×

Cost-efficiency analysis of weapon system portfolios. (English) Zbl 1253.90146

Summary: Decisions about the acquisition and maintenance of military equipment serve to build long-term capabilities in preparation of military conflicts. Typically, these decisions involve large investments which need to be supported by adequate cost-efficiency analyses. Yet the cost-efficiency analysis of weapon systems involves several challenges: for example, it is necessary to account for the possible interactions among different weapon systems; the relevance of several impact criteria; and the variety of combat situations in which these systems may be used. In this paper, we develop a portfolio methodology where these challenges are addressed by evaluating the cost-efficiencies of entire portfolios consisting of individual weapon systems. Our methodology accounts for possible interactions among systems by synthesizing impact assessment results that are either generated by combat simulation models or elicited from experts. It also admits incomplete preference information about the relative importance of different impact criteria. This methodology guides decision making by identifying which combinations of weapon systems are efficient with respect to multiple evaluation criteria in different combat situations at different cost levels. It can also be extended to settings where multiple combat situations are addressed simultaneously. The methodology is generic and can therefore be applied also in civilian settings when portfolios of activities (such as mitigation of harmful environmental emissions) may exhibit interactions.

MSC:

90B90 Case-oriented studies in operations research
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Brown, G.; Dell, R.; Holtz, H.; Newman, A., How US Air Force Space Command optimizes long-term investment in space systems, Interfaces, 33, 4, 1-14 (2003)
[2] Brown, G.; Dell, R.; Newman, A., Optimizing military capital planning, Interfaces, 34, 6, 415-425 (2004)
[3] Buede, D.; Bresnick, T., Applications of decision analysis to the military systems acquisition process, Interfaces, 22, 6, 110-125 (1992)
[4] Burk, R.; Parnell, G., Evaluating future military space technologies, Interfaces, 23, 3, 60-73 (1997)
[5] Burk, R.; Parnell, G., Portfolio decision analysis – lessons from military applications, (Salo, A.; Keisler, J.; Morton, A., Portfolio Decision Analysis: Improved Methods for Resource Allocation (2011), Springer: Springer New York)
[6] Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.; Rhodes, E., Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research, 13, 2, 191-201 (1978) · Zbl 0416.90080
[7] de Boor, C., A Practical Guide to Splines (Applied Mathematical Sciences 27) (1978), Springer-Verlag: Springer-Verlag New York
[8] Deb, K., Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms (2001), John Wiley&Sons: John Wiley&Sons Chichester · Zbl 0970.90091
[9] Dell, R.; Ewing, P.; Tarantino, W., Optimally stationing army forces, Interfaces, 38, 6, 421-435 (2008)
[10] Dupuy, T., Mythos or verity? The quantified judgment model and German combat effeciveness, Military Affairs, 50, 4, 204-210 (1986)
[11] Dyer, J.; Sarin, R., Measureable multiattribute value functions, Operations Research, 27, 4, 810-822 (1979) · Zbl 0423.90004
[12] Fox, P., A theory of cost-effectiveness for military systems analysis, Operations Research, 13, 2, 191-201 (1965)
[13] Gryffenberg, I.; Lausberg, J.; Smit, W.; Uys, S.; Botha, S.; Hofmeyr, F.; Nicolay, R.; van der Merwe, W.; Wessels, G., Guns or butter: decision support for determining the size and shape of the South African National Defense Force, Interfaces, 27, 1, 7-28 (1997)
[14] Herman, M.; Frost, M.; Kurtz, R., Wargaming for Leaders: Strategic Decision Making from the Battlefield to the Boardroom (2009), McGraw-Hill: McGraw-Hill New York
[15] Ilachinski, A., Irreducible semi-autonomous adaptive combat (ISAAC): an artificial life approach to land combat, Military Operations Research, 5, 3, 29-46 (2000)
[16] Kaup, G.; Kaup, D.; Finkelstein, N., The Lanchester (n, 1) problem, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56, 12, 1399-1407 (2005) · Zbl 1142.90443
[17] Keeney, R., Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives, European Journal of Operational Research, 92, 3, 537-549 (1996) · Zbl 0914.90004
[18] Keeney, R.; Raiffa, H., Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs (1976), John Wiley&Sons: John Wiley&Sons Cambridge
[19] Kim, S.; Ahn, B., Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete information, European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 3, 498-507 (1999) · Zbl 1009.90519
[20] Kung, H.; Luccio, F.; Preparata, F., On finding the maxima of a set of vectors, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 22, 4, 469-476 (1975) · Zbl 0316.68030
[21] Lappi, E., Åkesson, B., 2010. Combat simulation as tool for evaluation of future weapon systems and some risks in scenario based wargaming. In: Proceedings of the conference ’Security in Futures - Security in Change’, Turku, June 3-4 2010, Finland.; Lappi, E., Åkesson, B., 2010. Combat simulation as tool for evaluation of future weapon systems and some risks in scenario based wargaming. In: Proceedings of the conference ’Security in Futures - Security in Change’, Turku, June 3-4 2010, Finland.
[22] Liesiö, J.; Mild, P.; Salo, A., Robust portfolio modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies, European Journal of Operational Research, 190, 3, 679-695 (2008) · Zbl 1161.91398
[23] Liesiö, J.; Salo, A., Scenario-based portfolio selection of investment projects with incomplete probability and utility information, European Journal of Operational Research, 217, 1, 162-172 (2012) · Zbl 1244.91111
[24] Lobell, D.; Burke, M.; Tebaldi, C.; Mastrandrea, M.; Falcon, W.; Naylor, R., Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030, Science, 319, 5863, 607-610 (2008)
