capability based defence development planning

CAPABILITY BASED DEFENCE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING - OPTIMAL OPTION SELECTION FOR CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT MITAR KOVAC1, DEJAN STOJKOVIC2, VLADA MITIC3 1

Republic of Serbia Ministry of Defence, Belgrade, ([email protected]) Republic of Serbia Ministry of Defence, Belgrade, ([email protected]) 3 Republic of Serbia Ministry of Defence, Belgrade, ([email protected]) 2

Abstract: This article presents a model which is an attempt of objectification of the defence development options ranking. Model is compiled on the basis of Capability Based Planning process, which determinates required defence capability and options for capability development according to possible scenarios of security threats. Model considers essential parameters from scenarios, required capabilities and options cost, for capability development options ranking for purpose of optimal option selection. For determination of parameters and their values, useful tool is expert assessment. The presented model allows presentation of the development options rank and priorities to the decision makers in terms of decision support, so it influences the choice of the defence development options. On the other hand, subjective expert evaluation of used parameters could negatively influence objectification of this model. This model could be helpful tool for defence planners in way of development options ranking and determination of defence development priorities. Keywords: Defence, Development Planning, Capability, Capability Based Planning 1. INTRODUCTION In recent decades, the world has been faced with major changes in all areas of society. This also influenced the change in security environment of the state, which has led to amendments in the approach of defence planning. Today, states are not faced with a clearly defined enemy and there are more asymmetrical forms of security threats. Contemporary security challenges, risks and threats have become more abstract and hard to predict, and their coverage varies from armed aggression through armed insurgency and terrorism to natural disasters. Contemporary security challenges, risks and threats necessitate the defence capability for performing a wide range of different types of operations and to continually adapt to the dynamic environment. Assessing the potential security challenges, risks and threats, as well as adapting the defence so as to attain the capability of constant protection of national and collective interests is a challenge for the process of defence development planning. However, in recent decades we have witnessed state budget reductions of finances allocated for the defence. This is particularly true in developing countries, whose limited resources are increasingly directed towards other social sectors, such as science and technology, education, healthcare, industry, information and communication, so as to facilitate further societal prosperity in conditions of limited resources. The development of the defence is confronted with two conflicting demands: to provide a response to unpredictable and complex security challenges, risks and threats in circumstances of reduced funding for the defence. In the NATO RTO-TR-069 publication, Handbook on Long Term Defence Planning, CBP is defined as “a process that investigates possible future operating environments and develops a force structure development plan (SDP) to best adapt the defence organisation to those environments given a host of constraints – including financial ones”. Among the numerous approaches that have been developed for defence development planning, some are taken from the commercial sector, while other has been developed exclusively for the defence. One of the predominant contemporary approach to defence development planning is capability based planning. The ultimate goal of capability based planning is to provide capabilities for the defence in order to accomplish mission and tasks of the defence in terms of protection of national and collective interests of states and alliances. To develop the necessary capabilities there are various options. These options are characterized by different price, maintenance costs and withdrawals, and other parameters. The question is how to choose the

551

optimal development option for defence capabilities, taking into consideration dynamics and abstract security challenges, risks and threats, as well as limited resources intended for the defence. 2. CAPABILITY BASED PLANNING Capability based planning approach first analyzes the initial policy guidance and security environment in order to model the future environment and to determine the missions and tasks of the defence. Modelling future environment identifies possible strategic situations and develops scenarios of security threats. Based on the developed scenarios required capabilities are identified to carry out the mission and tasks of defence in the future. In Joint Publication 1-02 “Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms” (2013), published by USA Department of Defence, a capability is defined as ability to execute a specified course of action. (A capability may or may not be accompanied by an intention.). Capability is the ability of defence to express such effects that perform its missions and tasks. The question is which defence capabilities are needed in the future, in order to respond to future security challenges, risks and threats. Capability based planning enables identification of the required defence capabilities in the future and development of defence capabilities, especially directing limited resources of defence capabilities that are necessary in the future. There are different models of the capability based planning in the literature. One example of the model of Capability based planning (CBP), according to Stojkovic and Bjørn (2007), should follow steps in Figure 1. Environmental Assessment

