Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
AD NUMBER
AD884151
NEW LIMITATION CHANGE
TO
Approved for public release, unlimited distribution
FROM
Distribution authorized to U.S. Gov't. agencies only; Test and Evaluation; 01 APR 1971. Other requests shall be referred to Army Materiel Command, [AMRCDTV]. Washington, DC 20315.
AUTHORITY
USAMC ltr, 14 Jan 1972
THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED
AMC PAMPHLET
AMCP i06191
ENGINEERING DESIGN
HANDBO OK
SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Iý
• •Lu•
AND
SCOSTEFFECTIVENESS
Distribution limited to U.S.Govt. agencies onlyl Test and Evoluation; /APRI/L71. Other requests
for this docuuent must be referred to 1/7R11V
Mr4 T Rrr  d f)AIVJ !
(/' AICJ?PTV),
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
APRIL 1971
i/ 0
Best Available Copy
/
1HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND WASIIINGTON, D.C. 20315
A\MC PAMPIILET No. 706191 ENGLL11r*iNCG DESIGN HANDBOOK
9 April
1971
SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND COSTEFFECTIVENESS
FOREWORD CHAPTER I  INTI{ODCT[TION 1.1 1.2 if~nition of' Systems; Ant,,y:;!; Deftitdion of CostEtf',!,!tIverirzs 1.2.1 1,2.2 1.3 CostEffectIveness Aa&1y
x.iii
1.
a!2
z
CostEffectivencss in Generic Usage 2
Background and History of Systems Analysis/CostEffectiveness 1.3.] 1.3.2 1.3.3 History of Systems Analysis History of CostEffectiveness Systems Analysis/CostEffectiveness (SA/CE)
17
•
1.4 1.5
Methodology of Systems Analysis/CostEffectlveness Application of' Systems Analysls/CostEffecti'ene.s 1.5.1 1.5.2
General
Application of SA/CE to Concept Formulation arnd Contract Def*inition

1.5.3
1.6
Conclusion
iit
Limitations of Systems Analysis/CostEffectlvrýness COSTEFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
117 2
CHAPIER 2  GENERAL METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SYSTEMS ANALYSIS/
2.1
Input Information 2.1.1 2.1.2 ?.1.• 2.1.) Army Force Development. Plan (AFDP) Combat Developrment. ObOtive& Guide (CDOG) (ualltativn Mnterlo, Approval Development Objective (QMDO,ý (QMR) 2i 23 23 
Qtualitatlve MaterIol Requirement
AMCP 706.191
COQTEtJTJ (c ont . zue,od) 2., Definle Requ irements and ObJetvet Develop Mlsitorn Profiles Obtain Crittcal Performance Parsuneters Synthesize Alternative System. 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.6 2.7 ThN Total System 25 27 29 210 210 212 216 217 217 2i7 221 222 223 224 225 225 226 2.26 226
"2.3
•.:. 2.'I
System Configuration Syrthesis StateoftheArt Analysis Conclusion
Develop Hardware Characteristics Establish Basis for Evaluating Effectiveness 2.7,.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 Avnilabi]ity Dependability Capability
2.8 2.9
Define Measures of Effectiveness Formulate Models 2.9.1 2.9.2 2.9.3 2.9.4 General Assumptions Adequacy Representativeness
2.9.5 2.9.6 2.9.7 2.9.8
Uncertainty Data Validity Types of Models
Equations
226 227 227 227
229 243 243 243
?.'03 .ia3rate Effectiveness 2.11 Generate Cost Equations 2.11.1 2.11.2
CostAnalysis Introduction The RAND Method
2.11.3
2.11.!4 2.11.5
CostEstimating Relationships
Problems in CostAnalysis CostAnalysis Application
248
249 251
AMCP 706191
CoNT,•EIC. S (c:o:titnued) ,. EX,,r,
12.1
•, the Model
General
255
2
..12.I.
Analysis or' Output Data
2V5 262
Vt2velop De:lsioin Model
2.13.1
Optimization Critericn
262
264 265 266
.,.13.2 Risk and Uncertainty 2.13,:3 2.13.1; 2.13.5 Optirlzation Techniques Leverage Effects Interpretation
267 26•
31
". 13.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3 3.1
3.2

TECENIQUZ
Simulatior,
Queueing Theory
33
. Sequencing and Markov Processes 3
32. Inventory and Replacement )h
3.5 Linear and Dynrtmic Programming 3.5.1 3.5.2 Linear Prop,awriing Dynamic Prograirnring
37
39
312 312 316
3.6 3.7
3.e
Game Theory Information Theory Analytic Models 3.8.1 3.8.2 Lanchester's Equations Calculus of Variations
317
322 326 328
330
330 331
3.9
Decision Theory,
3.10 CvatEstiwating Relationships and Confidence Intervals
3.10.1
3.10.
CostEstimnting Relationships Confidence Intervals F.I.x ,ample: Simple Linear Regression (Two Variables)
331
332
335

T
AMCP706191
CONTENTS (continuva)
3. 11
312 .
F~xpericoncu Curves Cos%,Sern5itivity An~l1js 3.12.1 General CostSencitivityAnalysis Probleri,'41
IMATHEMATICAL. AND STATISTICAL CONCErTS
3 39
341
341
3.12.2
CHAPTER 4 4.1

BAS1 '
41 41 .41
42
Introduction 4.1.1 4.1.2 Preliminary Defin~itions Notation
4.2
Dexirnitions of Probability 4.2.1 4.2.2 Classio, . Dcfinltior. RelativeFrequency Definition
4.3
Algebraic Principlis and Formulas 4.3.1 Two Busic Counmting Principlc4s Permutations
.

I
.. 4
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4 4.3.5
Combinations
Bari(. Probability Laws Applica'Aion of Probability~ Laws to Reil1,'ýIt
Probauility Distribk~tiorn*s
4.4.2
Propert'
 
L4.4~.
Tarxrteel roan~1~ ont~ Mo
Disctkl
:
*
4.4.t
,nao
.!
L
.
I., 5otnni n. 4.I
tv
191 CONTENTS APPENDIX A: B: C: GLOSSARY BIBLIOGRAPHY STATISTICAL TABLES (continued) A1 B1 C1 " D: E: INDEX GUIDE FOR REVIEWERS OF STUDIES CONTAINING COSTEFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AN EXAMPLE OF A RECENT COMMUNICATIONS COSTEFFECTIVENESS ANALYS IS D1 E1 V! vI .AMCP 706.
