helping organizations better prepare for the future during

Scenario PlanningScenario PlanningHelping Organizations Better Prepare for the Future During Times of Great

Uncertainty

Jack JekowskiInnovative Technology Partnerships, LLC

Innovative Technology Partnerships, LLC

TM

February 2010

2

What is Scenario Planning?

2

A tool used to stretch the imagination of leaders to anticipate and prepare for probable futures and to speculate and

ponder upon improbable futures…

33

Where Does Scenario Planning Fit?ITP’s World Class Strategic Planning Process* incorporates scenario planning as a tool to help management expand its perspective on current and future events in the context of traditional strategic planning to ensure success

Environmental Scan• Interviews• Review assessments• Collect and review data• Develop stakeholder set• Examine market and

competitors

Planning Meetings• Identify driving forces• Identify strengths,

weaknesses, opportunitiesand threats

• Identify issues

Issues Development• Issues analyses• Strategic discussions• Future visioning/Scenario

Planning• Validate Vision and Mission

Strategy Development• Identify strategies, tactics,

actions and teams• Prioritize• Develop time lines, metrics

and milestones• Assign responsibilities

Strategy Deployment• Publish Strategic Plan• Publish summary pamphlet• Brief and involve all

stakeholders

Monitor and Feedback• Gather performance data• Report status in public

meetings• Improve process

Strategic discussions occur in every step

*ITP’s Strategic Planning process has been benchmarked against the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Criteria;Scenario Planning can be used in conjunction with the larger strategic planning effort or as a standalone activity.

44

Scenarios Are…

A tool to stretch the imagination

A methodology to identify, discuss and prepare for uncertain futures

A tool for helping take a “long view” in a world of great uncertainty

Stories about the way the world might turn out tomorrow

55

Scenarios Are Not…

About predicting the future

An accurate picture of tomorrow

A science

Conceived of one at a time

6

• War Gaming conducted by the military during WWII, continuing through today – to give military leaders and policy makers a strategic view into “what if”

• Royal Dutch Shell planners utilized a modified version of War Gaming in the 1970’s to better prepare management for uncertain futures – including the Oil Crisis– “The Gentle Art of Re-Perceiving” by Pierre Wack – HBR 1984

• Global Business Network – 1980’s to present – application of the Royal Dutch Shell process to the broader business and government communities– “The Art of the Long View” – Peter Schwartz – http://www.gbn.com

• The Mount Fleur Scenarios – Scenarios developed and publicized in South Africa describing life after Apartheid -changing the future for a country

• 9/11 – what might have been

The History of Scenarios

6

7

The “Archetypes”• The Chairman• The Cynic• The Timorous• The Disengaged• The Contrarian• The Process Checker• The Threatened• The Pragmatist• The Evaluator• The Creative Enthusiast

Bringing the Team Together

7Scenarios require diversity of thought – and also a committed leader

88

The Scenario Process1. The Focal Issue/Question:

• Describes the specific decision or issue that will most be in the minds of decision makers and will have the most important long term influence – done in an iterative process of creating the scenarios (iterate with Steps 3 and 4).

2. Key Factors and Environmental Forces:• Identify and discuss the external drivers that are influencing your

current environment. What is the “mindset” of management?3. Critical Uncertainties:

• What are the most critical, yet uncertain drivers for the future –are they relevant to the Focal Issue? (iterate with Step 1).

4. Scenario Logic/Scenario Development:• What best set of two critical uncertainties combine to create four

future worlds that challenge the mindset of management, offer hope (at least one), and are still believable. (iterate with Step 1).

99

The Scenario Process5. Events/Indicators:

• Discuss the events that could lead to the extreme of each world,and what would have been the indicators to watch out for that would have better prepared the organization?

6. Development of Stories:• Enriched by the Events and Indicators, let your imagination go,

and create captivating stories of future worlds.7. Development of Strategies:

• What strategies would allow you to prosper in each world, no matter what happened?

• What strategies might you pursue to change the course of history away from a particular world that is less desirable?

• What strategies are common to all quadrants? These are the “Robust Strategies” that should be the highest priority.

1010

The Scenario Process8. Publicize:

• Widely publicize the stories and talk about how the organizationmight adjust or modify their future with the right strategies.

9. Research and Analyze:• Monitor current events and applicable data – create an

“Indicator Wheel” and develop “Vector” diagrams to stimulate strategic discussions.