Political Guidance Analysis

Political Guidance

Mission Analysis

Operational Concepts

Planning situation Development Capability Requirements Determination

Capability Assessment

Current Capability

Options Development

Available Resources

Solution selection

Development plan

Figure 1: Model of Capability based planning Stojkovic and Bjørn (2007) suggested that Political Guidance Analysis is the first stage in the CBP process. The major inputs are: national interests and goals, national security and defence strategies, roles and importance of allies, friendly nations and international organizations for Defence etc. Political Guidance Analysis includes the following steps:  Specify defence policy,  Identify limitations,  Identify defence missions,  Identify level of ambitions (LoA) and priorities. The first step includes detailed examination of the main national security, defence and foreign affairs documents in order to realize political intention related to defence as well as political implication for Defence. The purpose of the second step is to identify political and economic constraints for defence. The output from the first and second steps of Political Guidance Analysis makes the realization of the third and fourth steps possible. The execution of these steps enables the precise identification of defence missions, the level of ambitions as well as priorities.

552

The second stage in the CBP process is the Environmental Assessment. The major inputs in this stage are national interests against which an environmental assessment will be undertaken to identify the events, issues and trends that may have an impact. The Environmental Assessment consists of four steps:  Gather the necessary information  Analyze the information  Identify opportunities, risk and threats  Develop a sufficient number of strategic situations. Stojkovic and Bjørn (2007) stated that in the first step defence planners collect all information necessary for further work on assessment of future environment. Pieces of information should be related to future security, political, economic and social issues as well as to technological development. Also, information about future natural conditions has great importance in establishing an appropriate final assessment. Sources of information can vary, from intelligence services to scientific research and analysis. The second step requires analytical knowledge and experience. For the purposes of successful analysis, defence planners can be supported by specialists and scientists educated in analytical techniques and knowledgeable in the areas of politics, economics, technology, and military and international affairs. In the third step defence planners base their thinking on results of the analysis in order to consider the influence of future environments on national interests and goals. In this phase the aim is to identify future opportunities as well as risks and threats to national interests and goals. The last step in the Environmental Assessment is the development of a suitable number of “Future Worlds”. “Future Worlds” are strategic situations and have generalized characteristics that represent future developments in various areas. Mission analysis is the third stage of the CBP process. This is mainly a military related activity whose purpose is to identify what should be done in order to achieve determined defence “ends” i.e. defined defence objectives. The main inputs to this stage of the planning process are defence missions and operational concepts. Today’s defence forces are usually assigned three main missions: homeland defence (it can include the defence of allies), peace operations and support to the police and other civilian institutions in confronting non-military risks and threats. Identification of types of operations is the first step of Mission analysis. After that, defence planners, supported by military personnel, identify possible operation objectives (the second step) and tasks (the third step) which would be necessary to perform in order to accomplish supposed objectives. The last step in Mission Analysis is tasks decomposition i.e. development of a multilevel task structure. Current operational concepts and existing task lists are very helpful tools in identifying operation objectives and tasks. In some cases (for instance, in order to meet new security threats), it may be necessary to develop new operational concepts and task lists. “Future Worlds” are outputs from the second stage of the capability based planning and a very important input to the fourth stage of the planning process. For the purposes of identifying future capability requirements, defence planners develop a suitable number of planning situations or specific scenarios for each of the previously defined “Future Worlds”. Planning situations are outputs from the fourth stage of the CBP process and represent situations in which the forces might be used. Besides “Future Worlds”, identified types of future military operations are also input for Planning Situations Development. The planning situations should correspond to the types of military operations defined in the stage 3. The stage begins by identifying and defining the parameters (or variables) which best defines the essential nature of possible situations. This is no trivial task and should be given ample time. The mission analysis gives the framework for defining the parameters. After that, a spectrum of values (conditions) must be defined for each parameter. These values represent the possible, relevant conditions that each parameter can assume. The parameters and their values form a matrix called the morphological field that implicitly contains all possible future situations. The next step is to reduce the total set of formally possible configurations in the morphological field to a smaller set of internally consistent configurations. The point is to examine all of the configurations in the field, in order to identify which of them are really possible and which are not. The last step in this stage is the selection of a representative set of possible situations. Defence planners choose suitable number of planning situations for each previously defined “Future Worlds” and identified types of operations. Planning situations would be a very important input for the determination of future capability requirements. Capability Requirement Determination is probably the most complex part of the CBP process and requires a combination of imagination and subject matter expertise. The purpose of this stage is to identify types and quantities of defence capabilities required to accomplish a given task in a given situation. Requirements need to be developed across the same set of time periods for which planning situations have been identified. Capability Requirements should be developed based on: identified tasks, developed planning situations, operational concepts, possible impacts of future friendly and threat technology etc.

