Business Scenario
In the former DFPS solution, the force generation process started with creating the detailed organizational structure. However, in real life, creating the organizational structure in the system comes after a more high-level design and analysis phase in which the planners start with the strategic intent and directives of the political and Army command. These are unstructured in nature, but it analyzes them, breaks them down into concrete and formulated requirements, and only then define the required structure and the resources.
In Defense and Security, SAP have enhanced the solution to support this planning phase.
After discussing the concept of Capability-Based Planning (CBP), we will introduce the basic terms and define them.
In the following lessons of this unit, we look into each of these terms in detail and see how it is managed in SAP S/4HANA and learn how to create and use the application.
Capability-Based Planning
Consider the stated capability requirement.
By contrast, it is quite clear what the required operational capability or functionality is in actuality.
Conversely, can we start allocating equipment and people to units based on this?
There could be multiple ways to provide the required operational outcome, there might be a need for developing a new weapons system, enhance an exiting system and/or integrate several systems. Even after we decide what the technical means are, there is still a need to update the doctrine and procedures, train the force, and so on.
To do this, we have to 'peel the onion' → define more specific operational need statements, define optional solutions, compare and evaluate them, choose a preferred solution and then define the equipment, people, doctrine, training and all other required Lines of Developed.
When we have done this, we can assign the new capability to selected units and plan the transitions activities to achieve them in actuality.
In this unit, we discuss most steps of this process.
Capability-Based Planning (CBP) was developed as an alternative to threat-based planning. It represents an attempt to break down traditional stovepipes and facilitate transparency and coherence. CBP provides a more rational basis for making decisions on future acquisitions, and makes planning more responsive to uncertainty, economic constraints, and risk.
CBP provides a framework to support analysis and facilitate risk management. It focuses on goals and end-states and encourages innovation. It starts by asking questions regarding what do we need to do rather than what equipment are we replacing.
There are two main groups of customers to be considered when developing the products and processes of CBP: decision-makers and capability developers. These two groups of customers generally need different products owing to their differing requirements:
- Decision-makers are typically senior defense leadership and government officials. This is the group responsible for making decisions about trade-offs in defense capability development. Decision-makers will generally be interested in information such as how they can achieve their strategic objectives, what risk is there for defense due to various decisions or constraints and the impact of choosing a portfolio of options on capability.
- Capability developers include the groups of planners who are required to implement the chosen initiatives and projects. Capability developers want to provide the best options to achieve capability goals and need to understand the synergies between their options and the rest of defense capability. Identifying these synergies is a complex and subjective task, but it will make success in CBP more likely.
CBP is a systematic approach to force development that aims to advise you on the most appropriate force options to meet government priorities. The force options developed need to meet strategic objectives, minimize cost and risk, and comply with other constraints.
CBP has several major building blocks. First, as CBP is output-oriented, it must have high-level capability objectives derived from government guidance. Second, CBP needs to consider the way in which the force will fight. This generally takes the form of top-level doctrine or some overarching operational concept. Third, CBP uses standard groupings - capability clusters or capability partitions to make the process more manageable. Fourth, the resulting capabilities are realized within available resources.
Capabilities, or the ability to perform a particular task, provide the common framework used for relating and comparing disparate elements of a defense organization. CBP relies on a structured view of the world to divide the organization into more manageable groupings. These groups are referred to as capability partitions. These capability partitions are inevitably based around the ability to perform tasks, or to deliver effects, for example, "Control and Denial of the Underwater Battle-space".
The outcome of CBP should be an effective investment strategy that develops and sustains the capability priorities identified through the planning exercise.
When you perform Capability-Based Planning, one first defines the capabilities to be achieved by our future or existing forces. Capabilities are identified based on the tasks required.
The options to achieve the required capabilities are then formulated into typical force structures by their TOE - a Table of Organization and Equipment, or Reference Force Elements in SAP. The Reference force element is a type of a military unit, or a template of a unit, rather than an actual one.
A military will have one or more actual units for every such template. The actual units will be represented as Force Elements in SAP. In most militaries, such units will feature a number in the name (for example: 113th Tank Battalion). Different Force Elements linked to the same Reference Force Element will be very similar in tasks, capabilities, structures, authorized material, and personnel. Small variations between the units can still be accommodated, but serious differences in operational capabilities and tasks will require a creation of another, more specialized template.
CBP has two fundamental differences from other forms of traditional Capability Planning. First, it concentrates on what you need to do rather than what you have. Second, it attempts to move away from suggesting solutions too early in the process. The aim of delaying a decision on narrowing options is to encourage the development of more innovative alternatives and to help overcome simply replacing platforms and/or equipment with like-for-like. For example, it replaces questions such as "what options are there for new artillery?" with "how can we provide fire support to land forces?"
Due to the complex nature of the problem being addressed and the analytical rigor needed, an incremental approach that develops a number of products on the way is probably most practical.
It starts with the overarching guidance, identifies capability gaps, explores options and ends with an affordable investment plan.
Most defense equipment is multi-role and thus contributes to several capability partitions. Therefore, it is more important to share the information elicited in one capability partition with the others and to prepare analysis using consolidated force development options when providing insights on the final force structure.