AMCP 706. Selected Time Intervals Computations for Maintainability Function 2i4 2I 43 44 4_64 470 FIGURES 11 12 P1 22 23 24 25 26" 26A 27 28 Types of Systems Analysis Studies RDT & E Cycle Systems Analysis/CostEffectiveness Process MissionProfile Development The Total System Zenith Missile System .Functional Diaggram Hierarchy of Parameters SystemEffectiveness Framework Elements of Effectiveness A Submodel Classification Scheme System Cost Categories 123 113 22 26 211 213 215 220 220 225 215 vi . Based on Ordered Observations Involving Censorship Germanium Power Transistors: Accumulative Percent Failure vs.131 TABLES AND FIGURES TAB LES 21 22 Basic Alternatives for the Zenith System Characteristics P'rtlnent tco A Stateo. theArt Analysis (Electronic) 23 211 31 4I 142 Partial !1Jt of TecThniques for Optimizat~on 271 32 45C 47' Array of CostEffectiveness Characteristics Systems Analysis/CostEffectiveness TechniqueE Observations of Time to Failure and Censored Time Following A Failure in A Sampli: of 50 Items Computational Procedure for Estimating the Mean and Standard Deviation of a Normal Distribution.
Teal fxr Exp.Theoretieca 4 lvjt of Mainter..Off 257 CUrVfes e jnterdepLnd.3ricie rstt Pape r mn logNorma'.j? 4 45 'i6 4'7 of' tne Paramieters of an A..ujies and Project Obertives 26e 2725 112 Sonuli~vity Analysis 2.ltB.fential.a~ Xorr~AlPiet Weitull Prob~batlty PNper Graph!: Procedure . i'.ution Nonp~raaetric adi Thaoreti. Put Im 62  &4.. Ditributlea 43~ Kco1morov4Bwarrko' 44 Oarhikcal Estimatio 4..Or %~t~aining Eatiieates of Paruaetqrs Associatec wlth the Welbull Disribut" m Welbv 1 Re11aol"Xt. Probst. Between Tra4eOfr St.AWF 7W'19 F1GUMW (Crtt~nUwR 29 210 2111 rAp s~sionz of tJneertalnty redo.ý.13 4~1 £Zam1es Of' Cost Ezfeetivemaa Cujrves The Exponential fle11ab±ity Punction.y  mop  .:ýAed Wormal Dlstr.
imulation. J.rg. . and LostEffcctIvetess. Messrs. Pennsylvania vU.em Anralysls.:teffectiveness. scientific.le cost. It is irrmeditnrOly . queueIn.. J. (2) a basic framewori'.191 FOREWORD rhe purtose of this handbcok is to providc a text arnd r.S. P. The haadbook was originally written by ARINC Research Corporation. or techn~ical feasibility of a system or equJipment at any phase in its life cycle. Fort Monmouth. by others regarding lifecyc. 2551 Riva Road..ment under study but are not familiar with the niethodolog) and techniques of System Analysis and CostEffectiveness. 9 September 1966. byi. 17201 . etc. It is now being published as an AMC handbook in this series designated AACP706191. The U. Maryland 21401. Systems Evaluation Division. U. managermlent. Sanford were the USAECOM Project Engineers and Mr. for conducting and reviewing costeffectilYeness or system analysis studies. or general niethodological approach.f.es (linear progralming. capability). Annapolis. theory. Activities within AMC and other DOD agencies should direct their requests on an official form to: Commanding Officer Letterkenny Army Depot ATTN: AMXLEATD Chambersb.chapters: (1) an introduction co the concept of system analysis and co. D. (3) a siet of ter:hnia. Procedures for acquiring these handbooks follow: a.r.AMCP 706..ference materlal in Sys. dependabflIty. The handbooks are readily available to all elements of AMC including personnel and contractors who have a need and/or requirement. New Jersey 07703. who are familiar wich 1 system or equi. S Ar•y E:eLtronics Command. Chi. A. Army Materiel Command policy is to release these Engineering Design Handbooks to other DOD artivities and their contractors. and other Governmnent agencies.. making decislons or reviewing decisions mad. to personnel. Solvano.. The handbook consists of fo. Macinko and R.) that can be used for performing costeffectiveness and system analysis studies. was tho Project Advisor. in response to line item 0003 Exhibit A002 of Contract Number DAABO76PC0056 for the Systems/Cost AnalysJs Office. and administrative personnel who are responsible for preparing information. in accoreance with current Army Kegulation 7031. It is intended for 9houe tttnical.°Stical concepts that underlie the scientific approach in the system analysis/ costeffectiveness process.n3tical ind stak..tem effectiveness (availability.iseful. and (4) a review of the basic matLc.
20315 industries not having a Government contract (this includes Universities) d. D. . may submit their request directly to the Letterkenny Army Depot. to the address indicated in Paragraph a. Army Materiel Command ATTN: AMCAMABS Washington. D.AMCP 706191 b. 20310 All requests. Contractors who have Deparrment of Defense contracts should submit their requests. C. must be accompanied by a valid justification. Government agencies other than DOD having need for the handbooks c. through their ccncracting officer with proper justification. 20315 e. S. Comments and suggestions on this handbook are welcome and should be addressed to Army Research OfficeDurham. S. as indicated in paragraph a. Durham. C. or to: Commanding General U. C. C. other than those originating within the DOD. D. Box CM. must forward their requests to: Commanding General U. D. North Carolina 27706. Duke Stitlon. Army Materiel Command ATTN: AMCRDTV Washington. All foreign requests must be submitted through the Washington. Embassy to: Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence Foreign Liaison Office Department of the Army Washington.
The specific techniques and methodologies may differ depending on the many factors of each study. U. The concept of Systems Analysis has received considerable attention tziroughout Department of Defense areas of intcrest. whether simnle or complex. are defined as follows: a. Force.AMCP 706191 mAPMR I INTODUCTION 1. the process is capable of imparting cogent information which can bc utilized in the formulation of new alternatives.. Marine Corp. those inherent due to the class of problem and those imputed because of problem variation from a "classic case". D. all of the generic classes of Systems Analysis studies have the common feature of systematically examining all classes of problems. ii 21 April 1970. Extensive use of Systems Analy'iis has been utilized by nonmilitary activities. However. . both inhouse governmental agencies as well as the prate sector of the economy. Materiel Systems Analysis has been defined by the United States Army 1 Materiel Comvn&nd as follows: 1. Washington. Army Materiel Command. when no alternative means are clearly visible. quantified when possible. in order to help them in selectirg preferred alternatives to the attainment of the Ptated objective. Materiel Systems Analysis .involves the ana~ytic investigation and quantitative appraisal and comparison of materiel programs or courses of action in terms of the effectiveness. Navy. S.A generic term which implies both a technique and a flinction which. As a tachnique . and Air the subject and applicability are not exciusively military oriented. Army. Research and Development Materiel Systems Analysis. improvement coefficient or cost benefit expected versus the costs either required or anticipated to be incurred. for the purposes of this regulation. Generally.1 KFINITWNS IF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS Generally speaking. AMCR 111. the nomenclature of Systems Analysis can be applied to any systematic approach that compares alternate means of attaining a specified objective. The application of System Analysis processes are directed towards supplying the decisionmakers with maximum information. However. C. Also. Headquarters.