• “Connect the Dots” – where is the world headed?• Implement appropriate strategies and constantly search for new

strategies to adapt to real events as they occur.10.Revisit the Scenarios:

• It may be time to reassess critical uncertainties, or to better focus on immediate events when worlds no longer can be differentiated.

• When you are convinced you have plunged into one world, never to return – reevaluate the scenario construct.

1111

What Scenarios RequireA constant feeding through rich, diverse, and thought-provoking informationBecoming aware of your own “filter” and continuously readjusting it to let in more data about the worldEducating yourself on the views of othersResearch, research, researchKeeping track of new technologies, one of the most important drivers of future eventsKnowledge of the “fringes” – in the 21st Century, the BlogosphereAn understanding of the driving forces – Society, Technology, Economics, Environment, and PoliticsVocabulary, imagery and rhythmRemarkable peopleA Champion and support resourcesAn understanding of the mental maps of decision makers

12

Creating the Scenarios

Environmental Scan

1

Critical Uncertainty 1

Crit

ical

Unc

erta

inty

2

Extreme DescriptorsExtreme Descriptors

Extreme Descriptors

Extreme Descriptors

Future World W

Future World Y

Future World X

Future World Z

Interviews – the “mindset of management”

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)

Driving Forces

Predetermined events

Critical Uncertainties

13

Creating the Scenarios

13

Critical Uncertainty 1

Crit

ical

Unc

erta

inty

2Extreme DescriptorsExtreme Descriptors

Extreme Descriptors

Extreme Descriptors

Future World W

Future World Y

Future World X

Future World Z

14

Identifying Events and Indicators THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR DANGER

Scenario A Scenario B

Scenario C Scenario D

• Growing incidents of nuclear leakagecreate an inevitable path toward use byrogue states• US abandons Nunn-Lugar andreestablishes a testing readiness posture• US abrogates ABM treaty and deploys anABM system• Nuclear incident of 2000

• Fissile Cut-Off Treaty signed• NPT sets date for total eliminationof Nuclear Weapons• START III leapfrogs Start II• MPC&A technologies evolve andare embraced by nuclear states

•CTBT Stalls•Russia political and economicupheavals drive return to nationalism•Nuclear Weapons remain the powersymbol for nation states - Nuclearweapons states abound• Russia resumes testing to ensureviability of stockpile•North Korea Tests, Israel announcesNWS status, Iran and Syria announceplans for nuclear programs

The Proliferationof NuclearWeapons States

Thef

t and

Div

ersio

nof

Nuc

lear

Mat

eria

ls

“The Dominos Fall”

• CTBT succeeds - SBSS usedas bargaining chip•India and Pakistan disarm• START III implemented, butto levels that assure non-NWSsome level of security• Iraq invaded• Russian economic reformsand Western interventionbegins road to improvement•Famine in North Koreacreates basis for unification

“A Delicate Balance”

“Prepare for the Terrorists”

“A Glimmer of Hope”

J. JekowskiSeptember 9, 1998

The events along the path to the endpoint in each scenario can serve as indicators that can be monitored. These indicators are the basis for research that is performed continuously to “track” which scenaric path is being followed and engage the management team in strategic discussions to determine responses. The farther out in time the events are postulated, the more uncertain they become.

15

Identifying Robust Strategies

THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR DANGER







Thef

t and

Div

ersio

nof

Nuc

lear

Mat

eria

ls







Strategy A-1Strategy A-2Strategy A-3

Strategy B-1Strategy B-2Strategy B-3

Strategy C-1Strategy C-2Strategy C-3

Strategy D-1Strategy D-2Strategy D-3

Many scenario developments will identify a small number of strategies in each scenario that are similar - these are the “robust strategies” that should take top priority for the organization -allowing it to be better prepared no matter what world evolves. By rehearsing other strategies for each future world, the management team is better prepared to respond to any event

15

16

The Evolution of a Scenario THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR DANGER







Thef

t and

Div

ersio

nof

Nuc

lear

Mat

eria

ls







Constructed in 1998

As the world enters the third millennium, it teeters on the brink of disaster. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, mankind no longer has the luxury to allow others to exercise unilateral actions in support of extreme agendas. The potential for a single incident to take the lives of millions of people, impact the economy of countries or regions in the trillion of $$, and effect social change of unprecedented scale requires the creation of a new global social conscience and rule of law. Unfortunately, mankind has acquired the power for such destruction before it has developed a responsible social structure. In this unstable world a sequence of discontinuities, particularly those for which an inappropriate, or no response occurs, could lead mankind to those desolate worlds so often depicted by Hollywood. It is of paramount importance that world leadership understands the consequences of their actions or inaction and engage in strategic conversations that identify critical indicators that could lead to the unimaginable…

