A proposed military construction facility investment model

Abstract : The fiscal year (FY)l999 and FY2OOO National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) amended Title 10 USC, Section 17, and directed the secretary of defense to report annually on the capability of installations and facilities to provide support to forces in the conduct of their missions. This has come to be known as the Installations' Readiness Report (IRR). The Air Force's IRR links facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) requirements, with the impact on the installation's ability to support the mission associated with the particular facility class. The Air Force's centralized military construction (MILCON) program model used to program major facility requirements does not directly target facility investment in the deficient" facility classes defined in the Installations' Readiness Report. This research combined the system dynamics and value-focused thinking methodologies together to develop a proposed MILCON model that might better target funding of deficient facility class requirements. The results from a system dynamics analysis of the existing MILCON model were used to better understand the MILCON program and leverage management policies in a proposed MILCON model. The proposed MILCON model was then developed using a gold standard value-focused thinking approach. The Air Force's goals and objectives for the MILCON program were derived from a literature review of key doctrine, policies, and guidance. The proposed model was also evaluated to identify relevant favorable or unfavorable behavior trends in eliminating deficient facility class requirements. The proposed model provides a significant short and tong-term improvement over the existing model in targeting and eliminating deficient facility class requirements. The model demonstrates a 20 percent improvement in targeting these facility requirements in FY2004 and a tong-term trend towards completely eliminating these requirements.

[1]  P. Senge.  THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE , 1997 .

[2]  David M. Jurk.  Decision Analysis with Value Focused Thinking as a Methodology to Select Force Protection Initiatives for Evaluation , 2012 .

[3]  R. Justis,et al.  Discounted Payback: A Criterion for Capital Investment Decisions , 1986 .

[4]  León.  Value-Focused Thinking versus Alternative-Focused Thinking: Effects on Generation of Objectives. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[5]  Gregory R. Ottoman.  Forecasting Methodologies for USAF Facility Maintenance and Repair Funding Requirements. , 1997 .

[6]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking , 1992 .

[7]  Stanley B. Block.  CAPITAL BUDGETING TECHNIQUES USED BY SMALL BUSINESS FIRMS IN THE 1990S , 1997 .

[8]  Robert Dorfman,et al.  Why Benefit-Cost Analysis Is Widely Disregarded and What to Do About It , 1996 .

[9]  C. Drury,et al.  The misapplication of capital investment appraisal techniques , 1997 .

[10]  Hemantha S. B. Herath,et al.  MULTI-STAGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES AS COMPOUND REAL Options , 2002 .

[11]  Craig W. Kirkwood,et al.  Strategic decision making : multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets : instructor's manual , 1996 .

[12]  John D. Sterman,et al.  System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002 .

[13]  G. Arnold,et al.  The Theory‐Practice Gap in Capital Budgeting: Evidence from the United Kingdom , 2000 .

[14]  R. Pike.  A LONGITUDINAL SURVEY ON CAPITAL BUDGETING PRACTICES , 1996 .

[15]  A. Stark.  Real Options, (Dis)Investment Decision-Making and Accounting Measures of Performance , 2000 .

[16]  Stephen P. Chambal,et al.  Decision Analysis Methodology to Evaluate Integrated Solid Waste Management Alternatives , 2001 .

[17]  Valerie Belton,et al.  Adding value to performance measurement by using system dynamics and multicriteria analysis , 2002 .

[18]  R. Kleiman,et al.  CURRENT CAPITAL INVESTMENT PRACTICES , 1999 .