Baslc Concepts and Framework for Analysis .2 SEFINITION OF C3STEFFECTIWNSS 1. Th.3. parametric may variously taka the form and title design/costeffectiveness (PD/CE).2 Costeffectiveness. ARINC Rpseasch Monograph No.2. depending on the user. b. projects. Md. and investigations involving the technique described above and The studies. tems Analysis in an organized fashion and to fix responsibility. P. The techniques of Syzapproaches in functional activities and programs. proJe:ts. tradeoff.. or programu. 1.The process of comparing alternative (effective solutions to mission requirements in terms of value received ness) for the resources expended (costs)" 1.9. is interpreted as a measure defined implicitly or explicitly by a decisionmaker of the benefits to be 3 derived from and the resources expended on a system.1 CostEffectiveness Analysis (study) has been defined by the United States 2 Army Materiel Command as follows: "Costeffectiveness analysis (study) . Annapolis. As a function involves the staff and operation activity necessary and required to discharge the AMC requirement and responsibilities for SysIn general. are equally applicable to all of thc above. Jasper. 12. Systems Analysis seeks to aid the decision making process throughout the life cycle of materiel programs.3 BACKXSOUNS AND HISTORY OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND COSTFFECTIVENESS 1..s can be functionally expressed as: CE a f (benefits derived. The chionology of its constituent elements could (at least) regress to: lb id 3Maltese. tems Analysis.2. the application of modern analytt. resources expended) 1. costbenefit. 12 .ýs andcosting procedures. and investigations comprising the function of Systems Analysis of costeffectiveness. LCE) in generic usage. System CostEffectiveness.1 History of Systems Analysis Present day use of the word "Systems Analysis" is varied. may be applied at any point in the life cycle. the conduct of the Systems Analysic function takes the form of' studies. the ben.ARIic Rproarch Corp.. a technique.AMCP 706. as of concern are considered on a "life cycle* basis. optimum mix. and quantitative inventory mix studies and analyand qualitative assessments of ses. As a function. January 1967.f its and costs Systems Analysis.191 roe Systems Analysis for materiel item. cost and performance. productimprovement determinations.
A Methodology for Systems Engineering.. a general physicist. 1947 Trefethen. Van Nostrand Co. p. constraints.. D. Taylor's inception of Scientilfic Management. Blockett. W. implementation. HaIl. Princeton. Vol. configuration. pp.M..S.. Operations Research for Management. Mechanical Engineering. New Jersey.. and is not in solving operational problems. and two mathemuticians utilized the mixedgroup approach This philosophy is certainly inherent in with the interdisciplinary group being means of solution. systems research. 13 . 6 Fiagle. Inc. costeffectiveness and management science. p.E.. Baltimore. The John Hopkins Press. Flagle. antisubmarine warfare.. No. Vol. Operations Research & Systems Engineering.. These operations research studies were devoted to early warning systems. necessitated by both the complcz... operations research. C. 4 5 Taylor.al. 185. sporadic use of statistical decision making in certain 5 World War I studle* and introduction of a scientific method consisting of objectives.known by college students for years as a format for problem solving. F. The John Hopkins Press. A. 1960. October 1951. In order to explore areas of difference in understanding about Operations Research and Systems Engineering activities. F. feedback and conclusion . and It is most difficult to determine what the exact definition of each is which one of the subject titles subsumes the others..6 what we now call Systems Analysis. et. 1960. Operations Research & Systeme Engineering. selaction.75. then to the formulation or methods and procedures of science during the Renaissance (14th17th centuries). Md. two one astro physicist. Harper & Bros. September 1957. 9. an Army officer.19.AMCP 706. C. Baltimore. Scientific Management. one surveyor. A group consisting of Professor P.. New York. D. systems engineering. Machol. J.al. civilian defense and conduct of bombing raids.. The nearest historical milestone (within the generic context of Systems Analysis) that has major import to the ultimate definition is the development and use of operations research in Great Britain during World War Il. it would be well for the reader to refer to the fcf owing books and periodicals: Bronowski. evaluation. namely: operations analysis.89091. R. 79.77. Scientific American. The John Hopkins Press. thiie physiologists. Fredrick W..19. mathematical physicists. Md. N. 1962. Daltimore. pp.ity of the problem and its The main difficulty in describing what "Systems Analysis" is can be gleaned from the newly developed clasnifications of analytical activities which have emerged..191 Aristotelian logic. ?t. Md. antiaircraft gunowery.
The total analysis is thus likely to be a more complex and less neat and tidy procedure. mIc.a systematic approach to helping a decisionmaker choose a course of action by investigating his full problem. the alternatives designed and the operational laws invented. one seldom suitable for quantitative optimization. "System Analysis . Cherles Hitch. Edited by E. November 1964. problems and "choice of strategy". "While it does make use of much of the same mathematics (as operations research) . the term Systems Analysis has teen used by DoD to describe both the philosophy end some of the techniques and methodology applicable to defense programming and budgeting.. E. searching out objectives and alternatives and comparing them in consequences. S.. "long range".insofar as possible.. S. AD 453887. E.not simply how to do it. Thus with a systems analysis. "qualitative judgment" and "Assistance to logical thinking". 1961 and introduced the concept of Systems Analysis within the Department of Defense. Quade and W. I. Most of the material presented above relates to the history and interprrtation of systems analysis as viewed by DoD. 7 Quade states: In a later definition. Applications in Defense. 1' . The post war studies in weapons systems analysis by RAND and other companies is the genesis of the term Systems Analysis. analytic . lem. Alexandria. Bouchnr.AMCP 706191 After World War 1I. YQuade. Defense Documentation Center. In Analysis for Military Decisions. E. S. "high level". Sinze 1961."8 This latter more explicit view of System Analysis seems to be necesbary light of their using an appropriate framework . Comptrollor i. Analysis for Military Decisions. •Originally appeared in the book SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND POLICY PLANNING. became Assistant Secretary of Defense. In fact.7. formerly of RAND. S. the RAND Corporation interpreted weapons systems enaly sin as a description of those studies which did not have clearly definod inputs for given objectives and whose future uncertainties were recognized to be luss well defined than those of earlier studies.it is associated with that class of problems where the difficulty lies in deciding what ought to be done . Published in 106 by American Elsevier Publishing Company. Va.to bring expert judgment and intuition to bear on the prob in view of the increasing sophistication of technical programs and studies which continually cause the decisionmaker(s) to need more capacity for understanding and recommending the "best approach" Tht nature of systems analysis and its objectives are aimed towards this goal. Quade describes System Analys~s. p. the process is to a large extent synthesis: the environment will have to be forecast. one associates "broad". "choiceofobjectives".