[25] MacKay, N., Lanchester models for mixed forces with semi-dynamical target allocation, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60, 11, 1421-1427 (2009) · Zbl 1196.90069
[26] Malmi, E., Pettersson, V., Syrjänen, S., Nissinen, N., Åkesson, B., Lappi, E., 2011. Warfare simulation and technology forecasting in support of military decision making. In: Rünckemann, C.-P., Christmann, W., Pankowska, M. (Eds.), INFOCOMP 2011, The First International Conference on Advanced Communications and Computation, Barcelona, October 23-29 2011, Spain.; Malmi, E., Pettersson, V., Syrjänen, S., Nissinen, N., Åkesson, B., Lappi, E., 2011. Warfare simulation and technology forecasting in support of military decision making. In: Rünckemann, C.-P., Christmann, W., Pankowska, M. (Eds.), INFOCOMP 2011, The First International Conference on Advanced Communications and Computation, Barcelona, October 23-29 2011, Spain.
[27] Millett, S., Should probabilities be used with scenarios, Journal of Futures Studies, 13, 4, 61-68 (2009)
[28] Morris, P. A., Combining expert judgments: a Bayesian approach, Management Science, 23, 7, 679-693 (1977) · Zbl 0371.62020
[29] Parnell, G.; Conley, H.; Jackson, J.; Lehmkuhl, L.; Andrew, J., Foundations 2025: a value model for evaluating future air and space forces, Management Science, 44, 10, 1336-1350 (1998) · Zbl 0988.90538
[30] Phillips, L., The Royal Navy’s Type 45 story: a case study, (Salo, A.; Keisler, J.; Morton, A., Portfolio Decision Analysis: Improved Methods for Resource Allocation (2011), Springer: Springer New York)
[31] Pugh, G.; Mayberry, J., Theory of measures of effectiveness for general-purpose military forces: Part I. A zero-sum payoff appropriate for evaluating combat strategies, Operations Research, 21, 4, 867-885 (1973) · Zbl 0265.90074
[32] Ram, C.; Montibeller, G.; Morton, A., Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 5, 817-829 (2011)
[33] Roberts, D.; Conolly, B., An extension of the Lanchester square law to inhomogeneous forces with an application to force allocation methodology, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43, 8, 741-752 (1992) · Zbl 0825.90658
[34] Rogerson, W., Quality vs. quantity in military procurement, The American Economic Review, 80, 1, 83-92 (1990)
[35] Salo, A.; Hämäläinen, R., Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements, Operations Research, 40, 6, 1053-1061 (1992) · Zbl 0765.90059
[36] Salo, A.; Hämäläinen, R., Preference programming – multicriteria weighting models under incomplete information, (Zopounidis, C.; Pardalos, P., Handbook of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (2010), Springer: Springer New York), 167-187
[37] Salo, A.; Keisler, J.; Morton, A., Portfolio Decision Analysis: Improved Methods for Resource Allocation (2011), Springer: Springer New York · Zbl 1222.90004
[38] Salo, A.; Punkka, A., Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies, European Journal of Operations Research, 163, 2, 338-356 (2005) · Zbl 1104.91017
[39] Salo, A.; Punkka, A., Ranking intervals and dominance relations for ratio-based efficiency analysis, Management Science, 57, 1, 200-214 (2011) · Zbl 1214.90067
[40] Sawin, E., Jones, A., Fiddaman, T., Siegel, L., Wright, D., Franck, T., Barkman, A., Cummings, T., von Peter, F., McGlade, J., Corell, R., Sterman, J., 2009. Current emissions reductions proposals in the lead-up to COP15 are likely to be insufficient to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels: using C-ROADS - a simple computer simulation of climate change - to support long-term climate policy development. In: Paper presented at the Climate Change Global Risks, Challenges, and Decisions Conference. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, March 10 2009, Denmark.; Sawin, E., Jones, A., Fiddaman, T., Siegel, L., Wright, D., Franck, T., Barkman, A., Cummings, T., von Peter, F., McGlade, J., Corell, R., Sterman, J., 2009. Current emissions reductions proposals in the lead-up to COP15 are likely to be insufficient to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels: using C-ROADS - a simple computer simulation of climate change - to support long-term climate policy development. In: Paper presented at the Climate Change Global Risks, Challenges, and Decisions Conference. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, March 10 2009, Denmark.
[41] Stafira, S.; Parnell, G.; Moore, J., A methodology for evaluating military systems in a counterproliferation role, Management Science, 43, 10, 1420-1430 (1997)
[42] Stagl, S., Multicriteria evaluation and public participation: the case of UK energy policy, Land Use Policy, 23, 1, 53-62 (2006)
[43] Sterman, J., Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World (2000), McGraw-Hill: McGraw-Hill Irwin
[44] Stummer, C.; Heidenberger, K., Interactive R&D portfolio analysis with project interdependencies and time profiles of multiple objectives, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50, 2, 175-183 (2003)
[45] Taha, H., Operations Research: An Introduction (2003), Prentice Hall: Prentice Hall New Jersey
[46] Trainor, T.; Parnell, G.; Kwinn, B.; Brence, J.; Tollefson, E.; Downes, P., The US army uses decision analysis in designing its US installation regions, Interfaces, 37, 3, 253-264 (2007)
[47] Warren, R., The role of interactions in a world implementing adaptation and mitigation solutions to climate change, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A, 369, 1934, 217-241 (2011)
[48] Wolf, C., Yeh, K., Bamezai, A., Henry, D., Kennedy, M., 1995. Long-Term Economic and Military Trends 1994-2015 - The United States and Asia. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.; Wolf, C., Yeh, K., Bamezai, A., Henry, D., Kennedy, M., 1995. Long-Term Economic and Military Trends 1994-2015 - The United States and Asia. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.