Overview for a Strategic Portfolio Prioritization SPP Process

1
Overview for a Strategic Portfolio Prioritization
(SPP)Process

• Dr. Dimitri N. Mavris
• Dr. Michelle R. Kirby
• Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory
• School of Aerospace Engineering
• Georgia Institute of Technology
• Atlanta, GA

2
Overview

• Traditional resource allocation approaches
• Foundation of approach
• Summary of previous execution of approach
• Defining the capabilities and limitations of the
  Strategic Portfolio Prioritization (SPP) Process
• Overview of the SPP Process and participant
  involvement

3
Traditional Resources Allocation Approaches
Due to limited Research and Development (RD)
monies available, the decision-maker desires to
know where to direct scarce resources to maximize
technological payoffs or substantiate strategic
competitive decisions. Five traditional
approaches are (Cetron 1972) 1) Squeaking
Wheel cut resources from every area and then
wait and see which area complains the most.
Based on the loudest and most insistent, then
restore budget until ceiling is hit. 2) Level
Funding budget perturbations minimized and
status quo maintained if this approach
continues within a rapidly changing technology
field, the company, group, or agency will end
up in serious trouble. 3) Glorious Past "once
successful, always successful". Assign resources
solely on past record of achievement. 4) White
Charger best speaker or last person to brief the
boss wins the money or whichever department has
the best presentation. 5) Committee Approach a
committee tells the manager or decision-maker how
to allocate resources.
4
Foundation of Approach

• SPP is an expert-based series of decision (or
  planning) matrices that are related qualitatively
  through different levels of abstraction
• The subjective qualitative relationships may then
  be mapped to quantitative scales to allow for a
  rapid prioritization based on the level of
  abstraction desired
• The process is an evolution of accepted quality
  engineering methods (e.g. Quality Function
  Deployment) and incorporates various dynamic
  aspects to form a portable and powerful decision
  making environment
• This approach was extensively utilized in a
  recent Congressional study for an integrated 5
  year RT plan for U.S. aeronautics, for the NASA
  Exploration Systems Architecture Study (NASA
  Administrator, Mike Griffins 60 day study), and
  for the NASA Vehicle Systems Program (VSP)
• In each of the recent studies, the environment
  created was generically called the Portfolio
  Investment Calculator and were more commonly
  known as the following
• Aeronautics Calculator
• Space Calculator
• VSP Calculator

5
Overview of the Aeronautics Calculator
Final product objective Develop and deliver to
Congress an aggressive 5 year investment plan as
a first step to restore aviation and aeronautics
technology capabilities to a robust level
commensurate with a global leadership
position With guidance that The plan should
uniformly seek to mature high-risk, potentially
high-payoff technologies to a readiness level
sufficient for NASA to transition out of
government-sponsored status for adaptation by
private industry
Congressional Earmark
6
National Strategy Team

• The purpose of the NST was to
• set the Strategic Agenda for the overall
  analysis, planning and integration activities
• define 6 over-arching National Needs which were
  based on the blue-ribbon documents
• set the research scope and priorities for each of
  the aviation sectors, including target budgets so
  as to frame the scope of research
• provide oversight of the planning activities
• provide guidance for the preparation and roll-out
  of a final product
• Members included

Chairman of the NST
7
Integrating the Aeronautics Plan

• ASDL Involvement
• Contracted to be the primary integrator of all
  the sector plans
• Interacted with each contractor to provide
  continuity amongst the teams on a daily basis
• Provided guidance and information when needed
• Provided a decision making tool to the NST to
  determine the final plan to be presented to
  Congress
• Collaborated with the production team on the
  final product to circulate on the hill

8
Aeronautics Decomposition
Protect the Environment
Increase Mobility
Support National Security
Explore New Aerospace Missions
. . .
National Needs
. . .
Vehicle Sector Capabilities
Sector Portfolio Identification
GOTChA Approach
Enabling Technology Roadmaps
GOTChA Goals, Objectives, Technical
Challenges, and Approaches
9
Integration Team Objective
10
Aeronautics Calculator
11
SPP for S3