of management information. planning and forecasting. distribution and consumption of goods and services. then the "Utopian Socialists" (Robert Owen) and 'ScienSocialists" (Karl Marx). Thomas Acquinas (comprehensive codification of "Justprice"). man decided what the Throughout hLstory. resources management.cystems.then defined as household management . then to the modern age economists and the "classical school" (Adair Snith. culminated in development. Economic philozophy started with thio "philosophists school' Arirtotle and St. today. product line mixes. civilian Systems Analysis are: costs are more readily determinable. s5 .al. generally. These MIS are the final output of the efforts of Systems Analysis with the same stipulated objective as DoD programmnilg that cf providing the maximum cogent information to a decisionmaker for c given purpose. the problems are somewhat similar in total objecHowever. (cost) should be for what he received.AMCP 7061 9i Nonintlitary use of Systems Analysis has. This goal encompasses resource management.). competition a:pects are more quantified and the technology is at hand (or can be determined within closer limits than can that of the military). 1. transportation. The stated aim of materiel Systems Analysis is to insure that the Army can accomplish its mission within the level of effectiveness specified and with the minimum expenditure of resources. man has reckoneJ with the Somehow.2 History of CostEffectiveness _ the item he acquire.. John Stuart Mill. payment through mutual agreement. communications and participation in social welfare programs. tive .ty of determining the optimum solution to a national defense rosture for a given but do have relatively high order of complex problems in such areas as space.which. tific et. As can readily be seen. management science. Nonmilitary organizations. it now becomes necessary to determine how they were derived and how they interface with Systems Analysis.3. Early Greek philosophy gave us the word Economics .. and although costs have been implied in the foregoing discussion. some of the factors aiding utility in time period. today..The best decision. or other philosophy. is designated as the branch of social science dealing with the description and analysis of the production. do not have the inherent comple.
'.he concept of n~eoclassical synthesis lies the springboard from our 4efinition of' CostEff'3ctiveness. Economic Welfare Theory constituents of positive theory an'I welfare thfory describe the evolution as such: Pcsitive theo:r.11.. considers the development of economic principles of operation regardless of desirability or not..s amongst themselvesu.philooophy certainly shows the genesis of modern analytical thought that is now embodied in the definition of Syo.. (see als~o nargir~al utility). Harcourt. Goods and Services. J.n terms of assumed standards. of Fiploymv'nt.Ke~ties: zuia. Cost (P.Effettvrness Analvsis as dlefined heretin.~fic neocissaical synthesis# u eiiig niro :anode~'ucnr.r ~ *~.ing)." occurred after Worldl War 11 (svp. Infallible answer. lyz I 4i interpretation "i" object o!' our anayjit. Thin is the nature of eoonomic. 193h6. or method of tb1ind manipulation which will furnish w!. k). po'r tppe~ar.f' tni fit.1 urnd'r Systoms Analysl.~betwvieri at. CostEffectiveness.iot etc. pnragraph 1..ue. More zpezifically. but to providie curcelve'a wit1h an organizea and orderly method of thinking out our part~culur pr.s). machine. as well as we can. we then have to go back c~n ourselves anci allow. Gsenrnl Thoeor:.a zcylithelu it. Economic*Welfare Theory.. anA such .ýources). and Money..AMCP 706191 TodJii. M4. to havoý beven formirilylvntroduc._ 1ý=mpar.. Theory of InputO~dtput Analysis (see also linear prcr1ramP. of the facto. An'tlys a and Cost.t.et(or projercts) I~neIation to cost.olating the com~iicating factors one by one..21)7.Co. Interest.tems Analys3is and/or CosLEffvrctivenesIs. ýiconotiicsorieatnd definitions af." Interprok~ation of the abovementioned cconomie. Theý erbolutirin of the! term "1costEffectiveness Analysi:. Tne.ed during the period from 1961 ae 'Kr!yn!. When thIs philosoph.thinking.nmic tre~'ry lo ri. Price and Utility. for the probable Interacttoni. Y. * ' . Piraf:P . after we have reached a provisional conclusion ty L~. of.P is combined with 'the theoy of Production.Effectiveness leaves little doubt as to the specific ge~nesis of the term CostEffect. anid. Welfare theory iz concerned with the evaluation of the operation of. Secc~nomy '.~veness or Cost.. ' r. thio modern day In territa 0~' J. ne iuc litt. Is not to provide a.overall cobjectivý. p...on o.blv:%.. 16 . Welfare Economrics IF stated in the term BenefitCost Analysif.~~*rij* "I.3.: A means cf estimating the prospective economic returns of a pro... Now York~.. Va]. it becomes apparent that within *.
raise much doubt about what eacn does that the other doemn'tý Immediate questions are: Can they be combined as SA/CE?. OF 1. rected at the suitability of implementing a specific method and the of alternatives directed towards the implementation of this method. 1.Contract Definition Concept Programming of the DoD during this and ensuing periods of time. This also includes the various supporting functions. and the effect of changes in either cost ot effectiveness.3 Systems Analysis/CostEffectiveness The literal combining of the terms Systems Analysis and CostEffectiveness.191 to 1••4. What methodology combines them?. then we use the term costeffectiveness analysis.4 UEHUMM oSYSHS ANALYSI$/C0ST. In order to further clarify the specific definition of each term and to illustrate their integration. . 1. relative to each other and mission objectives. to minimize the costs (resources) at which a given level of effectiveness can be attained for a givcn mission. usually. What do they each mean in this form?. then.3. the reader is referred to the immediate following sections.EFFCTM$US There isn't any singular formulation nor Is there a standard methodology which is applicable "acrosstheboard" that allows Systems Analysis/CostEffectivanczn studies to be performed for all classes or subclasses of problems explicitly. 1964) anl The Contract Formulation . that it what should it is diconsideration When the effort is directed towards the costs (and/or resources) required between these alternatives. and Aren't they interpretatively redundant? Previous history and definition of Systems Analysis illustrates Is more likely to deal with that class of problems directed towards In this sense. upon examination. in view of their previously developed history arid subsequent definition could.AMCP 706.5 (Application of SA/CE). Also. the subsequent chapters of this Guidebook are directed towards defining the role of Systems Analysis and CostEffectiveness as they are considered in the ensuing analytical formats.9. be done.4 (Methodology of SA/CE) and 1. not the :methodology of how to do It. This it evidenced by inclusion of costeffectivenesa requirements formally stipulated in certain type Request for Proposal development/procurements contracting efforts in accordance with DOD Directive (Series 3900. The objective of costeffectiveness is.
