building organizational agility into large scale software-reliant environments

Building Organizational Agility into Large-Scale Software-Reliant

Environments

Philip Boxer

March 25th 2009

Copyright © Philip Boxer 2009 1

Agenda

The divergence of acquisition & demand tempos (3)

The need for three modeling perspectives (2)

Four issues arising in building agility (4)

Valuing flexibility of component systems (5)


Speech by Secretary Gates: There are two paradigms that must coexist

The need for state of the art systems – particularly longer range capabilities – will never go away…

We also need specialized, often relatively low-tech equipment for stability and counter-insurgency missions.

– How do we institutionalize rapid procurement and fielding of such capabilities?

– Why do we currently have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process?

Our conventional modernization programs seek a 99% solution in years.

Stability and counter-insurgency missions require 75% solutions in months.

– The challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds these two different paradigms can be made to coexist.

Extracted from speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, National Defense University, Washington, D.C. September 29, 2008 http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1279


The three tempos: analyzing the impact of the client’s relation to customers’ changing demands

Client (defense) Enterprise

users

users Supplier 1

Supplier 2

supports

supports

The customer’s demand/threat

The client enterprise aligns to the demand/threat of the customer

The rate at which new forms of demand/threat need to be

satisfactorily addressed

Demand/ Threat Tempo

The rate at which the defense enterprise is able to support new

forms of mission capability

Readiness Tempo

Customers of the Client Enterprise

Supplier Client (defense) Enterprise

The ‘beyond’ of the Client (defense) Enterprise

1 2 3 4 5 6

orc

he

str

atio

n

Syn-chron-ization

Demand/ Threat

Acquisition Tempo

The rate at which new requirements can be

met

The supplier responds to the client enterprise aligning to the demand of

the customer


And So…

• The two paradigms are about diverging acquisition and demand/threat tempos

– Their coexistence depends on managing the readiness tempo in its own right

• To do this, the defense enterprise must:

– sustain multiple collaborations able to address concurrent types of demand/threat

– build organizational agility into large-scale software-reliant environments, based on the flexibility of individual capabilities

• In support, the supplier has to be able to price flexibility of component systems

– By valuing its impact on the overall agility of the defense enterprise


Agenda






The Supplier’s perspective on the client enterprise: the focus is on the SoS

A defined value-creating relationships enables the

other two vertices to be approached from the

infrastructure perspective

Value proposition in

response to Demand

Governance

Value-creating (threat-reducing) relationship

Collaboration Socio-Technical Governance of

the infrastructure

Supporting Infrastructure

Demand for value-creating (threat-reducing) relationship

Behaviors supporting the collaboration


The need for three modeling perspectives: making the demand-side perspective explicit

Demand for value-creating (threat-reducing)

relationships

Collaborations Socio-Technical

Value propositions in

response to Demand

Behaviors supporting the

value propositions

Governance of the

infrastructure

The (supply-side) infrastructure

perspective on the behavior of systems

of systems

The demand-side perspective on the value-

creating relationships to demand

Multiple Collaborations Supporting

Infrastructure

Governance

Value-creating (threat-reducing) relationships

Complex systems of systems: all three modeling perspectives become necessary


Agenda






1: The Double ‘V’ presents a Double Challenge

Requirement Solution

System components

Design decomposition

System integration

Multiple Collaborations supported by Collaborative

SoS

This cycle must drive the client (defense) enterprise.

1

2

3

4

5

6 Military Effects

Composite Capabilities

Mission Command

Force Structure and Composite Capabilities

Scenarios and Campaign Plans

demand-side

supply-side

Boxer, P.J. (2007) Managing the SoS Value Cycle, January 2007, http://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/85

Operational Capability

plus DOTMLPF =

Capability gap

minus DOTMLPF* =

* Doctrine Organization Training Materiel Leadership Personnel Facilities


demand-side

supply-side

2: Alignment to demand has to be stratified

* Framework Architectures, Navigator White Paper, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, June 2008