• The SPP Process utilized for each of the previous
  Calculator concepts is generic in nature and
  may be tailored to the specific problem at hand
• The basic elements of the process require a
  decomposition of the problem down to the
  appropriate level per the decision makers needs
• The level of fidelity of the Calculator may be
  increased as more detailed information becomes
  available, such that a modular, reusable, and
  extendable product may be created
• For our purposes, the formulation is based on the
  framework outlined in the ST Investment
  Strategy Process and Framework document in the
  Ships and Ship Systems (S3) Product Area,
  released in January of 2005

12
Applying SPP to S3
Future Surface Navy Need
Vehicles
Attributes
Technology Areas
Technology Sub-areas
Technology Options
13
Applying SPP to S3

• This breakdown is for a single Attribute of a
  single vehicle for one Surface Navy Need
• In order to fully capture Ships and Ship Systems,
  the structure is repeated for each Surface Navy
  Need causing the dimensionality to increase
  tremendously
• SPP reduces the dimensionality by removing
  non-contributing branches of this structure
  through a traceable process
• Creates a direct link between technology
  sub-areas or options and the Needs
• Identifies most significant technology sub-areas
  or options that contribute to the Needs
• Depends on relationships established at every
  level of abstraction

14
Applying SPP to S3
Future Surface Navy Need
Vehicles
Attributes
Technology Areas
Hull Forms Propulsors
Ship Concepts Methods
Signatures Silencing
Structures Materials
Vulnerability Protection Analysis Methods
Machinery Systems Components
Environmental Quality Systems
Logistics Systems
Technology Sub-areas
TSa 1
TSa 2
TSa 2
TSa 1
TSa 2
TSa 1
TSa 2
TSa 3
TSa 1
TSa 2
TSa 3
TSa 1
TSa 2
LEAPS
TSa 1
Reconfigurable ship concepts
TSa 2
Technology Options
TO 1
TO 1
TO 2
TO 1
TO 1
TO 1
TO 2
TO 1
TO 1
TO 2
TO 1
TO 2
TO 1
TO 2
TO 1
TO 2
TO 2
TO 1
TO 1
TO 1
TO 2
TO 1
TO 1
TO 2
TO 3
TO 2
TO 2
TO 2
TO 1
TO 2
TO 2
TO 1
TO 2
TO 3
TO 2
TO 3
TO 2
15
SPP Payoff

• In the absence of a quantitative physics-based
  approach, SPP provides a structured, traceable,
  and transparent process for planning and
  technology prioritization
• The process can be tailored to any desired level
  of detail to enhance the decision making process
  for investment strategies as more information
  becomes available
• The end product will allow for what if games to
  be played through a dynamic and interactive
  environment
• The results of the process can be the foundation
  for detailed strategic road mapping and
  quantitative technology assessments and tracking

16
Process for Building SPP

• The process by which SPP is developed is fairly
  generic and may be tailored for the specific
  problem at hand
• Regardless of the application, the following
  elements are necessary to execute the SPP
  process
• Definition of top level needs
• Description of the information desired to
  facilitate decision making, which may include
• Schedule, annual or total budgets, sensitivity
  level of abstraction, risk, specific time frames,
  rack and stack of priorities, etc.
• Decomposition of the needs to the appropriate
  level of abstraction
• Qualitatively relate each level of the
  decomposition through a series of planning
  matrices
• Definition of a quantitative scale for each level
  of decomposition and translation to quantitative
  scales
• Identification of the appropriate domain area
  experts for each level of the decomposition to
  provide necessary information
• Elements needed for the SPP process can be
  defined through various techniques and methods
  including brainstorming, workshops, affinity
  diagrams, voting methods, relevance trees, etc.
• The only requirement placed on the process is
  that a link exists between each level of the
  decomposition

