11D-R7IS4 5670 ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM CATCCS)- BENEFIT ANALYSIS VOLUME 2 (U) ARMY TRADOC ANALYSIS COMMAND FORT LEAVENNORTH KS D L TOLIN ET AL JUL 87 UNCLASSIFIED TRAC-F-TD-2687-VOL.-2 F/G 5/2 UL IIIIIII EIIhlEEElllllE
1111. 512.8 25.136-11111 _ 1111_ L8 11111* ~ EA110 j2 25 I 6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARI NATIOlNAL BUREAU nf STANDARDS 1963-A 0I 6,,kL,1 % %
Technical Document TRAC-F-TD-2687 July 1987 FiLE -. qqm. 0 TRADOC Analysis Command-Fort Leavenworth (TRAC-FLVN). Force Analysis Directorate I Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-5220 D T IC ( ELECTS.El ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (ATCCS)D BENEFIT ANALYSIS S SEP0 9 197 VOLUME II: MAIN REPORT WITH APPENDIX I - FIGURES Larry Tolin Sara Tisdel D k:i pul ACN 62630 gdirector, Approved by: "NALD W. KROENING Force Anal sis Directorate ROB ERT OCQ Director, TRAC- LVN 87,m 3 -
APPENDIX I FIGURES
DISCLAIMER The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. fi, I,/ 2'T 1-2
A..' ) CONTENTS Volume II Appendix I - Figures -- PAGE 2-1 CCS2... 1-4 2-2 _Iformation flows;...-5 5-1 ATCCS automaet-h-o alternatives.................................. 1-6 5-2 Obj-ecve- system deacziptons... I -7 5-3 Reserve component configuration... 1-8 5-4 Reserve component cayijipeav>1-5-5 -Fielding -...... I-10 5-6 Summary of altern'atives' attributes...i-il 5-7 Generalized summary of alternatives' attributes...i-il F-1 The ATCCS CBA study methodology... 1-12 G-1 Matrix for scoring of alternatives against CCPE... 1-13 G-2 --Average individual CCPE scores... 1-14 G-3 CCPE pairwise comparison results... 1-15 G-4 CCPE weights... 1-16 G-5 Interim contribution -ore determined... 1-17 G-6 Fielding h e... 1-18 G-7 Reser component capability... 1-19 G-8 -Score of alternatives based on EFA concerns,... 1-20 G-9 Pairwise comparison matrix of decision criteria... 1-21 G-10 Example pairwise comparison of decision criteria... 1-22 G-11 Results of pairwise comparison... 1-23 G-12 Scoring of the alternatives... 1-24 1-3
LIi I.-m U)U 2 w 0 -I- -.- C~4 / I-. 1-4
IgEI~ / / / / / / / 1/ / / / ~/' //' 4 / / ' / /,/ - / I In ~ / 3 0 I- em.), / / / /, I'- LU / /i // * 0 C..) 4 C'. ~,/,/ '4- \ \ (%J ~ 'p cl~.~ 0. Ia.4.1 - 'a - '0 (J 'a ~ - 4~1 L 4j S.. L 6.1 ~. - - w I 0 2 I' &md I 1-5
ALTERNATIVES OBJECTIVE SYSTEM 1BFA-Unique Systems (TCT/TCP at MCS) 2 CHS except TCT/TCP at MCS TODAY IFLCSautomated 3T/P CHS FLCS- / 4 BFA-Unique Systems manual (TCT/New at MCS) Figure 5-1. ATCCS automation alternatives 1-6...
9.. X.:w CCK C~le 9AT 9,9 1-7 Li r-9
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 UNI= CAFS T/CNI F FS FL ALTERNATALERNTIV 4TPATM TV 7 W. MC 3L *1F-8 TC' --
L& 0J Uj ok, - LL- IL IA U p ~ a-3 Lj.. C-. C'. I C'. C- C~- C'- I _ fa - I~e Q.cl.. 0 J ~ C..)=LU CD ).C..