Revisited in 2000

17

Presentation Tools for ManagementSCENARIO INDICATOR WHEEL

Simplified tools such as this Vector Diagram analysis and Scenario Indicator Wheel tool allow the management team to focus on research areas in their day to day activities, providing many “sets of eyes” to identify critical events that may indicate a movement toward one

particular future world.

TheTheFutureFuture

17

Management teams need tools to assist them in the constant visualization of Scenarios:• Tools that focus on research areas - and short summaries of recent events based on that research• Graphical diagrams that reflect the “consequences” of critical events that may cause adiscontinuity in the timeline toward the future

Management teams need tools to assist them in the constant visualization of Scenarios:• Tools that focus on research areas - and short summaries of recent events based on that research• Graphical diagrams that reflect the “consequences” of critical events that may cause adiscontinuity in the timeline toward the future

Strategy Wind-Tunnel Tool - VECTORS - 2/13/97



(+)

(-)

(+)(-)

“The New Cold War”

“Eco-Tech Wars”“The New Arms Race”

“Their Problem”

“Sharing the Growth”“Toward Utopia”

•Fragmented•Conflict laden•Slower economic growth•Restricted trade

•Cohesive•Tending toward compromise•Faster growth•Open trade

•Small regional wars•Isolated impacts•Civil war type conflicts

•Global impacts•Super power level conflict•Cross border

Nature of threats to US Interest

Geo

-Pol

itics

• Budget balancing legislation in sight• DOE abolishment legislation (S.236) resubmitted,Domenici willing to talk about restructuring• CTBT passed by U.N.• Helms drives isolationism• Retired Generals and Admirals statement againstnuclear weapons

• Russian economic and political turmoil• India position on CTBT• DOE abolishment legislation (S.236) resubmitted,Domenici willing to talk about restructuring ABMdiscussions• NATO expansion opposition by Russia• Failure of Duma to approve START II• CWC arguments• Conference on Disarmament stalemate

• New Global partnerships being formed• Privatization of K-25, Industrial partnershipinitiatives by laboratories• Growing fringe voice for abolition of nuclearweapons• NATO expansion pushed• New Secretaries of State & Defense & UNAmbassador• Growth of accelerator science at laboratories• DNA becomes DSWA

•Foreign nuclear technologypartnerships being formed• “Nuclear Anarchy” study• CTBT proceeds with difficulty• SBSS supported by new Secretary• India reasserts ties with Russia and“nuclear option”

Vector Analysis Tool

18

Some Real Life Examples

• Visual cues are important to stir the imagination – current headlines, cartoons, and timelines are often used in addition to orthogonal constructs and stories

• The following examples have been extracted from recent client work within the DOE/NNSA to demonstrate the power of visualization

Fortress America(DHS Lab?)

U.S. Stretched Thin(new directions)

21st Century Deterrence(back to the future)

The Finite Frontier(retooling for green)

Mapping Aurora Initiatives – Developing a Portfolio of Investments

Terrorism(Asymmetric Engagement)

High National Priority• Push for new energy sources of all types

• Sustainable energy & resources• Yucca Mountain Opens

• Alternate fuel cycles accepted• Gen IV reactor prototype works

• U.S. signs Kyoto II• Millionth fuel cell car sold

• Desalination breakthrough

• Oil rises to $100/barrel – gas $6/gal.• Nuclear power option stagnates with

inability to open Yucca Mountain• Alternative energy sources do not evolve• Continued environmental degradation –

global warming accelerates• Water rationing – Potable water becomes economic commodity• U.S. life expectancy declines

Low Priority

• Terror incidents decline• New power centers emerge in nations

and regions—Asia, Europe, Americas• State-to-state relations & alliances control

economic & military power • U.N. plays greater role, expanded

Security Council• Stockpile focused on deterrence or stable• Other superpowers emerge

Peers(Nation-states

dominate)