553

Capability Requirements Determination consists of four steps. In the first step, defence planners define capability areas. Capability areas decompose the complex issue into more manageable fragments. This is necessary due to the scope of the problem; it is easier to work with. There are many ways to define capability areas. Due to the complex nature of capabilities, none of the ways are ideal, but some are better than others. Different parts of the Department of Defence will have different approaches in identifying the capability areas. For similar reasons, each nation may choose different ways to define its capability partitions, as each nation will have different requirements. The next step in Capability Requirements Determination is the development of a capability structure. There are usually three main capability levels: strategic, operational and tactical. The levels are strongly interconnected, but at the same time each of them is specific and must be considered separately. A description of capabilities is the third step in the Capability Requirements Determination stage. That is a very sensitive part of the planning process because it is important to establish a common understanding of how a capability is conceived and expressed. Descriptions usually contain key capability characteristics (attributes) with appropriate parameters and metrics, e.g., time, distance, effect (including scale). The previous step of the Capability Requirements Determination stage answers the question “what capabilities do we need?”. The next (and the last) step of this stage should give an answer to the question “how much of each capability do we need?”. The identification of capability requirements is based on planning situations, current and future operational concepts as well as the mission analysis. Capability Assessment is a stage that follows Capability Requirements Determination. The purpose of the stage is to assess fulfilment of the previously identified capability requirements. Using the identified requirements and current capabilities as primary inputs, Capability Assessment produce a list of capability gaps that require solutions and indicates the time frame in which those solutions are needed. It may also identify redundancies in capabilities that reflect inefficiencies. Stojkovic and Bjørn (2007) stated that the Options Development is the seventh stage of the CBP process. That is a development of possible approaches to solving (or mitigating) the capability gaps identified in the previous stage of the process. Defence planners develop options taking both material and non-material solutions into account. The main inputs to this stage are capability gaps and available resources. The output from Options Development is a list of potential requirements and resources based options. The Options Development stage includes five steps. In the first step, defence planners identify non-material approaches. It implies analyses whether or not changes in capability inputs (e.g. Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership, Personnel etc) and/or operational concepts are able to fill capability gaps identified in the Capability Assessment stage. If this is not the case, the next step would be performed in order to identify material approaches. Available financial and other resources as well as technological and other limitations very often disable feasibility of options. In that case defence planners find out additional approaches. For instance, additional approaches may request more resources, reduction of level of ambitions or information about possible risks if gap would not be filled. In the last step defence planners specify possible options for each individual capability gap. The product of the Options Development stage is a list of options (approaches or combinations of approaches) for filling each individual capability gap. The purpose of the last stage of the CBP process is to select a suitable solution. The last stage of the CBP process comprises of four steps. The first step implies reconsideration of the options for each capability gap. If the options do not fill capability gaps, defence planners will specify the possible risk. Options that are able to fill gaps would be tested in order to choose the optimal one. The test would be combination of cost-benefit and risk analysis. Finally, selected options for filling capability gaps and specified risks would be included into a defence development plan. 3. OPTIMAL OPTION SELECTION FOR CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT The essence of the Capability based planning approach is to establish ascertaining of the compulsory capabilities according to the assumed set of scenarios and resources. There are several options for the development of any capability, depending on the factors for its development. The question is which capabilities development option to apply, according to the set of assumed scenarios and available resources. One of the possible ways to select optimal capabilities development options, according to Richard J. Hillestad and Paul K. Davis (1998) is by using decision support system- DYNARANK. This software makes use of certain parameters and score card to determine the optimal option for the capability development. Similar to DYNARANK system, for selection of the optimal option of capabilities development in the CBP, it is possible to rank the capabilities development options by taking into consideration the parameters of the developed scenarios, parameters of required capability and parameters of development options. One example of the model of capabilities development options selection is shown in Figure 2.

