reframed the constituent elements of the Defence Management System (DMS)
from a SD perspective, creating a ‘3-D structure’ consisting a causal view, an external
view and an internal view.
The internal view [i.e. Defence Strategy 2020, Capability Goals & Gaps, DP01—including
the PMF—and the so-called ‘Horizon Plans’] focuses on the how information is used by
the Defence Team to manage the organization's internal business processes. The
external view [i.e. Defence Policy, PRAS, Report on Plans & Priorities (RPP) and the
Departmental Performance Report (DPR)] deals with how defence-related information is
portrayed to the Defence Team’s external audience: the Government, Parliament and
the People of Canada. The purpose of the causal view is to establish a clear picture of
how the sub-system is structured—its stocks, flows and delays—in order to better
understand the underlying patterns of behaviour over time. The causal view focuses on
the structure of the system/sub-system, not the usage of the data, information and
knowledge thereby generated.
PMCAT Group-Modelling Sessions
While preparing for the 1% group-modeling session with the PMCAT, the consultant
team closely scrutinized the COCP [i.e. the Military Strategic; Operational (Domestic),
Operational (International) and Tactical levels], the ‘PRICIE’ and the PMF in terms of
stocks, flows and delays. The consultant team quickly came to the realization that the
COCP, ‘PRICIE’ and the PMF, as currently constituted, could not be readily modeled in
either qualitative, or dimensionally consistent, quantitative SD terms.
Defence's five capability programs are as follows: Command & Control (encompassing
both Command and Information & Intelligence); Conduct Operations (encompassing
Conduct Operations, Mobility and Protect Forces); Sustain Forces; Generate Forces; and
Corporate Policy & Strategy. Given the stated purpose of the pilot project—to map the
Principal causal relationships of the COCP sub-system, with a view to establishing direct
linkages to Defence's PMF— coupled with the overall requirement to develop a
quantitative SD model containing dimensionally consistent units, the consultant team
decided to focus the project team’s modeling efforts on the direct link between the
COCP and the PMF, which is the ‘PRICIE’.
The ‘PRICIE’ more readily lends itself to ‘quantification’ in terms of dimensionally
consistent units that can be formulated as a SD model and portrayed in terms of stocks,
flows and delays over time. However, the scope of the project was restricted to
developing a dynamic, quantitative model for only one of Defence's five capability
programs: the COCP. Therefore, the consultant team decided to translate the ‘PRICIE’
in terms of the four principal ‘stocks’ that underpin the COCP sub-system: Personnel,
Equipment, Materiel, and Contingency/Operations Plans. See Appendix A.
Before group model building a 1 day crash course in SD was written and members of
PMCAT learned the basics of the language of stocks and flows. During the 1° session,
the project team reviewed and improved the ‘alpha’ versions of the Personnel and
Equipment sector maps. At the 2" group session, the project team reviewed and
improved the ‘alpha’ versions of the Materiel and Contingency/Operations Plans sector
maps. During the 3" modeling session, the project team validated the ‘beta’ versions of
the Personnel, Equipment, Materiel and Contingency/Operations Plans sector maps.
Having done so, the team then ran an experimental sub-model derived from the
Personnel sector map to demonstrate how the a SD model could help senior managers
animate the planning process to experience the dynamic effects of their decisions.
Summary of Modeling Results
The net result of the work accomplished by PMCAT members during the modeling
sessions, coupled with focussed input from Defence’s subject matter experts (SMEs)
and the inter-session development work by the consultant team, was a set of four
‘peta-version’ SD sector maps, or models, governing the COCP sub-system of Defence’s
capability-based program:
Personnel Sector Map—see Appendix B.
Equipment Sector Map—see Appendix C.
Materiel Sector Map—see Appendix D.
Contingency/Operations Plans Sector Map—see Appendix E.
VVVV
An interesting insight from the group-modeling activities was the recognition that the
‘context’ surrounding the Personnel and Equipment sector maps (i.e. ageing personnel
and equipment suites) engenders a significant ‘feedback’ effect over time that is in turn
effected by the tempo of Defence’s military operations. The dynamic feedback
generated by the inter-play between the length of a given operation, the intensity of
the operation, and the structure of the forces deployed on the operation is captured via
the interaction between the above-cited four Sector Maps and the two (i.e. Personnel
and Equipment) ageing chains.
The team’s success in mapping the COCP sub-system augers very well for future
quantitative modeling activities related to Defence’s four remaining capability-based
‘sub-systems’: Command & Control; Sustain Forces; Generate Forces; and Corporate
Policy & Strategy. The project team recognized that, having mapped portions of the
‘PRICIE’ in quantitative SD terms the opportunities to effectively link the COCP to the
PMF, in a dimensionally consistent manner, are greatly improved.
The team members acknowledged that, by employing shadow variables, model arrays
and random pulses to ‘shock’ the COCP sub-system, Defence's data and information can
be used to generate very timely, useful knowledge to better inform decision-making by
the senior management team (i.e. scenario-based planning exercises using multiple,
arrayed sector maps). Furthermore, several team members expressed their view that
the project has helped Defence move one step closer to achieving its corporate vision of
implementing an integrated defence management framework.