National Security Focus

• Terrorism spreads to U.S., allies, • Suicide bombing of malls• Bio &/or radiological terrorism • Nations close borders• US closes embassies in hostile countries• National I.D. cards• Revival of “Total Information System”• Military / law enforcement distinction blurs • Asymmetric engagements abound,

attribution difficult

Notes on reading this Initiatives Portfolio chart:• Placement of Initiatives in quadrants indicate where they are perceived to have the most impact or value in each of the possible future worlds described• The graphical size of the Initiative is not of any consequence• The shape of any Initiative has been roughly created to show where the most impact or value exists within particular quadrant or quadrants• We are currently “living” in the lower quadrants. Therefore, as a result:

- Those Initiatives that are weighted more in the lower quadrants may enjoy greater visibility and immediate sponsorships.

- For those Initiatives that are weighted more in the upper quadrants a greater internal investment may be needed right now to allow them to have a strategic impact on the future of the Lab.

• The potential value of any Initiative will be influenced by many external factors that will be played out over the next several years, as well as the Vision of the Laboratory

Notes on reading this Initiatives Portfolio chart:• Placement of Initiatives in quadrants indicate where they are perceived to have the most impact or value in each of the possible future worlds described• The graphical size of the Initiative is not of any consequence• The shape of any Initiative has been roughly created to show where the most impact or value exists within particular quadrant or quadrants• We are currently “living” in the lower quadrants. Therefore, as a result:

- Those Initiatives that are weighted more in the lower quadrants may enjoy greater visibility and immediate sponsorships.

- For those Initiatives that are weighted more in the upper quadrants a greater internal investment may be needed right now to allow them to have a strategic impact on the future of the Lab.

• The potential value of any Initiative will be influenced by many external factors that will be played out over the next several years, as well as the Vision of the LaboratoryPredictive

Knowledge Systems

Energy Security

HEDP

Open Space

WarfighterSupport

RRWRRW

Center forNuclearSystems

CaliforniaCollaboratory

AcceleratedIFE

Leadership and KnowledgeOwnership of Infrastructure

Relationship BuildingAdaptable Facilities for Science

Revitalizing ScienceRecruitment/Diversity

Employee Health

BiologicalFoundations

Ener

gy a

nd R

esou

rces

The Scenario LogicFocus Issue:“What will Sandia’s role be in a future successful “What will Sandia’s role be in a future successful

nonproliferation environment?”nonproliferation environment?”Driving Forces• War on Terrorism• Rise of fundamentalism• Economy/Budget Deficit• Political support for labs• WMD proliferation/nuke tests• Technology• Reorganization of Intel community• National Laboratory roles/NNSA• Role of international organizations• Public attitudes toward WMD• Role of nuclear weapons• DPRK/Iranian developments

Political, social and economic

impacts on nonproliferation technology and

policy development and

deployment

Role of National Laboratories

Global Economy & Security

AStable

and Secure World

What is NP&A SMU role?

The Focus Question describes the specific decision or issue that will most be in the minds of the decision-makers in the SMU and will have the most important long-term influence on its success

SNL Vision: Securing a peaceful and free world through technology

NP&A Vision: We will be the laboratory team, without peer, to anticipate and assess threats to national security and to provide innovative, technology-based

systems solutions to deter and defeat our nation’s enemies.

“Exceptional Service in the National Interest”““Exceptional Service in Exceptional Service in the National Interest”the National Interest”

Scenario Indicators

Tracing the Scenario Paths

• Terrorism expands worldwide• Political instability in Pakistan and Iran• DPRK becomes global threat• China-Taiwan conflict• Israeli – Palestinian War• Proliferation of Madrassas• Environmental problems increase• Social and health issues escalate• Global energy crisis

• Preemption in Syria, Iran or Korea• Saudi Arabian revolution – Saudi

Royal Family shuts down Madrassas• China Taiwan Tensions stabilized• Middle East Peace Accord• UN focus on poverty and health• New Arms Control regimes

• New investments in counterterrorism technology• Nonproliferation efforts coordinatedthrough labs

• Global agreements for equipmentdeployment and cooperation

• S&E Workforce built up

• DOE/NNSA broken up and missionsreassigned

• Nonproliferation work deemphasized –efforts become fragmented

• Shortfall in qualified S&E workforce• Administration/political agendas change• Downsizing, breakup of the Laboratories• HSARPA grows • Non-technology solutions (e.g. military)• Decreasing Budgets for Nuclear Weapons

“Last Lab Standing”