1.what they should be (or are). The main v~rtut of any stipulated scientific method or programming function is its recogf"111un of' chaige.. Comparison of a generalized "xstep" scientific approach w.AMCP 706.one phllosophy was to negotiate . compared and "scaled" in order to determine what their effectiveness and costs are and to what degree they do "ntta'n" the objective(s). within a given time frame.th the Systems Analysis/CosoEffectivenese methodology presented herein reveals bctl to be dynamic. Certain elements have evolved which are common to these kinds of deci0 sions and have been contained in Systems Analysis/CostEffectivencss studies. a systematic approach. These analyses are directed toward a description of the objectives . Decisions pertaining to choices of alternative weapon systems or force structures and the strategies for their employment are essentially matters of economic choice.2. p. Systems Analysis and CostEffectiveness studies .) !uade. neana thn.'. Analysis for Military DPclrnlons.it~lize the same basic framework for their objectives.These are the vartour. (As an exnmp]e. should include all known methods (also.1 and 1. Objective . i. if the obJective of any given period of history was ppenn .ln of new means within the "then" known stateofthenrt) that can a':hleve the desired results. 189 . In order to perform any analysis it is necessary to conceive a disciplined framework. Alternatives .Systems Analysis/CostEffectiveness studies are initiated in order to aid in determining a particular policy and/or procedure. with provisions for making comparisons between alternative ways of accomplishing an objective systematically (hopefully quantitatively) in a logical format tha& can be retraced and verified. S. When the study is directed towards the determination of "costs' between similar systems that can attain a specific objective. can be used to attain the objective. The alternatives can be not quite obviouýs and cons~deration of all types and ways of doing things must be included. The singular discrete difference is in protlem formulation and solving activities. adaptive processes.3.e. The main difference appears to be in thu degree of applied emphasis. due primarily to differences in levels of' abstraction.0 T. War waa a meann of nt!Aining peace by unification. considorat'. consideration of different types of systems that could attain the specific objective. AV . the various policies and procedures are evaluated. then the term Systems Analysis is used. When the problem is one of broader scope. therefore..191 The Immediate lack of an analytical "cookbook" approach doesn't preclude the 1IpImeretation of Systems Analysis/CostEffectivenesu itudies however. i. The alternatives presented.another was war.3. 2. it now becomes necessary to differentiate between them in terms of the definitions given in sections 1.e. the term CostEffectiveness an&b'sis is applied. This done. E..
(As an example. Model . and through various exercises. i. The model defines its representation of the real world.The cocts are. then the value of reduced life is a cost to be determined and applied to the sum total. S. The structure and capability of the model is a major limiting feature of an analysis. plausibility. gaming and matheriatical representations. The constituent elements Identified. This causes consideration of the following factors: representativeness. and suitability.AMCP 70W191 These are the sum total of the resources expended to attain the objective(m) for each of 3. time and cost consideratlons. the cost of smoking is determinable at "y" cents per pack. Ideally.This step explores the alternate configurations.) 4. supplies numerics or information on the effectiveness of the various alternatives under consideration for ura in attainment of objectives. effectiveness. However. data sources and validity.The model is a representation of the reality of the situation or condition being studied. of the real world. manner. or some portion. in Systems Analysis/ Cost Effectiveness studies it can simulate (ftt best) most. Costs . the analysis proceeds through the following typical stages: Hypothesis .At this step. Usually. Criteria . criticality.. 5. Total costs must include consideration of all the factors involved in accomplishing an objective.The criteria are the standards or accepted rules which are used to determine the relativeness or desirability of one alternative vs. policies or programs that can be directed towards sclution of the problem (objective). the objective(s) are defined. it would represent the real situation without error or uncertainty. Deflnitlon . also. not readiiy obvious. In a CostEffectiveness analysis it provides for weighing and combining cost vs. another and allows for choosing one in preferen:e to others.e. uncertainty. A basic requirement of' any model is that it should provide correct answere to the stated questions in an economical. Surgeon Oenera]'s Report Is correct. workability. consistency. At this point in Systems Analyois/CostEffectiveness studies we can now interrogate the major operating elements of the scientific methodology within the general fraaiework of the processes of a systematic analysis.3 years. Inherent in this step are considerations of the resources and other interrelationnhips. simulations. Regardless which procedure of scientific inquiry is invoked. 19 . sensitivity. in that smoking reduces life by (on the average) 8. Resourcev (costs) are thos6 items consumed in the attainment of the stipulated objective which cannot be used for other purposes. if the U. and the extent of the problem delimited to suit knowledge. the proposed alternatives.
AMCP 706191 Anas . In order to maximize the amount of information that can be obtained from such an approacr. but with consideration of the interrelatlonshipj between socioeconomic and political factors and military affairs. are certainly multiple and what can be postulated as a figure of merit? Knowing that the Systems Analysis function would be to consider not only pure military posture. establishing measures of effectlvenýas aralytical framework and figures of merit.tion. Selection of objectives. Evaluation . studies the decisionmaker and a deterministic atmosphere.Construction of the moel(s) at the necessary level of abstraution. data collec'. Whriat should ita composition be and what should it be capable of? At once. in a well behaved s" ochastic environment. The analytical framework postulated above cannot ofcompllsh analyses such an it necs3ary In view of these objectives in a . it is necessary to iteratively exercise the framework. with Information gleaned from application of a defined scientific methodology. the real world precludes such a standardized and ideal approach and solution to problems encountered by present day Systems Analysis/ CoctEffe'ýtiveness studies. The problems encountered in using the approach are not caused by its nonapplicability. The above applicaticn of the systematic approach is not new and is quite straignt forward.ng the model to determine the consequences of alternate programe and considered 'actors. it becomes immediately clear that a "model" would be quite difficult to construct.. It is here that the preferred alternative is identified. which are'subJectively probabilistic at worst. causing revizion of the original probabilistic function towards a fully descriptive and validated function which expresses the actual environment exalctly. tio:(is. sensitivity analypea. and.Thic step is concerned with the verification of the resultant analysis by test and/or experimentation. the decisionma~ers/analysts can eodify hypotheses. Conclusion . In this environment. the objectives are not even known. but because of tLe t&garies of the environment we are attempting to use it in and for. modelling activities.ThIs step examines the derived results. Consider the objective of military posture at scme time in the future. In Systeris Andlysis/CostEffectiveness analyzts would like to live and operate in at worzt. Unfortunately. alernativen. and ozercli. The evaluation is based on modification of all factors discovered in the iterative analysis. evaluathrough the established of the first modifications and conclusions should be !t~rated in an Attempt to remove the "Impuritlrv" 1I" .Ingie pabsthrough.