Prototype—Ops Status Instrument Panel (OSIP)
The integrated set of four ‘beta-version’ SD sector maps governing the COCP sub-
system served as the foundation for the development of a prototype OSIP. See
Appendix F.
The various views of the COCP [i.e. PRAS, DP (including PMF), ‘PRICIE’, Scenarios, etc)
constitute different ‘uses’ of the same data and information, because the same four
sector maps, or models, drive all the views. See Appendix G.
When used to test the dynamic interplay within and amongst the four sector maps, the
OSIP pointed to several COCP-related areas that beckon closer examination, in a
dynamic sense: weak links, ageing chains, operational tempo, and strategy to results.
With respect to ‘weak links’, the OSIP indicated that the time delays governing the flows
of Defence’s personnel, equipment and materiel constitute important leverage points for
senior management, and that particular attention should be paid to identifying and
improving the slowest events in chain of causality. Furthermore, the OSIP highlighted
the importance of arraying Defence’s personnel stocks [i.e. Military Occupation
Classifications (MOCs)] in a dynamic fashion, because it is the people requirement that
defines Defence's ability to sustain, over time, the structure of the deployed force.
The aging chains that affect Defence’s stocks of personnel and equipment are important
factors, particularly when viewed through the lens of Future Capability-Based Planning.
The dynamic complexity engendered by aging personnel—coupled with a high turnover
rate—and aging equipment suites is not yet well understood by the Defence Team.
Intuitively, most Defence managers recognize ‘aging’ as an important issue; however,
the leverage points remain obscured by mountains of detail. A management tool like
the OSIP may help to shed light on the personnel and equipment trade-offs that need
to be made today to ensure tomorrow’s operational capabilities.
The notion of ‘operational tempo’ is an issue that begs further concerted analysis,
supported by dynamic modeling. The tempo of Defence’s operations appears to affect
the organization's personnel-attrition rate, and the personnel-attrition rate appears to
affect the tempo of Defence’s operations. The OSIP suggests that operational tempo
shortens the lifecycles of Defence's infrastructure, equipment and materiel stocks, while
concurrently accelerating the integration of new, sophisticated technologies into the
force structure. The OSIP also underscored the important role that the Reserve Force
plays in both domestic and international operations and the need for Defence to
manage this valuable resource in a dynamic manner.
Finally, the OSIP represents the practical application of the above-mentioned ‘3-D
structure’ in terms of linking Defence's strategy to its results. The four sector maps (i.e.
the causal view) that frame the dynamic COCP model structure provide a mechanism to
integrate the internal view (i.e. Defence Strategy 2020, Capability Goals & Gaps,
DP01—including the PMF—and the Horizon Plans) with the external view (i.e. Defence
Policy, PRAS, RPP, and the DPR). The dynamic model can also be reconfigured and
populated with data/variables to test the underlying planning assumptions and examine
how the flow of operations (i.e. ‘spike’, ‘surge’ and ‘sustain’) impact the development of
a sustainable force structure.
Conclusion
Until recently, few public or private-sector organizations would have considered
developing a quantitative SD model to run simulations designed specifically to test their
management team’s underlying assumptions and business strategies, over time.
Increasingly, senior and middle mangers are seeing their responsibilities expand in
scope, and they are becoming more and more aware that doing their jobs properly and
effectively means understanding and managing business-dynamics issues.
The overall success of the pilot project stems from the team’s ability to relate the
operational-forces-specific measures and indicators contained in the PMF to the
capability goals & gaps outlined in Defence's capability-based-program.
This proof-of-concept pilot project has demonstrated that a SD-based, quantitative
model of the COCP sub-system is a very useful and powerful approach to developing
insights into the causal relationships that govern Defence's capability-based program.
Recommendations
Given the success of this proof-of-concept pilot project to map the principal cause-effect
relationships of the COCP sub-system, with a view to expanding the linkages of
Defence's CBP to the PMF, the following recommendations are made:
1. Acquire dimensionally consistent data and variable information from the Navy,
Army and Air Force to populate the COCP sub-system model, placing particular
emphasis on the key MOCs and equipment suites that limit Defence's ability to
sustain its operational force structure over time.
2. Develop a SD-based model of the ‘Generate’ sub-system and link it to the COCP
sub-system model.
3. Develop a SD-based model of the ‘Sustain’ sub-system and link it to COCP and
‘Generate’ sub-system models.
4. Develop SD-based models of the ‘Command & Control’ and ‘Corporate Policy &
Strategy’ sub-systems and link them to the other three, above-cited models.