“New Missions” “Exceptional Service in the National Interest”

(+)

(-)

(+)

(-)The Global Threat

November 3, 2004

“Houston,We Have a Problem”

Increasing Threat

““Helping our Helping our Nation secure a Nation secure a

peaceful and peaceful and free world free world

through through technology”technology”

decreasing Threat

Dec

reas

ing

Supp

ort

Incr

easi

ng

Sup

port

Supp

ort f

or th

e N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

ies

January 2005

Supp

ort f

or th

e N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

ies


• Preemption in Syria, Iran and Korea• Saudi Arabian revolution – Saudis


• New investments in counter technology• Nonproliferation efforts coordinated

through labs• Global agreements for equipment

deployment and cooperation• S&E Workforce built up



• Shortfall in qualified S&E workforce• Administration/political agendas change• Downsizing, breakup of the Laboratories• HSARPA grows • Non-technology solutions (e.g. military)

“Going out of Business”

“New Missions” “Exceptional Service inthe National Interest”


(+)

(-)

(+)

(-)

The Global Threat


September 2004


• Preemption in Syria, Iran or Korea• Saudi Arabian revolution – Saudi


• New investments in counterterrorism technology• Nonproliferation efforts coordinated

through labs• Global agreements for equipment

deployment and cooperation• S&E Workforce built up



• Shortfall in qualified S&E workforce• Administration/political agendas change• Downsizing, breakup of the Laboratories• HSARPA grows • Non-technology solutions (e.g. military)• Decreasing Budgets for Nuclear Weapons


“New Missions” “Exceptional Service in the National Interest”

(+)

(-)

(+)

(-)The Global Threat

November 3, 2004


Increasing Threat

““Helping our Helping our Nation secure a Nation secure a

peaceful and peaceful and free world free world

through through technology”technology”

decreasing Threat

Dec

reas

ing

Supp

ort

Incr

easi

ng

Supp

ort

Supp

ort f

or th

e N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

ies

• Budget deficits are pushing funding to immediate prosecution of War • Concerns expressed by Domenici and others concerning NNSA

implementation • Continuingroblems with LANL competition • LANL shutdown questions • Domenici loses battle for RNEP and other programs • LANL competition might lead to “DoD contractor” running lab

• Nuclear tensions rise with Iran and North Korea • Iran nuclear program continues – links established to

A.Q. Khan network • Efforts continue by Administration to reshape stockpile • Continuing difficulties with insurgents in Iraq • LM steps back into LANL competition

• Budget deficits and problems within DOE/NNSA and labs have left opening for military-industrial complex to step in.

• SEAB report on restructuring could lead to BRAC-like exercise in Weapons Complex

• Labs identify unsustainable costs of Stockpile Stewardship program.

• No significant terrorist incidents except in Iraq – several plots thwarted

• Elections held in Iraq – gain worldwide attention • Global need for energy sparks new conversations

concerning nuclear power – NAS report on safety of spent fuel storage may spur new efforts.

• Russia in discussions with EU • Lebanese rally against Syria • U.S. announces effort to help India become World Power

June 2005

Composite Event/Indicator Time Lines

Laboratory FutureN

atio

nal D

efen

se S

trat

egy

Green, Lean and Mean

Radical Shift in PhilosophyNot Just for

Nukes Anymore

Growing and Vibrant

Declining

Decreasing in Intensity

Increasing in Intensity

Cafeteria Security

Team 4Joe Sandoval

Adele MontoyaBill WeilandEd Cooley

Team 1David SkousenRon WilliamsBruce Green

Paul Shoemaker

Team 2Earl Conway

Carol ScharmerMark JamseyGary Laughlin

Scott Ashbaugh

Team 3Barry Schwartz

Don CharlesworthNikki LobatoPaul Yourick

Peggy Stevens

Event/Indicator Timelines

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007Presidential Election

Presidential Election

Presidential ElectionPresidential Election

WMD on U.S. soil

Loss of confidence in Labs

Loss of confidence in LabsConsolidation of SNL VPs

Significant NW budget reductions

No WFO policy

Pressure to reduce deficit

ISO Certification

NISPOM AlignmentNew HRPS system

Demise of DOE Directives3 years of successive “green” ratings

Mission transferPakistani government falls

Sandia contract recompete

Key Strategies• Telling “story” is critical• Define what “green” means – reduce

milestones in PEP• Tailor security - “pay-as-you-go”• Graded approach to security – industry

standards• Workforce analysis for transformation

Second 9/11

Renewable Energy Project awarded to Sandia

“Cafeteria Security” coined

Opening of Beijing satellite

CAT I & II gone

TTR endures

Russia tests new nuke

Opening of India satellite

Insurgency broken in Iraq

SNL/CA absorbed by LLNLLANL absorbed by SNL/NM

Attrition rate increases dramaticallyDecreased paternalistic benefitsMedical Department dissolved