Methodology of Systems Analysis/CostEffectiveness Srvbsequent zecis done.. the rtudies car. for which explains the how it whom needs a brief explanatory section. and ask why and for whom. L normally.e what mix of "things" should be obtained and how )on#. tiveness rf the "mix" CostEffectiveness reveals thh. Obviously. exercised until the resultz are deemed satisfactory or the ýoristraints of time and/or money force discontinuance. The iterations produce: discovery of new alternatives . redetermination of costs or rebources due perhaps to consideratior of having to consider nondollar cost contingencles. As such.AMCP 706191 runthrougii and reduoe the overall cvmplex scbuective area Into a quantifiable real world area as near as can be accomplished.elimited. it :. poss. economical and timely. redefined or changed ob&ttivez (pe" haps even causing uboptimizatlon to be concidered in view of' total complexity). but. aid the dec!sionmakers by assessment of Implications Eleaned from selection of various %iternatives. or mocification of as byproducts of analybis.entý. nfl'c scity of modelling changes in order . ar. tions explain what and when as well as modification of how and why. urcertainty of competitive rtrategy and other un•Jertainties.Lgement the genesis of the reason or need for a study is bsaed on specu lattonr of "decisionmakers" and that it does contain subjective value ýudr. lack of nrecise Knowlecate and/or data.o more accurately depi t the "real worldo considering. in order that he may make the best. the constraints ana configurations in terms of new data or redefinition of objectives and measures of effectiveness and establishment of new criteria in terms of new data..ý theýy to be connidered adequate for their purpose.rost vsrr:us effecthe bestL way to and aids in determination of whtit it "spend" the resources. nothing more .c alloýation. type and quantities. tool. and accuracy of information that is necessary (or would ie helptity. However. Granted. if you will . ful) for a decisionmaker. ioi .or. At this point in th: dessertation it is necessary to digress from the prime  purpose of this section .Ile decision with minimum uncertainty and risk . the process can continue indefinitely.but nothing less. I.e:'ourc. SA/CE Is a prime mpx. information and/or changet In the inherent elements in the analysis or in more accurate standards or ruler sc aelineated y recursion. also. Systems Analysis concerns itself with problems of r. This entire SA/CE studiesanalysis is directed towards imrroving the quan quality.the decision as to what is more effective.
The study may take on any of the forms in Figure i1.anming this philosophy through a systematic analytical fo.AMCP 706191 Without progi. advanced developmen t objerttves4ADO's). it tAMCR 111.studie. advanced dE.elop:. program submissions. maintainability and reliability studies..indeed present the course of action to follow. tech:./_e where this type f evaluation shouid be applied are in long range R & D systems plannlrg. depending upon where is in the life cycr. "The "concepts 4e xrmy Materiel Command (AMC) states that a requir•rment for a Systems Analysis/CostEf'ectiveliess study.including s limiting conlitions whether truly quantified or qualitative ..ent objectives (QODO's).L as wf]l as what type of .. any time during the life oycle.:elopment plans (ADP's) and technjicai uevelopment plans (TDP's). It is not the purpose.5 APPLkAT•ON Oi SYSTENS ANALYSIS/COSTEFFECTIVENESS 1.mat. The prime purpose is to provide . system a. in ma cr inventory and logrtqs decisions. 21 April 1970.as is poesible "in order to sharpen the intuition of the decis'.It is not censible to intt'. program change requests (PCR's). aid.. be made. (?S's).4. intuition. 1. as well. Discussiun of limitations of SA/CE will be presented in the final segment  A  j A of this chapter. rvaluation.ca.e. other phases in the life c. .use a decisionmaker to agree leyond allkdoubt that this information does . studies associated with qualitative material de.' .Ib. contract definition (CD).nmakers and help them arrive at the oest solution in terms of their observation. experience and value judgments. (CF).5. be gained from a "study" and what their information content is.1 General can be and philosophy of Systems Analysis/CcztEffectiveness applied to amcst an'. to .icoision mus. In addition. there is no better way• of determining how many of what can acccmplish a mission i. or investlgatich mai exist cr tbe ýnitiated in support' of concept formul~tioo.feas. qualitative material approachri (QMA's5.much quantified information . n'r can it be accomplished by SA/CE. L.ty • .itYvely prescribe a posture without considering whatever numerics &4.
.21) Advanced Development Orientation Increase knowledge Technical feasibility Operational and technical suitability Design Engineering Production Engineering SA/CE Milestones Technical feasibility and concept selection studies Intersystem CE studies Intrasystem PD/CE studies (6... 8ytmAayi E ffectiveness Analysis Cost Analysis Studie s } Te te a off ()CostRffectiveness Studies *Effectiveness Analysis *CtAnlsaIntraSystem tradeoffs A FI1K 11 TYPES IFSYSTEiSDIALYSIS STIES Category Research 16.Effectlvenmss Studies *Inveatigates techtital feasibility how well a system will meet mission requirements Technicalfeasibility studies and concept selection (2)co.41) Operational Systems Development (6.31) Engineering Development (6...(1) *Predicts ..i1) Exploratory Development (6. Systefs.71) FORE 12 ASTU CYCLE :113 II I . AMCIP 7W101 .......
&.2 Application of SA/CE to Concept Formulation and Contract Definition Rec'rnt DoD and Ar".ace requirements.y Directives* which establish the concept formulation aid contract definition phases of the system life cycle show an increasing awareniss of and need for Army program managers to make sound decizions based upon quantJtative evaluations which should result in economical and operationally effective system designs capable of meeting the desired performr.ntrasysten tradeoffs of components (i.. engineering and analytical studies. However.*ed development (6. and military basis for a conditional decision to initiate engineering development. the primary aim is to conduct intersystem traaeoffs in order to chooae azmonZ several alternative systems capable of performing come given mission. A thorough tredeoff analysis hns been madu. This is a process of formulating and evaluating a complete range of alternative .. In this section.191 The. tradeoff and cost effectiveness studies. relatiunship of the types of studies to the major phases in the RDT & E Cy •..e.to assure a firm foundation for Engineering Development. and deveiopment of components and technology .eering development (6.21) the type of !._ at various levels of effectiveness. when advan. design. The evidence rkquired for a conditional decision to proceed with Engineering Development includes the following prerequisites: (a) (b) (c) (d) Primarily engineering rather than experimental cffort is required. *Do" Directive 3270. assuming that all contending systems are capable of perfcor. and the technology needed ii sufficiently in hand. lv .•r.5. This work constitutes the necessary preliminary threat and opeiational analyses.ystem analysis studies that are conducted are normally concerned with 5 technical feasibility and concept selection.9.AMCP 706. In engir.31) begins.Effectiveness studies will te discussed. economic. AR 7055. It is accomplished through comprehensive system studies in exploratory and advanced development by means of experimental tests. During exploratory development (6. The best technical approaches have been 'elected..i.41) parametric design/cost effectiveness (PV/CE) studies are conducted.. The mission and performance envelopes are defined. The objective of concept formulation is to prcride the technical.) to provide the optimum capabiliLy for fulfilling 'ý . concept formulation and contract definition will be described and the requirements for Systems Analycis/Copt. . is contained in Figure 12.