17
Notional SPP Application
Surface Navy Needs
Vehicle Attributes
Planning Prioritization
Top Level Planning Matrix
Technology Areas/Sub-Areas
Vehicle Attributes
Ships and Ship Systems Investment Strategy
Framework
Vehicle Attribute Planning Matrix
18
Information Flow
Workshop 1
Information gathering
Workshop 2
Problem Def.
Surface Navy Needs
X,NA,L,M,H
Vehicle Attributes
Subject Matter Expert Information Gathering
Technology Areas/Sub Areas
X,NA,L,M,H
Vehicle Attributes
SPP
19
SPP Approach

• The steps necessary to complete the SPP process
  include
• Problem definition
• Acquire supporting documents to define the
  Surface Navy Needs
• Workshop 1 Focus
• Identification of Surface Navy Needs and
  subsequent importance weighting definition for
  2015 and 2030 time frame
• Identification of Vehicle Attributes
• Completion of planning matrices of the Surface
  Navy Needs to Vehicle Attributes for 2015 and
  2030 time frame
• Initial relative impact of Attributes to Needs

20
SPP Approach (cont.)

• The steps necessary to complete the SPP process
  include
• Information Gathering
• Based on a predefined set of Technology Areas,
  identify appropriate subject matter experts
• Provide initial planning matrix of the Vehicle
  Attributes defined in Workshop 1 to the initial
  set of Technology Areas
• Request information regarding proposed Technology
  Sub-areas from the subject matter experts,
  including Research and Development Degree of
  Difficulty, qualitative impacts to Acquisition
  Cost and Life Cycle Costs and availability in
  terms of mid or long term focus, details of the
  information request are TBD
• Review Technology Sub-area information and
  iterate as necessary for clarifications

21
SPP Approach (cont.)

• The steps necessary to complete the SPP process
  include
• Workshop 2 Focus
• Compile all information gathered from the subject
  matter experts and reach consensus as to the
  mappings supplied in the planning matrix
• Initial relative impact of significant Technology
  Sub-areas with respect to Attributes and Needs
• Provide interactive capability to rack and
  stack the Technology Sub-areas and the mapping
  of qualitative to quantitative scales
• Employ the ONR DURIP funded Collaborative
  Visualization Environment (CoVE) to conduct the
  interactive assessment

22
ASDL Visualization Research Facilities

• Collaborative Visualization Environment (CoVE)
• An 18x10 war room type display wall with 12
  PCs at operator consoles
• Comprised of a seamless 4x3 matrix of 67
  rear-projection LCD screens
• For use in critical reviews by design
  decision-makers and stakeholders
• Facilitates research in advanced engineering data
  visualization techniques

• Collaborative Design Environment (CoDE)
• Work areas for integrated product teams
• Includes computer workstations, interactive
  whiteboards, and a smaller display wall
• Linked to CoVE for use by design disciplinarians
  in support of critical reviews
• High-performance computational support
• 256-processor cluster with 512 GB RAM, 5 TB
  storage, gigabit Ethernet and Infiniband
  high-speed communication backbones
• Supports CoVE, CoDE, and research requiring
  high-speed or parallel computing
• Hardware provided through an ONR DURIP grant in
  2004

CoVE
23
SPP Summary

• The SPP process provides a structured, traceable,
  and transparent process for planning and
  technology prioritization
• The prioritization of Technology Sub-areas is
  based on expert opinions for a series of
  qualitative mappings with supporting information
  and documentation regarding decisions
• The Workshops will serve to provide the
  information to populate the SPP
• Workshop 1 maps Attributes to the Surface Navy
  Needs
• Workshop 2 verifies the technology mapping and
  allows participants to play what if games

24

• BACKUP MATERIAL

25
Qualitative Mapping of Attributes to Surface Navy
Needs

• Once the Surface Navy Needs and Vehicle
  Attributes have been established through the
  Workshop 1, relationships must be formed between
  the two
• Through a voting process or open discussions, the
  impact of each Attribute on each Need is
  qualitative mapped in the first planning matrix
• Additionally, SPP allows for a weighting factor
  (scale from 1-10 with 10 being better) on both
  the Attributes and the Needs to reflect the
  relative importance of each with respect to one
  another in a group
• X Negative level of impact
• NA Not Applicable
• L Low positive level of impact
• M Medium positive level of impact
• H High positive level of impact