Series of global natural disasters

No bidders on Sandia contract Key Strategies• Just-in-time approach to security• Staff Augmentation and quick clearance

processing• Skill set adjustments – more foreign language

expertise in technical areas• Divest some components of mission space,

including NW• Align with other agencies• Benchmark universities and private labs• Driver becomes BBP, not Order driven• Expand capacity for foreign work• New upper management team trained in

organizational change from private sector

RRW put on hold

SPOs moved to other sites

IP, cyber and other security needsForeign interactions increase

“Economic Security in the National Interest”

NNSA dissolved, NNWA stands upSNL grows in favor with CongressSome LANL work absorbed by SNL/NM

Democratization of Middle East

Unification of Korean Peninsula

Key Strategies• New security needs – protection of IP

and industry proprietary information• Knowledge-based security force• Increased integration with cyber • Flexible financial system for multiple

funding sources• Benchmark private sector security• Be prepared to assume Cat I mission• Protection of non defense-related

information (critical)

U.N. takes on new roles

TTR closesCAT I & II gone

Sandia Contract Extended

Sandia wins contract RFP

Shiites & Sunnis reconcile

Sandia Intel work grows SCIFs proliferate, including off-site

Iran tests nuke

DPRK tests second nuke

Full funding for RRW

Satellite lab established in D.C.

WFO grows

Key Strategies• Integrate Cyber, CI and Security Technologies in 4200• Use full capability of Sandia for cost effective protection • Embed security reps in SMUs• Increased collaboration with line organizations• Identify basic vs. special needs• Establish fair and competitive cost model for special needs• More risk acceptance• Provide support across Complex – IGSV, etc.• Prepare for dramatic transformation of laboratory

to include significant foreign interactions• Establish mixed pro-force• Establish “checkerboard” security zone• Deploy cross functional security teams• Develop agile work hours model

Late 1990’s Early 2000’s

Three years of increasing detail and support for the “DOE Abolishment Act”H.R. 1649 and S. 896106th Congress, 1999

A Disturbing Trend Repeating Itself – Adverse Actions Driving Changes in the U.S. Nuclear Program

Freq

uenc

y of

aud

its,

sev

erity

of c

riticism

an

d ad

vers

e ac

tion

s ta

ken

by C

ongr

ess

9/112001

April 30, 2003, decision to

compete LANL

January 30, 2004, Sec. of Energy

announces Schedule to

compete contracts of Labs

June 1, 2006 LANL Contract change

November 7, 2003 H.R. 2754

Congressional mandate to compete

Lab Contracts

Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure

Task Force - SEAB • CRS, I.G., GAO reports - 2006• NNSA “Complex 2030” plan & PEIS• Defense Science Board – NNWA -2006• AAAS Nuclear Weapons Program Review

LLNL Contract Change Sept 30,

2007

March 1, 2000 – Official formation of NNSA

Significant security, environmental, and project management issues within DOE result in various

task force reviews recommending dramatic changes

NNSA Formation and 9/11 Significant security, environmental, and

project management issues within DOE/NNSA and external pressures from

Global War on Terror

RRW/LEP concepts

Continuing security and management problems at

LANL and across DOE/NNSA

Amb. Brooks Resigns

More LANL Security Problems

LANL RFP

Barack Obama

President

A critical period with respect to the future of NNSA, DOE and the Weapons Complex

Late 2000’s

Criticism and discontent picks up again, August, 2002

Bush AdministrationClinton Administration

1990 - GAO identification of DOE

contract management as “High Risk” area –still rated that way in

2009

Galvin, PFIAB, 120-day report, 90-day Study, Foster Reports, Chiles Report, Wen Ho Lee

NNSA Contract RFI

Reliable Replacement Warhead Funding Zeroed – JASON Report

April 2009 Acquisition Strategy Report

Minot-Barksdale and Taiwan Nuclear Incidents

DoD Nuclear Program Reports

Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the U.S (April 1, 2009)