AMCP 706. be performed by a sole source contractor if necessary. the Contract Definition phase begins. or a total produ~ction investment in excess of $100 million. including production engineering. which summarizes pertinent costeffectivenes6 studies and developments and provides whatever informetion may be required to subLtantiate the achievement of these prerequisites. facilities. Establish schedules and cost estimates for planning purposes for the total project. (However. The objective of Contract Definition is to determine whether the conditional decision to proceed with Engineering Development should be ratified. Cost and schedule estimates are credible and uc~epthble. firm and realistic performance specifications. or AMC may require Contract Definition on other systems which are below the $25 million and $100 million threshholds. realistic schedules and cost estimates 1'cr Engineering Developnent. 115~ .) Contract Definition is normally performed by two or more contractors in competition under the technical direction of the cognizant Army atLvity. and maintenance. or If requireA. Establish firm. construction. (e) The Contract Definition procedure Is mandatory for all new Engineering Developments or Operational Systems Developments (or major modifications of existing ones) that are estimated to require total cumulative research. (f) On the basis of thir information. operation. Identify high risk areas. including production. It may. If the initiation of Engineering Development receives conditional approval. tj a Program Change Request (PCR). howevr.e request is made eithea by memorandum to DDR & E. the Army requeste approval to initi~ate Engineering Development. development. h•. test. DA. Its ultimate goal is achievable. backed Uy a firm fixed price or fully stxactured incentive proposal for Engineerin& Development. dpecifically addressed to the six prerequisites cited above. it following subsidiary objectives: embraces the (a) (b) (c) (d) Precisely define Interfaces and responsibilities.. It is accompanieJ by a "C:rU.1velopment Plan (n"Z1). Verify technical approaches. and production hardware that will be funded during Engineering Development because of concurrency consideration. In addition.191 (e) The costel'fectiveness of the proposed item is favorable in relation to that of eompeting items on a defPnsewide basis.1cal r. and evaluation financing in excess or $25 million. DoD.
. or to undertake further Exploratory or Ad'vanced Development of key components and/or systems studies.h (an be retrafod and verifr'..: detailed cost estimates and milestone schedules for five years beyond it. manage ment.nton effort. and allows the virtus of a systematic approach .3 Ccncl]. T: system includes not only the hardware but also all other required items. training devier. data. The end product of Contract Definition is a complete technical.e Is directed toward supplying the de islonniaker with the maximum amount of auanlifiable information about alternative approaches to attaining a mission. as well as inherent or pure performance characteristics (kz in WSEIAC.the desigIn and development of proposed objectivyen and their solutions within a rIeorours. schedule.#4_. SI6 .so on) for which early Engineering Development is required. Alco. to contract with an alternatAve source. training equipment. a work breakdown structure and a PERT network plan. for each item.Operational effectiveeos includes all the factors that influence effectiveness hi•operational use.t plan. too[ing in relation to Engineering Development. and cost proposal package for Engineering Development.and maintenance. The contractor's pa. and the operational and support J  "zuh uerL onnel who wili be required.. to contlný7e further Ccntrct . prodrue. to contract for Zngineering .:kge should include such information as a list performance specifications of the end items required. deployment. and. foreseeable technical problems and protao. oporatton.tation. it stipulates nreas of quallfied constderatiori with thic. a recommended main terianc'e plan.AMCP 706191 The tradeoff studies that are conducted during this phase should be directed toward achieving an optimum balanrie between total cost.he Army recommends one of the fAllowing actions: Deývelopment on the basis of the proposals received. the ADC matrices). including recommendations for its operational use.. end a proposed schedule of production engineering and prcduction if appropriate. and operational effectiveness for thj system. 1.slon The methodology and application of Systems Analysis/CostEffectiveness z. poseJ solutions. technical specifications and performance specifications for support items (facilities.ý.d. rejqutred new designs and technology. to defer or abandon rhe Engineeritg Development effort. delivery szheduler and requirements for data and !ccxrni. the principal objectives and features of the overall system de. ao facilities. Total cost (or life cycle cost) includes the "ost of' development. adaptive.. After a review of the contractors' Contract Definition proposal packages.:i3n. dynamic framework wh'. quantitative reliAbility and maintainabijity spenifications and time/cost performance tradeoff decisions on major alternatives.•dl. loi~cnI..
.) Inability to Verify Decibion 117 . manager. or the premises generated based on Liv information.AMCP 706.191 I. How ever. The more prominent limitations inherent In all but extremely simple ana. th y are not panaceas that handle all problems of the system developer. Systems Analysis/CostEffecttveness studies must be examined to recognize the limitations built into them. LIITATWI$ 1 SYSTMS Ui*LYSIS/C0I1T4FNCIMU There are many advantages to Systems Analysis and CostEffectiveness. nor are they without limitations. or user.yti cal studies are as follows: Inadequate Problem Definition Improperly Defined Scope " Restriction of Alternatives Improper Criteria " Interjection of Bias Improper Data Usage * Incompatible Moaol * Misapplication of Model * Forcing Problem into Improper Framework * Improper Handling of Relevant Factors * Poor Assumptions * Ignoring Uncertainties Misinterpreting Model Results Insufficient Samples * Failure to Reappraise * Failure to Communicate * Measures of Effectiveness Approximate * Future Uncertainties * Analysis Never Truly Complete * Changing Value Systems Neglect of Subjective Elements * Assignment of Value to "Costs" (Economic Ccst.
also eonsiders dangers from the elements of limitation of improperly defined "model" and failure to communicate. lea. what problem did it answer Do they literally the problem or do I still have to interpret meaning within my bias? As another example. in the analysis until we pas& :. If an antilysis civn never be complete. a :. also. Now. However. Nuw if the problem is where do I go so that I won't get wet.*It.90% in 25% of the area 10% of the time". cision making about buying a car. I am my unless I assume it if it I don't buy a Mustang because. I must make a decision based on what the statement means to me. (a) I buy a Mustang and watt for it I am purely adventuro'as. consider the list of limiting elements dercribed above. 11 . at to this problem Is the one of forecasting advanced weapcnry 1985..AMCP 706191 Con•IJeration of each element described as a limitation is not the purpose of' this section. either of these decisions can be a mibinterpretation depending on the "true" &lgnificance of it. opinion) and I don't want it happens. What. Thi3 example. "that there is i good chance of rain. However. that 25% of the area will get rain. Analogour say.!rough the verifleatior/modlfi'ation stageG."systems" are operational. or have minimum confidence that my decision is correct. 3 If Mustang maxes it happen* as an aid to deI am a car buyer. a few examples will be given. be wrong in whatever I decide. how do I interpret this? It would appear I would. the statement. obtain feedback. poor aasumptions. why and against whom? Bazically. it is fair to assume that this list of elements is not complete. ani it will rain 20% of that of the duration of time (which this event encompasses) period of time. we will always have error terms. interpretation of a real weather report which states I woul assume "Probability of rain . due to the state of knowledge. is in no position to deal with it. (b) to happen and. is good. in their then environment and we car. S€. for un. time and money. the hard Information comes from backfeed and is tempered by intuition and Judgment to transcend now to the future. or it bad (in to happen. First. The real difficulty is in the word (information) answer? The same is true with results of analyses. In order to show relevancy of limitations and the dangern assoviated with their nonconsideration. Consider. generally. until the . it.In. how many.
