popp the school of public policy peace operations policy program gmu information age metrics working...

POPPThe School of Public Policy

Peace Operations Policy Program GMU

Information Age Metrics Working Group (IAMWG).

Operations Analysis in CivilianOrganizations

15 October 2004

David F. DavisDirector, Peace Operations Policy Program

(703) [email protected]

http://popp.gmu.edu



BackgroundThe international intervention in Iraq consists of both military and civilian organizations. Operations Research support to this intervention has been overwhelmingly focused on the military dimension.

This focus is cultural. The military is used to it, and the civilians are not. This presentation covers one analysis that was done for the Coalition Provisional Authority during the period of May – August 2004. Although this analysis informed some of the decisions, it is not possible to say that the analysis caused any decisions. However, it was a start.



The Allocation

How can we propose a reallocation of the $18.4B?This effort consumed the Embassy, although it was never a major issue in the CPA. This dichotomy may well be the source of many books over the next several years.

Beginning in May 2004, the IRMO Planning office began to look at this issue from a goals based perspective.



A Diversion

Analysis to plan:

Unified Concept Plan – ORHAStrategic Plan – CPALegislative Requirements – CPA/EmbassyMission Performance Plan – Embassy



DGS

Democratization and the Rule of Law

EconomicDevelopment

EliminateTerrorism

MPP High Level Goals

Political

Security Economic

The analysis was an attempt to show the relationship between the ‘plan’ and the $18.4B.



DGS


EconomicDevelopment

EliminateTerrorism

2 A Strong Reliable Regional Partner

1 Counter Terrorism

5 Sustainable Growth

9 Social, Environmental, Health and Education

10 Refugees and IDPs

4 A Democratic and Free Iraq

3 Complete and Verifiable

Disarmament

MPP Strategic Goals



DGS


EconomicDevelopment

EliminateTerrorism


1 Counter Terrorism






Disarmament

Security and Law Enforcement

Education, Refugees, Human Rights and Governance

Health

Water Resources and Sanitation

Transportation and Telecommunications

ElectricityOil

Justice, Public Safety Infrastructure and Civil Society

PMO Categories Impacting MPP Strategic Goals



DGS


EconomicDevelopment

EliminateTerrorism


1 Counter Terrorism






Disarmament

USAID Sectors Impacting MPP Strategic Goals

Local Governance and Civic Action Economic Recovery,

Reform and Sustained Growth

Emergency

Education

Public Utilities and Infrastructure

Ports and Airports

Health



DGS


EconomicDevelopment

EliminateTerrorism


1 Counter Terrorism






Disarmament


Education, Refugees, Human Rights and GovernanceHealth



ElectricityOil


Local Governance and Civic Action

Economic Recovery, Reform and Sustained Growth

Emergency

Education

Public Utilities and InfrastructurePorts and Airports

Health

661

31

752471

232

0

0

15

42

90

1.5

64

53 993

0

Ongoing or CompletedMillion US$ (June 04)

USAID project money only, does not include program overhead and direct salariesPMO as of 14 June 2004, USAID as of 17 June 2004



Ongoing or CompletedMillion US$

USAID project money only, does not include program overhead and direct salaries

DGS


EconomicDevelopment

EliminateTerrorism


1 Counter Terrorism






Disarmament


Education, Refugees, Human Rights and GovernanceHealth



ElectricityOil


Local Governance and Civic Action

Economic Recovery, Reform and Sustained Growth

Emergency

Education

Public Utilities and InfrastructurePorts and Airports

Health

$3,162M

$243.5M

13:1



How should we be spending the money?

If we are to be spending the money to further the goals of the Mission, then we should try to understand how each of the projects and activities contribute to those goals. This will require some innovative thought on the part of all stakeholders: US, International Partners and the Iraqis.

The IRMO Planning approach to this problem uses both quantitative and qualitative techniques of Management Science and Operations Research.

1. Identify projects and activities within funding sectors by source of funding and primary agent (PCO, USAID, IC, Iraqi)

2. Score these projects, within sectors, on the project’s/activity’s contribution to the second level Goals of the COM.

3. Score the second level Goals on their contribution to the overall Mission.4. Determine the combined scores for each alternative allocation strategy.

The choice of allocation strategy will be made by the leadership, not the analyst.



Identify contribution of projects and activities to the sectors.

The advocacy briefings indicated that in sector priority lists exist in almost every case. These priority lists and the contribution of the project to the mission goals could be used to provide for project scoring within sector.

However, this initial effort is focused on determining an investment strategy, not individual sector spending plans. The scoring must represent the general utility expected of a project within a sector.



Review

Scoring:

Contribution of Projects to GoalsContribution of Projects to SectorsContribution of Goals to Mission



Sector A(1) A(N) X M(1) M(N) B

Public Buildings and Other Reconstruction 535 1831 0.5 0.000934579 0.0003858 0.293595679

Economic Reconstruction 651 1962 0.5 0.000768049 0.00038139 0.251716247

Governance 199 587 0.5 0.002512563 0.00128866 0.243556701

Regional Programs 1,230 3,027 0.5 0.000406504 0.00027824 0.157762938

Security 5,080 5,234 0.5 9.84252E-05 0.00324675 -15.99350649

Humanitarian and Human Services 2,045 8,745 0.5 0.000244499 7.4627E-05 0.34738806

Essential Services 7,801 33,873 0.5 6.40943E-05 1.9178E-05 0.35039506

A, in $

U

A(1) A(N)

X

1.0

U = M(1)*A

U = M(2)*A + B

Utility Functions – fi



0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

PublicBuildings andOtherReconstructionEconomicReconstruction

Governance

RegionalPrograms

Security

Humanitarianand HumanServices

EssentialServices

In Sector Utilities

($1000s)

Util

ities

(1.

0 M

axim

um)



Sector Weights

ESS, 0.203

Humanitarian, 0.121

Gov., 0.115

Econ. Rec., 0.079

Regional, 0.037

Public and other, 0.026

Security, 0.419



The ModelAllocate resources to the sectors in order to maximize the total utility (effectiveness), subject to the requirement that the total resources do not exceed $M (currently set to $18.2m).

Maximize i iiuwU

iu

ia

Ma

i

i

ii

1

0

S.T.

Where wi is the Weight of Sector i, ui is the utility of Sector i , ai is the distribution to Sector i, and fi is defined as a piece-wise linear function.

)(afu ii And



Alternative Comparisons

Base Option A Option BPublic Buildings and Other Reconstruction 0 100 100 677 677Regional Programs 0 1000 1000 523 523Economic Reconstruction 184 800 616 1624 1440Governance 451 1179 728 1087 636Humanitarian and Human Services 1052 1350 298 1561 509Essential Services 12304 9500 -2804 8549 -3755Security 4281 4343 62 4251 -30

Change from Base



Alternative Allocations

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Public Buildingsand Other

Reconstruction

RegionalPrograms

EconomicReconstruction

Governance Humanitarian andHuman Services

Essential Services Security

Mill

ion

$

Non US Spent2207Option AOption B

GAO Sector Description



The combination of effectiveness and importance allows for a calculation of the overall score.

Relative Scores

0.75

0.76

0.77

0.78

0.79

0.8

0.81

0.82

0.83

0.84

Base Option A Option B



The Issues

Culture of AnalysisIntent of the Office v. Background of the DirectorAsking questions for which answers are desired

popp the school of public policy peace operations policy program gmu information age metrics working...

Documents