DoD Quadrennial Defense Review (2010)

• Global StrikeCommandstand up

• START ends

Robinson testimony

1st Obama Administration


TM

Jack [email protected] February 24, 2009

“Honeymoon” period, NNSA restructuring and public/Congressional distraction from 9/11

• Secretary ChuConfirmed

• Yucca Mtnabandoned

New Millennium 2nd Decade

Administration goal of a world without nuclear weapons

The “Dominoes falling” - Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons States:• DPRK• Iran

“Wildcards”:• India• Pakistan• Israel

Modernization of Nuclear Stockpiles and delivery systems:• Russia• China• France• U.K.

Complex 2030 National Security Enterprise

Prague Speech

Nuclear Posture Review (2010)

• Nuclear SecuritySummit

• NPT ReviewConference

Continuing Negative Reports:• LANL Safety incidents• LANL Cyber security• LLNL NIF Budget• DNFSB Risk Mgt• Protective Force Issues• DoD/DOE Nuke security

Critical Uncertainty TimelineCritical Uncertainty Timeline


TM

February 4, 2010

Nov. Nov.August

Watch Listand

Critical Uncertainties

START Ends December 5, 2009

NPT Review Conference

May 3-28, 2010

Critical Decision Period: U.S.

demonstrates its commitment to NPT

Dramatic cuts to Weapons Program at Labs, Sub-Crit Moratorium

JASON Report on

LEP

Feb. May

Stay the course

Alternative Path

FY11

President Obama

acceptance speech – Nobel

Peace Prize December 10,

2009

State of the Union

January 27, 2010

FMCTat CD

U.S. – E.U. Joint

Declaration and Annexes

Previously:• President’s PragueSpeech (April ’09)

• UNSC 1887 (Sept. ’09)• Sec. Clinton’s Speech atUSIP (Oct. ’09)

NAS CTBT Report

The White HouseOffice of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release December 04, 2009Joint Statement by the President of the United States of Americaand the President of the Russian Federation on the Expiration ofthe Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)Recognizing our mutual determination to support strategic stability between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, we express our commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the START Treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enter into force at the earliest possible date.

White House Foreign Policy Page: (after May 2009)Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists

• On April 5, 2009 in Prague, President Obama presented an ambitious strategy to address the international nuclear threat. He proposed measures to: reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, including negotiations on further nuclear reductions with Russia, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and completion of a verified Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; halt proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states, and prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials.• We have pledged to work with our partners to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea through the Six-Party process. And we will present a clear choice to Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, including its right to peaceful nuclear energy, or continue to refuse to meet its international obligations and fail to seize the opportunity of a positive future.

Letter to President by 40 Republican Senators on Section 1251 of 2010

Defense Appropriations Dec. 15, 2009“the enhanced safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, modernization of the nuclear weapons complex, and maintenance of the nuclear delivery systems are key to enabling further reductions in the nuclear forces for the United States.”

Airline Terror Incident

Chilton speech to

AFA Global Warfare

Symposium

Possible Discontinuity Events:

• Dramatic reduction of deployed stockpile (START follow-on)• Dramatic cuts to Weapons Program funding at Labs (mid FY10)• Redirection of Weapons funding to nonproliferation and nuclear security• Moratorium on Sub Critical testing• NIF program shut down• Iranian nuclear test • Israeli attack on Iran nuclear facilities

Nuclear Posture Review

March 1, 2010

Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)

Afghanistan and Iraqi Wars

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)

Budget Deficit and Global Economy

FY11 Congressional Hearings

FY11 Budget Appropriations

Iran, DPRK, Israel and Global War on Terror

National Elections

NNSA Restructuring and M&O Contract Rebid/Consolidation Decisions

START, CTBT, NPT, FMCT

Stockpile Certification

Space Posture Review (SPR) (delayed) Development of NCNS concept and funding

START Re-Negotiation and submission to Senate for Ratification

NTS SWEIS

Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR)

President’s FY11 Budget

Feb. 1, 2010$3.8T NNSA

budget increased by 13.4%

QDR & BMDRFeb 1, 2010

Scott Brown election

NAS Study on

B61

JASON Study on B61(Nov. 26th)

President’s International

Nuclear Security Summit April 12-

13, 2009

Wall St. Journal VP Biden

helping organizations better prepare for the future during

Documents