Appendices
Appendix A: ‘PRICIE’ in Terms of Four Principal Stocks
Appendix B: Personnel Sector Map
Appendix C: Equipment Sector Map
Appendix D: Materiel Sector Map
Appendix E: Contingency/Operations Plans Sector Map
Appendix F: COCP Sector Map
Appendix G: Prototype—OSIP
References
Planning, Reporting & Accountability Structure (PRAS)
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/pras_2001_e.doc
Report on Plans & Priorities (RPP)
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/rpp_e.asp
Defence Planning Review (DPR)
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/dpr_e.asp
Strategy 2020
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/cosstrat/2020/intro_e.asp
Defence Plan 2001
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/dplan/intro_e.asp
PRICIE
http://www.veds.forces.gc.ca/search/oop/qfullhit.htw?CiWebHitsFile=%2Fdpm %2Fidmf%2Fppt
%2Fdesp%2Dsymp%5Fe%2Eppt&CiRestriction=%40Contents+PRICIE&CiBeginHilite=%3Cb
+class%3DHit%3E&CiEndHilite=%3C%2Fb%3E&CiUserParam3=/search/intro_e.asp&CiHilit
eType=Full
Strategic Capability Planning http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/dda/strat/intro_e.asp
Kaplan, R.& Norton,D.1996 The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard business School Press,
Boston
Vennix, J. 1996 Group Model Building, John Wiley & Sons, NY
Warren,K. 2002, Competitive Strategy Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, London
Back to the Top
Appendices
Appendix A - PRICIE Views
Personnel, Research & Concepts.
Professional Infrastructure P 2 Information Equipment,
Development/ Doctrine & ‘
Development & : Technology Supplies &
: OR # gs Collective ‘
& Leadership Organisation Training Infrastructure Services
Zo!
Personnel Contingency/Operations Plans Equipment
Material
Note: These four Sectors were used to aggregate
relevant stocks & flows into 4 Sectors
Appendix B — Personnel Sector Map
oN
posting from
basic training
a posting to
target recruiting r infrastructure support
Infrastructure &
SY Support Pers
posting to infrastructure
& support
posting to unit
releasing
Pers2
total time to make Cond
Ops deployment decision
Operational
Pers
scenario 1 rqrs total attrition
de} rate
‘training specialized
eae upgrading Pers | ving Ops : Pers
mates datus restriction —
Feleasing Ftotal attrition =e
Pers£ Res post ro) Seta Units Regrs
| deployment delay eae 0 post ueproyiniert
\p status
returning to q delay
pene deployed Pers
releasing Pers4 i teveicai
LOB & MPHL & DHL oslo ea
in Ops
© total attrition
rate
Pers loss
rate table
Intensity of
Operation1
Appendix C — Equipment Sector Map
custom egpt
goal equipment capability
per age
Nat ot U
purchasing sia
COTS eqpt 6)
custom eqpt gay Unit Eqpt
delay time spent in R&O table
returning ept
eqpt gap
National
shipping delay
dé custom eqpt capt eqpt Eqpt
to formation deployment
deploying to 4
formation sie
formation egpt
lookup table correlatin
goal
equipment capability eoorege mR)
Gisposing rate per age
table,
féturning egpt
to formation
ea :
maintaining eqpt
returning to.
formation
acquiring
IOR time
equipment capability
DZ per age time spent in
lookup table correlating eqp maintenance
age to maintenance rate
Intensity of
Operationt
unit
eqpt reqrs
egpt casuality
fraction
table correlating intensity
losing eqpt to losing egpt rate
in Ops
unit eqpt gap
Appendix D — Materiel Sector Map
acquisition mat delay
Op Plans
Unit Mat
shipping delay Units Reqrs
mat directly to or from
unit line
gap in mat
BACK TO CANADA FOR reqrs
LOW RISK SCENARIO
shipping delay
= deploying mat a
formation line Pyind Decision
to formation
returning mat
to National
gap formation
mation reqrd ies
mat # days
Emm acquiring mat 700
for formation
disposing of mat
returning mat
fraction
shipping delay deploying mat
mat to Unit
Ko) 2 Yy returning mat
to formation
yy T)
shipping delay
mat directly to or from
unit line
gap unit mat
days mat at unit reqrd
Intl formation peacetime
‘OR LOW RISK SCENARIO
Op Intensity consuming Op
mat fraction table
unit mat goal
Appendix E — Contingency/ Operations Plans Sector Map
Determine
National Priorities
estb CF
new conting unit Priorities
committments
retiring conting
Re
for operatid,
1
ce
adjusting op
units reqr
total time to make Cond
Ops deployment decision
ore structure
reqrs table
Intensity of
Operation1 new operation
units reqrd
decision to
renew op or not
new op
planning delay
experience
implementing
JOPP
FT ecomigure Op force structure
Appendix F — COCP Sector map
strun nel Conduct Ops Sector Map {Home Page }
( ( 7 Equipment
Contigency/Operations Plans
The Planning Story
Appendix G — Prototype OSIP
Future Capability Planning - r
Conduct Operations
Sub-System
Causal View of
Conduct Ops
Capability
{PRICIE} View
Prototype - Ops Status Instrument Panel