12 3 4 I a FLCS a PARTIAL a b ALTERNATIVE AUTO MCS ONLY IILCS (TCT) (TCT & TCP) FIRST CORPS LAST CORPS ALT i 87 88 93 97 ALT 2 87 88 92 96 ALT 3T/P 87 88 92 96 ALT 3T 87 MA 92 96 ALT 4 87 NA 93 97 Figure 5-5. Fielding schedule -1!, I-I0 m,f..r. - %
MEASUREMENT OF FIELDING TIMES CHARACTERISTICS, RESERVE BFA ALT CAPABILITY, COMPONENT PERFORMANCE, AND AUTO AUTO AUTO CAPABILITIES CONCERNS EFFECTIVENESS MCS IFLCS FLCS 1 POOR 87 88 93 TCP/UNIQUE NONSTANDARDIZATION 2 FAIR 87 88 92 TCP/CHS NONSTANDARDIZATION PROCESSING SPEED 3T/P GOOD 87 88 92 TCP/TCT/CHS PROCESSING SPEED 3T GOOD 87 --- > 92 TCT/CHS PROCESSING SPEED 4 POOR 87 --- > 93 :TCT/NEW/UNIQUE! NONSTANDARDIZATION Figure 5-6. Summary of alternatives attributes MEASUREMENT OF FIELDING TIMES CHARACTERISTICS, RESERVE BFA ALT CAPABILITY, COMPONENT PERFORMANCE, AND AUTO AUTO AUTO CAPABILITIES CONCERNS EFFECTIVENESS MCS IFLCS FLCS POOR N GOOD FAIR POOR FAIR N 2 FAIR D GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR I: S C: 3T/P GOOD R GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR I M 3T GOOD I POOR GOOD FAIR/GOOD FAIR N (NONE) 4 POOR A i T POOR IFAIR POOR FAIR I (NONE) 1 N G Figure 5-7. Generalized summary of alternatives' attributes " I-i r
Q so z 3 - c: 0 -o Q4. m - 0A cru, - Lai _-j, -j Li eli t -1 0 -~ w
CONTRIBUTION SCORE MATRIX MEASURES OF SYSTEM CCPE ALTERNATIVES ABILITY ABILITY EASE EASE EASE EASE EASE ro TO OF OF OF OF OF!EXCHANGING EXCHANGING HW SETUP TRAIN PERS MAINT SW.OPERATIORS : EQUIPMENT MGMT MGMT MGMT ALT 1 _ ALT 2 ALT 3T/P : ALT 3T ALT 4 i~~i Rat ing Scale Values Description 0 - This alternative provides no contribution '-'.'."to this criteria I - This alternative provides a very weak ':'"weak S- This contribution alternative provides to this a criteria a ' contribution to this criteria 3 - This alternative provides a moderately weak contribution to this criteria - This alternative provides a moderately strong contribution to this criteria S- This alternative provides a ~contribution to this criteria 6 - This alternative provides a very strona k '.%contribution to this criteria i 7 - This alternative provide an extreme (absolute) contribution to this criteria ~Figure G-1. Matrix for scoring of alternatives against CCPE aiaaa1-13
Ln Cu 0 co (0 O LOr- -- C/; L-C r4 co C-. 00 (U 0 ( (N (- LJ F- (Nj Zi F- -: a) - NI Cij CD i-fl N 1-1
w z j-i 'tn '0 0. C14, ZE-' C.4 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~cc =S - E ~z 04 - ~ ac ~ (= zj CZ '0~-Y 0' z - ::.. E.-. u- z z z -C HZ 0.. r-a '0 0H X z~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ E-z < J ------------------------ ~ ~ ~ ~ * 0~