554

S1

S2

S3

Scenario

Scenario

Scenario

P1

P2

P3

D1

D2

D3

W1

W2

W3

C1

I3

Capability

C2

I2

I1

M1

M2

M3

Capability

C3 Capability

V11

O11 Option

V12

O12. Option

V13

O12 .Option

O21.Option O22 Option O31 Option O32 Option A11

A12

A21

A13

A33

Option ranking

O33 Option

Legend Math symbols Symbol

Description Multiplier

Option choice

Summing

Figure 2: Model of capabilities development options selection 3.1. Assessment of scenarios importance The developed scenarios differ in their importance. Ranking the importance of scenario is based on the parameters of the scenario. For the scenario parameters, as an example, can be taken the probability (Ps) and the consequences of the occurrence of a particular scenario (Ds). Scenario probability (Ps) is a numerical value that expresses the possibility that a scenario will occur. Scenario consequence (Ds) refers to negative outcomes and damage the scenario cause to national security and defence, if happens. Scenario consequences can be qualitatively displayed, and then converted into a quantitative scale by using expert judgment. The importance of a particular scenario S is calculated using the formula (1). ,

(1)

555

In the present formula, n is the total number of developed scenarios. Calculation example for the scenario importance, for a limited number of developed scenarios is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Calculation example for the scenario importance Scenario The terrorist attack on military installations Armed aggression Violation of airspace Peace support operation in state X Natural disasters

Code

P

D

Scenarios importance (W)

S1

0,5

0,5

0,25

S2 S3

0,3 0,5

0,9 0,3

0,27 0,15

S4

0,7

0,3

0,21

S5

0,9

0,5

0,45

3.2. Assessment of capabilities importance Based on the scenario, in the phase of Capability Requirements Determination, the required capabilities are determined to carry out missions and tasks in each scenario. Each capability has a specific importance (Ics) in execution of the tasks and missions in each scenario. To assess the significance (Mc) that certain capabilities have, it is necessary to acknowledge importance (Ics) they have in each of the scenarios. Capabilities significance (Mc) will lead in capability ranking. The significance (Mc) of a specific capability C to all scenarios can be calculated by formula (2), where C indicates the ordinal number of capabilities of total m required capabilities of the defence. n

M c   I cs  Ws , c  {1, 2,..., m}, s  {1, 2,..., n}.

(2)

s 1

Table 2 shows calculation example of the capabilities importance for each of the scenarios developed and calculation of the capabilities significance in all developed scenarios.

Capability

Code

Importance for 1. scenario (Ic1)





Table 2: Calculation example of the capabilities significance

Capability significance(M)

The neutralization of aerial targets at altitudes of over 10 km

C1

0,1

0,9

0,5

0,1

0,1

0,409

Strategic airlift

C2

0,1

0,5

0,1

0,7

0,1

0,367

Medical care for injured and sick

C3

0,7

0,9

0,1

0,7

0,7

0,895

Reconnaissance from the unmanned air vehicles

C4

0,5

0,7

0,1

0,5

0,7

0,749

Protection against sabotage

C5

0,9

0,3

0,1

0,7

0,1

0,513

3.3. Ranking of development options For each capability a different number of capability options is developed, which are generated through the action of the capabilities factors (inputs). For each capability development option, in order of their ranking, a certain parameters are determined. As an example for the development option parameter, development options prices (Vco) are taken, for further calculation.