Surface Navy Needs
Mapping Attributes to Surface Navy Needs
Vehicle Attributes
26
Quantitative Mapping

• From the qualitative mappings defined in the
  planning matrix of the Attributes to Needs, the
  X, NA, L, M, and H impacts are translated to a
  quantitative scale. The typical translation used
  for this level of abstraction is to place more
  importance on medium and high, where
• Negative (X) -2
• No impact (NA) 0
• Low (L) 1
• Medium (M) 7
• High (H) 9
• The quantitative translations may be adjusted
  based on the decision makers preference, e.g.,
  linear (-2,0,1,5,9). This mapping is typically
  used for the lower level mappings of Attributes
  to Technology Sub-areas
• Basic matrix manipulation is then performed and
  the relative impact or sensitivities at any level
  of abstraction may be obtained

27
Quantitative Mapping of Attributes to Needs

• Flexibility is added throughout the tool to allow
  the decision makers to vary the following
• Relative importance of Surface Navy Needs (SNN),
  scale is from 1 to 10, where 10 is better
• Relative importance of Vehicle Attributes, where
  scale is from 1 to 10, where 10 is better, which
  is used on the mapping of the Attributes to
  Technology Areas matrix
• Quantitative mapping scale (see previous scale)

1
3
2
Qualitative Impacts
Quantitative mapping
Qualitative Attribute Impact on SNN
Quantitative Attribute Impacts on SNN
(SNN Wt)(Qualitative Impact)
28
Example Quantitative Mapping of Attributes to
Needs

• Example
• Impact of Attribute Stealth to Need Power
  Projection was defined as a M
• The current translation scale is a 7 for M
• Also, the current weighting factor for Power
  Projection is a 5
• Hence, the impact of Stealth to Power Projection
  is 57 35

3
2
4
1
Qualitative Impacts
Quantitative mapping
29
Example Relative Importance of an Attribute to
All Needs

• To determine the relative importance of one
  Attribute to all the Needs, a simple summation is
  performed with respect to the whole planning
  matrix
• When calculating the relative importance of an
  Attribute, the chance may exist that one of the
  mappings may have been a negative impact, i.e.,
  an X
• When this occurs, the summation of the entire
  matrix only takes into account the positive
  values, since the measure of goodness is a large
  value (bigger is better)
• This approach is taken such that the relative
  importance of an Attribute is taken with respect
  to the benefit as a whole
• Hence, when the relative importance of all
  Attributes to all Needs are summed, the result
  may NOT be 100 if a negative mapping is in the
  planning matrix. However, if all mappings are
  beneficial, the sum would be 100

• Example
• Sum the entire row of an Attribute (193)
• Sum of the positive elements of the entire matrix
  (2152)
• Relative importance of Stealth with respect to
  all Needs is simply the result of (1) divided by
  the result of (2)

2
3
1
30
Relating Needs to Technology Areas

• Given that the ultimate goal in this strategic
  planning process is to identify potentially high
  payoff technology areas and sub-areas, a
  relationship must be made from the Needs to the
  Technology Sub-areas, such that
• Surface Navy Need f (Technology Sub-areas)
• However, most technology experts cannot directly
  relate the impact of their Technology Sub-area
  directly to the Needs
• Thus, a transfer function is needed to allow for
  a clearer mapping of the Technology Sub-areas to
  an appropriate level of abstraction
• To accomplish this end, the Attributes can serve
  as the transfer function, such that
• Surface Navy Needs f (Attributes f
  (Technology Sub-areas))
• Since a mapping has occurred between the Needs
  and the Attributes, one must now relate the
  Technology Sub-areas to the Attributes

