CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT STRATIFICATION · 2019-08-09 · NATO UNCLASSIFIED 9 Conclusion STRATIFICATION to be a NDPP-prioritisation building block provide indication on how a (candidate)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED 1

CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT STRATIFICATION

NATO Resource Conference 4 Nov 2010

BG Patrick WOUTERS IMS P&P, Deputy Director

NATO UNCLASSIFIED 2

WHY ?

  YES, but ...   given an effective PRIORITISATION mechanism downstream   on which those identifying the requirements still have influence   that preserves collective versus individual (i.e. national) interests   precluding a first-come-first-served outcome   and allowing multi-year procurement of complex and interlinked projects   through a graduated allocation of resources (as function of risk)

REQUIREMENTS should be INFORMED, not CONSTRAINED by RESOURCES

STRATIFICATION to be an NDPP-‐prioritisation building block : -‐ provide indication on how a (NATO) target contributes to LoA -‐ label it with a 'CAP level' for further reference throughout the implementation phase

NATO UNCLASSIFIED 3

Antecedents of Priority setting   NMA Strategic Priorities & Objectives (SPO)

  Guidance = MG06 – CPG   Joint expeditionary ops (deploy & sustain)

  PRIO ONE = Execution of ALLIANCE OPS (including CA)   PRIO TWO = Expeditionary OPS

  NRF   Ability to deploy, conduct & sustain multinational OPS   Decision Superiority (Info superiority + NNEC)   Achieving Coherent Effects

  PRIO THREE = Enhance & sustain CURRENT CAP   log, resource mngt,structures

  PRIO FOUR = Develop & sustain partners & future members   PRIO ZERO = Credible NUC deterrent

  MC 0541 – Process for Prioristisation of CP’s

Insufficient discriminatory guidance : 90% of CAP’s in same category

CAP areas and CP’s against each other

Likelihood of CONCURRENT

requirent for this CAP

LOW

High CAP LEVEL 1 Min CORE CAP (Very Hi risk)

Foundation CORE CAP = enduring mission, regardless of ongoing OP

CAP LEVEL 2 (High Risk)

CAP LEVEL 3 (Mod Risk)

CAP LEVEL 4 (Low Risk)

CAP Lev5 (Very Low Risk)

ADD UP to

FULL LoA

CAP Levels vs RISK Most Likely?

Most demanding?

CAP Levels vs RISK vs Resource ALLOCATION

Likelihood of CONCURRENCY

LOW

High

CAP LEVEL 1 Min CORE CAP (Very Hi risk)

Foundation CORE CAP = enduring mission, regardless of ongoing OP




CAP Lev5 (Very Low

Risk)

Allocated RESOURCE LEVELS

MORE

LESS

Coherent CAP’s

notwithstanding multiyear & incoherent application of resources

Q U A L I T

Q U A N T I T A T I V E

+ COHERENT

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

CAP LEVEL 1 Min CORE CAP (Very High risk)

CAP for 1 SJO (Mar) 1 SJO (Air)

1 MJO (High)


CAP for SJO ( High) [NRF equivalent]


CAP for 1 SJO (Low) 1 SJO (Low -‐)

CAP for 1 SJO (High) 1 MJO (Low)



ALLOCATED RESOURCES

MORE

LESS

Q U A L I T Y


COLLECTIVE

DEFENCE

Full LoA

Foundation CORE CAP (No Operations or Mission ongoing)

Low

High

Foundation CORE CAP (re-‐defined) = any NATO CAP (national or NATO-‐operated) needed to build on for enduring mission and/or Art 5)

CAP Levels vs ASSOCIATED Planning Situations

NATO UNCLASSIFIED 7

Stratification within NDPP

  Stratification of (candidate) NATO CF capabilities

  Within Step 3 (Apportionment of Targets)   When Candidates for Collective Targets are selected for

recommendation as Draft Targets   When the portion of NATO CF capabilities to be maintained are

recognized

  “Candidates” and “CF capabilities to be maintained” need to be stratifiable

PG LoA INT Pol – Mil Analysis

PS Operations

Lessons Learned

Future Trends Minimum Capabilities Requirements (MCR)

Compare MCR to existing And Planned Capabilities

Surplus Capability

Capabilities to be Maintained Capability Shortfalls RISK

Analysis Prioritise Shortfalls

Note Synopsis of MCR including Priority Shortfall Areas

Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions

Develop Targets – apportion

National Targets Multi - National Targets

NATO Targets Reasonable Challenge Associated Risk

National / Multi - National Implementation NATO

Implementation Monitor / Facilitate Support

NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report

NATO and National Existing

and Planned Capabilities

Step

1

2

3

4

5

Process Model

Agree Targets





CAP Lev5 (Very

Low Risk)


OUTREACH CIS NUC NATINADS NCS

# Act

# PoP

# ADG

# DCA

# C² Elm

Methodology allowing STRATIFICATION of candidate NATO Targets (CRR12)

as function of MILITARY RISK INCURRED (if not fulfilled)