556

The importance of certain capability development option (Aco) is calculated according to the formula (3) where O is the serial number of development options for the specific capability C. ,

,

(3)

In the present formula, z is the maximum number of capability development options for single capability. Table 3 presents calculation example for the importance of capabilities development options using option price and capabilities significance as parameters. Table 3: Calculation example for importance of capabilities development options Option Importance of capability Capabilities development options Code price (Vco) development option (Aco) Fighters O11 200,0 81,80 Anti-aircraft long range missile O12 150,0 61,35 Possession of strategic lift aircraft O21 10,0 3,67 Rental of strategic lift aircraft O22 0,5 0,18 Primary medical care O31 0,5 0,44 Secondary medical care O32 1,0 0,89 Rental of medical capacity O33 0,8 0,71 UAV type 1. O41 0,5 0,37 UAV type 2. O42 0,6 0,44 UAV type 3. O43 0,8 0,59 Military police platoon O51 0,3 0,15

Rank of options 11 10 9 2 4 8 7 3 5 6 1

The calculated values of development options importance (Aco) allow ranking of development options. Ranking of capabilities development options leads to prioritization of the goals for defence development, and should be presented to policymakers in terms of decision support. 4. CONCLUSION One of the common modern approaches in development planning of the defence is Capability Based Planning (CPB). Capability based planning allows the development of defence capabilities in accordance with the assessed security challenges, risks and threats, and taking into consideration the available resources. Capabilities are developed by different development options, which depend on the capability factors (inputs) that are applied to defence. Taking into consideration that it is not possible to development all the necessary capabilities, because of limited available resources, it is necessary to make a choice. When selecting options for the capability development, it is necessary to take into consideration what is the importance of capability in execution of missions and tasks in the scenarios, and the cost of capability development options implementation. The presented model allows presentation of the development options rank and priorities to the decision makers in term of decision support. In this way presented model influences the choice of the defence development options, but the final decision which options will be selected depends on other factors. Although this method should be an attempt of objectification of the defence development options ranking, there is still a degree of subjectivity. This is primarily related to subjective expert evaluation of the parameters, which directly affects the defence capabilities development options ranking. REFERENCES [1] Australian Government, Department of Defence. (2012). Defence Capability Development Handbook. Australia, Capability Development Group, CANBERRA. (Publications Version 1.0). Retrived from http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/DefenceCapabilityDevelopmentHandbook2012.pdf [2] Brian G. C.(2013). Portfolio Optimization by Means of Multiple Tandem Certainty-Uncertainty Searches, A Technical Description. Santa Monica, USA, RAND National Defense Research Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR270/ RAND_RR270.pdf, [3] Dejan S., Bjørn R. D. (2007). Methodology for long term defence planning. Kjeller, Norway, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. Retrieved from: http://issat.dcaf.ch/content/download/ 17291/202850/file/ Long%20Term%20Defence%20Planning.pdf,

557

[4] Hanna J., Jerry R., Tim C., and Martin W. (2005, June). Course of Action Simulation Analysis, Modelling and Simulation. 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, The Future of C2, Virginia, McLean. Retrieved from: http://www.dodccrp.org/events/ 10th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/113.pdf, [5] Leung C., Rick N., Robert P. (2010). Capability-Based Planning for Australia’s National Security (Ed.), Security Challenges, Vol. 6., No. 3. (pp. 79-96). Kingston, Australia, Kokoda Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ ArticlePDFs/vol6no3ChimNunes-VazPrandolini.pdf [6] NATO Research and Technology Organisation. (2003). Handbook on Long Term Defence Planning. (Publications RTO-TR-069). Retrived from http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTOTR-069///TR-069-$$ALL.pdf [7] Richard J. H., Paul K. D. (1998). Resource Allocation for the New Defense Strategy- The DynaRank Decision-Support System. Santa Monica, USA, RAND National Defense Research Institute. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a360472.pdf, [8] USA Department of Defence. (2012). Joint Capabilities Integration And Development System. (Publications CJCSI 3170.01H). Retrived from http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/cdata/unlimit/ 3170_01.pdf [9] USA Department of Defence. (2013). Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. (Publications CJCSI 3170.01E). Retrieved from http://ra.defence.gov/documents/rtm/jp1_02.pdf

558