CCPE We ig ht (Relative Importance) Ability to Exchange Equipment.39 Simplicity of Hardware Setup.25 Simplicity of Training.13 Simplicity of Personnel Management.09 Ability to Exchange Operators.06 Simplicity of Maintenance Management.05 Simplicity of Software Management.03 * CR -.118 * The consistency ratio (CR) is a comparison of the consistency of the judgements made to total randomness. A CR of less than or equal to.1 is considered acceptable. Obviously CR -.118 is slightly above the acceptable amount. A change in the weights of the CCPE will be addressed under sensitivity. Figure G-4. CCPE weights.- ~1-16
0-44 CDC LnL Li C~C CO - LLi-4 (IN! c", 00 (NJ L.C (N 6W CC t4 E5n
LA c'/3. A- C.DCJ F~ Clj - 0-4 CD 0~o * tj V) Cn LAJ LAa- -4 L aa =1-1
bb b o- CLd Q' C4 m o r c A 1-4 c 41 t 41 C - 4) Uu 4) 0 410-4 4 0 n 0 4 041=0 zz.. co (V- j cu~ 00 m m aa " E l = C S ( A c 9.- CU.- C caa 00 ta. 0c ) 4J t-4 4-41 c1 ~ - r10 0 -(O Cc -C ft (n - -~.*. mo 000 0-0 a 0C.J~ 00aJu EU QU. Q :300( 0. co 0 0 CL[- U U ca 0. 4) ~ U) a.4 ( 3) ~4) Cw Q104 Q 0 41 u U u U ~ (A U Ch 0 UCCL r-c - J C - 0 C - A. )( -. 3- V 0 Cc0-Wtocc4)- 1 - >1-1)- 00 m J4 -l aco CC. W- (a W U4) CC CO 00 C13 al0 w w0 w m m m b0 (.0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 4 x1 0 s' -adw a. CL o 41 u M (U 0 41 0 "'o 0 C L :u a. La ww 0. -2- -------------------- - - -A-. -~0- - -- 6 A I - >..~~ = ~ AU >*-4 C 0.. 0 U..0 E- ~ C
C:) LAJ LA- - NJ(j N CD CD~ CL. CC QD QD/ C/)V..- - LUJ f I-4C / ~ I4. ~~~~~C >-< -- <'. ~~~~A LUL 2-4 h-'~ 1L.J~ L 1-20L * (1)- C/I-w C)CI)% C/) 1)L ~ X XC)
vc.n 0 UU *x 0- (/2U UjU 1-2
LAL&U LUJ LUJ P-44 LJ LA 0 -- LA U 4... e.. LjL -.- J Cl) E to 0UA ~~J~j. 0. ' LUccmU LLJU LL 0) -) -n LLU C-) c/) (j Cl L j )&- L )-- CL L LA- LA-.L LU L- C/) L 1-22
Respondent Decision Criteria Frequencies I A B C D E I N 1 : 4 3 2 1 0 N 2 : 3 2 4 1 0 N 3 : 4 1 3 2 0 N 4 : 3 4 2 1 0 N 5 : 4 3 2 1 0 N 6 : 4 2 1 1 2 N 7 : 4 3 0 1 2 N: 4 3 2 10 N 9 : 4 2 g 3 10 I I I i II I I Totals I 37 27 20 12 S4To1tal20 Criteria Frequencies Relative Frequencies (Weights) SA 37 37/100 -.37 B 27 27/100 -.27 C 20 20/100 -.20 r D 12 12/100 -.12 Total E 1004 4/100 -.04 %Ni respondent i SA; Measures of system characteristics, capabilities, performance, and ~effectiveness B: Timeliness of the IFLCS ".C: Timeliness of the FLCS i D: Automated C2 capabilities of the RC E: BFA concerns " Figure G-11. Results of pairwise comparison 1-23
~~- (NJ - C -CN C\; (Nj -~ (NJ(N C\j cn cu LU = /24. -S... j Nj (Nj (NJ icu cn. (/2'4 (/2 0 C.D 50J Li. C/; C-- Ni -j (NJ. Ni i C(/2 - AU -AJ * CD CI-2 * *
* N fli15 ~ ~' ~,rrwurrrrr~.rr~'.~'~yuwnr r~fl~ r~ n.m nw, wr. n.m. ~p. u ~ p -. - -U V. -J. J.. -S. ~ 'S..' 'S. S.. J.. S. S.. -S. S.* /.1 5~~~ as- *w 1w w q w q *~ q -~w~ r.. -S..5- -. S S S. * 5.5 * *. S*** -' * 5**S** - - 'S *S.