31
Qualitative Mapping of Technology Sub-areas to
Attributes

• In a similar fashion of Attributes to Needs
  planning matrix, the Technology Sub-areas of
  interest must also be mapped to the Attributes in
  a second planning matrix
• The Attributes serve as the transfer function
  between lower levels of abstraction (i.e.,
  Technology Sub-area) to the higher levels (i.e.,
  the Needs)
• Technology Areas (1) are broken down into
  sub-areas (2) and those are mapped (3) against
  the Attributes in this planning matrix
• The weighting scale (4) for the Attributes comes
  from the previous planning matrix
• Initially, experts individually populate the
  planning matrix, which will then becompiled to
  perform a rack and stack for Workshop 2

1
Qualitative ranking X Negative level of
impact NA Not Applicable L Low positive level of
impact M Medium positive level of impact H High
positive level of impact
2
4
Mapping Technology Areas to Attributes
3
32
Relative Importance of a Technology Sub-area
Technology Sub-areas
Technology Sub-area qualitative mapping to
Attributes
Relative importance determined based on the sum
of the column divided by the sum of the whole
planning matrix
Qualitative impact above mapped to quantitative
scale for each cell and then multiplied by the
weighting of the Vehicle Attributes
33
Example Relative Importance of a Technology
Sub-area
As was the case with the translation of the
Attributes to all Needs planning matrix, the same
approach is utilized here. The only difference is
that the translation scale was changed to a
linear scale
Qualitative ranking X Negative level of impact
-2 NA Not Applicable 0 L Low positive level of
impact 1 M Medium positive level of impact
5 H High positive level of impact 9
2
3
1

• Example
• Impact of Advanced Vehicle Concepts to
  Reconfigurability was defined as a L
• The current translation scale is a 1 for L
• Also, the current weighting factor for Power
  Projection is a 8
• Hence, the Absolute Impact of Advanced Vehicle
  Concepts to Reconfigurability is 18 8
• The relative impact of each of the Sub-areas may
  be determine based on the Absolute Impact (8)
  divided by the summation of the absolute impact
  of all Sub-areas (773), which is 8/773 0.01

4
5
34
Relating Technology Sub-areas to Surface Navy
Needs
Technology Sub-area quantitative impacts
Relative importance of a Technology Sub-area
relative to Attributes and Needs
Relate the Technology Sub-areas to the Naval
Needs by multiplying the planning matrix by the
vector of the relative importance of the
Attributes to the Naval Needs and recalculate
relative importance
35
Example Relative Importance of a Technology
Sub-area to All Needs
This is similar to mapping the impact of
attributes to all Needs

• Example
• The impact of Advanced Vehicle Concepts to
  Reconfigurability is 8
• The relative impact of Reconfigurability on all
  Surface Naval Needs is 0.059
• The impact of Advanced Vehicle Concepts on
  Reconfigurability with respect to all Needs is
  80.059 0.472
• The impact of all Technology Areas on an
  Attribute is the sum of the row (0.085)
• The absolute impact on all Needs with respect to
  all Attributes for the Advanced Vehicle Concepts
  is the sum of this column (0.809)

of Tech Sub-
1
of Tech Sub-
5
2
3
4
36
Prioritizing Technology Sub-areas

• SPP utilizes different filters to rack and
  stack technology sub-areas
• Currently sorts in descending order based on the
  relative impact to Vehicle Attributes as weighted
  by the Surface Naval Needs (SNN)
• A filter for RD3 can be added
• The Impact to the Surface Naval Needs vector will
  then be used to relate the current list of
  Technology Sub-areas back to the top level for
  visualization purposes

37
Relating Technology Sub-Areas to Surface Navy
Needs

• For visualization and decision-making, the
  influence of the Technology Sub-areas as related
  to the Surface Navy Needs is of interest
• To quantify the relationship, the Impact to the
  SNN vector on the previous slide is used and
  another manipulation is performed on the
  Attributes to Needs planning matrix

Original Attributes to Needs
Technology Sub-area Weighted Attributes to Needs
Multiply
38
SPP Visualization

• A multitude of options now exist for
  visualization to facilitate decision making
• Sensitivities
• Attributes to Needs
• Attributes to Technology Areas and Sub-Areas
• Rack and stack
• Degree of Difficulty (RD3)
• Other information obtained from the Technology
  Sub-area experts
• Additional elements per the decision makers
  preferences