Coherent resource allocation may require further PRIORITISATION within CAP Level

More granular & informed by

FULFILMENT & potential to improve ... 1-Alliance

Effectiveness 2-Interoperabiltity

Programmatic Approach

1-Ops Risk 2-Transfo Risk

3-Programmatic Risk

4-Resource Allocation Risk

NATO UNCLASSIFIED 9

Conclusion   STRATIFICATION to be a NDPP-prioritisation building block

  provide indication on how a (candidate) NATO target contributes to LoA   label it with a 'CAP level' for further reference throughout the implementation

phase   submit all CPs in a stratified way   facilitate & enable PRIORITISATION mechanism downstream

  Within current NDPP cycle   Focus on Stratification of (candidate) Collective Targets   Stratification

  Within Step 3   Association of MJOs/SJOs to CAP Levels vs Risk Pyramid

  Flexibility to evolve as strategic conditions change   Further considerations after CRR 2012

NATO UNCLASSIFIED 10

CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT STRATIFICATION

QUESTIONS


Stratification of (Candidate) NATO Targets as part of NDPP

PG LoA INT Pol – Mil Analysis

PS Operations

Lessons Learned

Future Trends Minimum Capabilities Requirements (MCR)

Compare MCR to Existing And Planned Capabilities

Surplus Capability

Capabilities to be Maintained Capability Shortfalls RISK

Analysis Prioritise Shortfalls

Note Synopsis of MCR including Priority Shortfall Areas

Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions

Develop Targets – apportion

National Targets Multi - National Targets

NATO Targets

Reasonable Challenge Associated Risk

National / Multinational Implementation NATO

Implementation Monitor / Facilitate Support

NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report

NATO and National Existing

and Planned Capabilities

Step

1

2

3

4

5

Process Model

Agree Targets

MCR-Revalidation of NATO Common Funded (CF) Capabilities (CPs)

CANDIDATES for

National Targets

Multinational Targets

Collective Targets (CT)

Stratification of Candidates for

Collective Efforts

Draft NATO Targets based

on Stratification of CT-

Candidates & CPs

Programmatic Approach

Capabilities in Nation’s inventories / plans

NATO (CF) Capabilities - MCR validated

Stratification of NATO CF Capabilities to be

maintained



Planning Situation A-‐B-‐L-‐X


Pl Sit C-‐K-‐Z


Pl Sit X-‐Y-‐Z

Pl Sit L-‐K-‐Y


Q U A L I T Y


COLLECTIVE

DEFENCE

Full LoA


Low

High

Foundation CORE CAP (re-‐defined) = any NATO CAP (national or NATO-‐operated) needs this to build on for enduring mission and/or Art 5)

CAP Levels vs ASSOCIATED Planning Situations


Pl Sit

A-‐K-‐Y Distance Duration

Mission Type Intensity Volume

Activities enabling CIS NUC Cap compo AD components NCS Elements

CAP Level 1 (Very High Mil Risk, if ...)

CAP Level 5 (Very Low Mil Risk, if ...) Activities enabling CIS NUC Cap compo AD components NCS Elements




Q U A N T I T I E S





CAP Lev5 (Very

Low Risk)


OUTREACH CIS NUC NATINADS NCS

e.g. OUTREACH Staff

e.g. CIS BACKBONE

Foundation CORE CAP NO NATO CAPABILITY

(if not fulfilled)

e.g. NUC C² Rep Syst

e.g. ACCS

e.g. Essential Elements

Q UAL I T Y

THIS is about NATO COMMONLY FUNDED CAP’s !!!

i.e. NOT NATIONAL CAP’s & projects

# Act

# PoP

# ADG

DCA #

C² Elm

UNIT of Measurement # Channels PoP, bandwith

# exercises talks, activities

# C² stations radars, AWACS

# C² nodes, DCA bases,

NUC storages # C² elements

Foundation CORE CAP (re-‐defined) = any NATO CAP

(national or NATO-‐operated) needs this

to build on for enduring mission and/

or Art 5)

Depl DCA

AWACS


  Is NOT a way of prioritising requirements, merely a building block for it

  Does NOT change the requirement vs the LoA, merely describes it better to allow the gradual allocation of resources DOWNSTREAM

  Required CAP levels can change with Ministerial guidance

  Is used in NDPP step 3 to allocate targets   CRR12 > only for Collective targets   Based on experience, possibly ALL targets

afterwards   All CP’s and Projects should be

organised in stratified way   Unless specific reason not to

Requirements

For

The

ENTIRE LoA

(2+6)

Stratified

Requirements

For

The

ENTIRE LoA

(2+6)

Documents

CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT STRATIFICATION · 2019-08-09 · NATO UNCLASSIFIED 9 Conclusion STRATIFICATION to be a NDPP-prioritisation building block provide indication on how a (candidate)