6 Decisive Points

Effects

Campaign (Demand) Tempo

4

5 Mission Command

Force Structure Operational Capabilities

Composite Capabilities

Synchronization

Readiness Tempo

1

2

3 Operational Capabilities

Fielded Equipment

Equipment

Equipment

Fielded Equipment

Acquisition Tempo


0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

Materiel & technology

Doctrine & operational concepts

Facilities & infrastructure

Leadership & education

Driven from ‘center’ of the Client Enterprise

Edge organization

Force composition & collective learning

Situational understanding

Personnel & culture

Driven from the ‘edge’ of the Client Enterprise where it

meets demands

needed

planned

execution

3: Alignment processes have to be edge-driven


4: Force cohesion depends on analyzing the relationships between all three perspectives

Demand for value-creating relationships

Collaborations Socio-Technical

Value propositions in response to Demand

Behaviors supporting the value proposition

Governance of the

infrastructure

Shape granularity/modularity and alignment of supporting behaviors

Multiple Collaborations

Constrains possible value

propositions of collaborations


Analysis of model needs to examine the way all three

modeling perspectives constrain each other






Agenda






The defense enterprise: its ‘revenue’ comes from the state

Suppliers of

Capability

The Defense

Enterprise

Lower ‘V’ Flexibility

here

Suppliers Client Enterprise

Campaigns in

Theatre

Upper ‘’ Agility here

Customers of the

Client Enterprise

Capability

Costs Funds Flow

Acquisition costs of the Defense Enterprise

Defense

Expenditure

Revenue to the Defense Enterprise

Client (defense)

Enterprise

users

usersSupplier 1

Supplier 2

supports

supports

orc

he

str

ati

on

Syn-chron-ization

Demand/ Threat

1 2 3 4 5 6


‘Real Option’ analysis: valuing the impact of changes in component system flexibility on force agility

The value of an incremental investment in some new capability is its impact on both the tradespace and the spread/variance in expenditure

Probability

Levels of defense expenditure on Campaigns

The cost of operational approach ‘b’ across the

variety of scenarios

b

a

The cost of operational approach ‘a’ across the

variety of scenarios

Benefit 1: Reduction in average level of expenditure through

impact on tradespace.

Benefit:2: Change in spread/variance in levels

of expenditure

Benefit 2: Change in spread/variance in levels

of expenditure


Two kinds of benefit: impact on the tradespace, and change in spread/variability in defense expenditure

Suppliers of

Capability

The Defense

Enterprise Campaigns in

Theatre

Defense

Expenditure

Capability

Costs Funds Flow

Funds Flow deltas

Substitution

Cost delta

Saving

from

substitution

Lower ‘V’ Flexibility

here

Upper ‘’ Agility here

Customers of the

Client Enterprise Suppliers Socio-technical

Client Enterprise

Saving from reduction in variability of expenditures

+ value of impact on variability

Probability

Levels of defense expenditure on Campaigns

b

a

Saving from doing

more with same (or less)


Modeling socio-technical SoS of multiple collaborations

Analyzing alignment of strata to demand

5-6

col1

x 5

un

ito

rder

\bo

rder

_isr

_cel

l

un

ito

rder

\bo

rder

_re

aper

_str

ike_

cell

un

ito

rder

\bo

rder

_sf_

cell

un

ito

rder

\afg

han

_bo

rder

_str

ike

un

ito

rder

\bo

rder

_cao

c_at

c_sy

nc

un

ito

rder

\bo

rder

_hal

e_b

m

un

ito

rder

\bo

rder

_mal

e_b

m

trac

even

t\b

ord

er_m

ale_

ou

tpu

ts

trac

even

t\b

ord

er_h

ale_

on

_sta

tio

n

trac

even

t\b

ord

er_m

ale_

on

_sta

tio

n

trac

even

t\b

ord

er_m

ale_

stri

ke

trac

even

t\af

ghan

_rep

ort

trac

even

t\b

ord

er_s

f_o

n_s

tati

on

trac

even

t\in

div

idu

al_i

n_a

fgh

an-p

akis

tan

_bo

rder

chan

nel

\bo

rder

_hal

e_b

m

chan

nel

\bo

rder

_mal

e_b

m

chan

nel

\bo

rder

_isr

_cel

l

chan

nel

\bo

rder

_re

aper

_str

ike_

cell

chan

nel

\bo

rder

_sf_

cell

c_si

tn\i

nd

ivid

ual

_in

_afg

han

-pak

ista

n_b

ord

er

orchn\afghan_border_strike 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

outcome\border_hale_on_station 1 1 1 1 1 1

outcome\border_male_on_station 1 1 1 1 1 1

outcome\border_male_strike 1 1 1 1 1 1

outcome\border_sf_on_station 1 1 1 1

khow\border_sf 1 1 1 1 1 1

khow\border_male_strike 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

khow\border_hale_global_hawk 1 1 1

design\border_hale_global_hawk 1 1

design\border_male_operator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

capy\border_hale_global_hawk 1 1

capy\border_male_reaper 1 1 1 1 1

capy\border_sf 1 1 1 1 1

system\border_hale_global_hawk 1 1

system\border_male_reaper 1 1 1 1 1 1

system\border_sf 1 1

process\border_hale_global_hawk 1 1

process\border_male_reaper 1 1 1 1 1

process\border_sf 1 1 1 1 1

dprocess\border_hale_global_hawk 1

dprocess\border_male_reaper 1 1 1 1

Costing Cohesion of Mission Capabilities

Defence Expenditure

Scenario 1

Alternative

Large Scale

Small Scale enduring

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Medium Scale enduring

Small Scale enduring

Small Scale one-off

Medium Scale enduring

Small Scale limited

Small Scale one-off

Monte Carlo analysis of impact of variations in demand on spread of possible defense expenditure

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0 75 150

225

300

375

450

525

600

675

750

825

900

975

1050

1125

1200

1275

1350

1425

Scaled Cost1 Scaled Cost2 Scaled Difference

Real Option Valuation of impact on expenditure spread

Value for Defense: Impact on Capability Tradespace + Economies of Alignment

Valuing adaptability: the value of creating economies of alignment for the defense enterprise

What Price Agility? Managing Through-Life Purchaser-Provider Relationships on the Basis of the Ability to Price Agility, Navigator White Paper, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, September 2008


Conclusion

The diverging tempos change the nature of the problem space

– Involves modeling demand-side as well as supply-side perspectives

– Raises four issues in building agility:

• the double ‘V’, stratification, edge-driven perspective, and force cohesion

Building agility into large-scale software-reliant environments depends on:

– Costing the way force cohesion is created around particular demands

– Establishing the impact on agility of new flexibilities in component systems

– Identifying the value of that impact

To manage both paradigms, the defense enterprise needs to be able to value impact on tradespace and on the spread/variance in expenditure


END


Socio-Technical

Modeling the ‘beyond’ of the Client Enterprise: three modeling perspectives

Demand for value-creating (threat-reducing)

relationships

Collaborations

Value propositions in

response to Demand

Behaviors supporting the

value propositions

Socio-technical

Multiple Collaborations


(accountability, synchronization,

situational data fusion)

(demand organization, customer situations and drivers)

(structure-function, trace/state)


Complex systems of systems: socio-technical

Structure-function view –

design dependencies


Complex systems of systems: socio-technical

State/trace view – state

variables and controls


Complex systems of systems: collaborations

Hierarchy view –

vertical accountabilities


horizontal synchronization/

data fusion view – cross-

cutting processes

Complex systems of systems: collaborations


Effects/Demand view –

horizontal

accountabilities

Complex systems of systems: demands


Complex systems of systems: all three modeling perspectives become necessary

Full analysis =

Socio-technical:

Structure-function

+ Data/Trace

Collaborations:

Hierarchy

+ Fusion/

Synchronization

Demand:

+ Demand/Effects

These perspectives and their relationships

generate a knowledge base, the properties

of which can be analyzed


building organizational agility into large scale software-reliant environments

Business