a matter of philosophy.even in dollars . Consider. 119 . it is impossible to consider all the limitations applicable to SA/CE analytical functions. data errors and modellin#' problems in determining how to attach significance to deterrence. Quantification of numerics is a problem in the area of "cnsts". Yet. depending on the complexity of the problems. At will be a chwiging value with time. as some apply and some do not. Actually. By th.on of them and the d~zjre of their accountability is a byproduct of an analysis.with a changing value system? Obviously. the recognit. and does supply information as much as the hard numerics. deterrence is. What does an onemy consider it to be ."AMCP?06.and how do you find out? Also.much less recognize a variable depletion of resources . the analytical processes become better by degree and help to sharpen the intuition and Judgment functions of the decisionmaier. also. How accurately can you predict costs for the future .1!. mostly. recognition (and measure) of accountability attained.
Intersystem tradeoffs. cost.h available resources. the "•ype of system to be analyzed will be given. and its objective is . In mainly a difference in the defini. of requiremen'u and objectives in the systems analysio/costeffectiveness process are rnomnaV.1 Army Force Development Plan (AFDP) The AFDP is a responsibili'y of the Ansistan' lhief of Staff for Fore Ob. [ I . The distinction between systems anal. the beat approach formeeting some stated r'equlremenl... schedule. rnadiness.. It provides the planning basis for the FlveYear Force Str.AMCP 706191 CHAPTER 2 GENERAL METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SYSTEMS ANALYSIS/COSTIFFECTIYENESS STUDIES The general methodological approach to the systems ana1ysls/costeffect.o aeltermer.. deal with nar. 2. and the parameterizinp! of requirements are all associated with systems analysis. The approach shown iv applicable to both systems analysis and coateffeotiveness..enesn process is shown In Figure 21. on the other hard.d capibI1]'iee cornatraints and strives lo achieve !he bes' forces.". the T'omha" Development Objective Guide. and the problem is 'o conduct irtrasystem tradeoffs to "optimize" the system. a Qualitative Materiel Development a Qualitative Materiel Requiremert. 1.. It Specifically. TochnlcP1 feasibl1~ty.sihlr plans the development of balanncf. Ion. Normally. in costeffectiveness studies.rower problems. and mcdernIz.tire and Flnanc::al Program. P. et.' a'tributable to such documents as the Army rorce Development Plan.'. 2..1.re wI'h.tems analysis studies are concerred with problems of large scope and are characterized by the comparison of different types of equipmen'cs or systems ".e study. to develop the best system wIthi respect to performance.1 INPUT INFORMATION The initial inputs that lead to the development.o prmvtuJe 'he beo' possible Army pos'. manpower.a.e.tion of the scope of t:. accomplishes the followlng: wilhIn eab'nted balanze he' po. or Development (ACSFOR) and Is constrained by an'Aclpved resource limlloatoirs. Costeffectiveness siudlea..ecti. i.'•.ysis and cost effetivenec..
) A)A  A 194 0 C~rr 0~ 1~ . It @~ 84.AMCP 706.4 IC 4 NEu(V u 2.191 I 7aI li "I 010 q. J3 U LO C) C ~ 40 a gj 00 .
' rd Development Requtrementfsand Y1. A QYIDO le an Army approved statement !)f a milltmtry need for the developmen. Any lnrllvldtial (mill'ary or elvillian).rý..j'r! or: v' f 0 o 'A tlrme. a concept or luen lhrit mlgý' lead Itoes'fb11sh1r.1.i d'evolopntern Pravram.. tystem. i11. An rv ~n*. and pro.AMCP 706. the feasibility of which !annot be determined suffic2iently to perr.ew on revi~sed orgrstnizat'on lo Improve Army operat~enal Qualitative Maý.e req~jremenets docomenet If(1) development of the Item 10 of proven feas.r Ihaltl~y to provide re ao. field expertmecits.O . and the projec't.191 tt a niIn~ i.:vtetnmn al ~rvz'easees *JAenW I fe8 the uslioeia'el~ ad d AaareasontPle hin It i0!i u Iret I rPCC. ar.v rose tr.~b1lity: (2) 1t 'n req~ilred for development. 1~. %ins DA. :? 00r. In !rivebree ovdr. the develcpment of which is believed feasible.ev o ý%e* roxe tplans 2. of new tz. ci' aszerblave. v:le nid 11. Smnall DevelopMent Reguirement (SDR).cve 4JADO. *Qualitative Materiel Requirement (QWR). tcn Az'mya'pprovec 'for a new or Imiproved operal!onil :aprtbt12V thal pertri~rs to 'r "r ioncepts. taitica.V *The establishment of a Quallt. *Organizational oblectivýe. A COMP Is an Armyapproved etatemornt of military need for a now item.1.In :ýapabllt II .' million. 2. L ý c tat4 oVa of sl L.F R a . ar.3tive Materlel Requirement (Q14RT).pgn'n dteeue.i:erlel.2 CoiatDvlomn Trhe .1 ippioved oper'al Iunzu and o~a.iidanrir.:r9(ri In ý)Itiy ?Y orf .D CDOG.ed trnvenstmer' of rF'MA fow'df.1onal objective Ir an A:'n~yappr'ved need for a r.3 Qualitative Materiel Development Objec.esf ': r:r%ro#r i follows: all 'he Oprtoa obfult An opera tional ot Wec*. mi'j or arenuy may propone.Ki.r of e2i~e~~ !rrri'. pr ~vde3 O______e Guie '~r g.e Army ueeri In the reveur!ý and Jevelopmen cycle to the QXI)O.tvC1.dles.:t for~ Am~y 'omtaý.l'.cmrnts document..eriel Do~velop~entt () L. a Qb An SDR in normally considered the approprlal.d. Arn SDR states an Army need for the developmen"t of equipmrnen thatt ýan be deve~ioped in a relatAi'elv shor! time end does not warrant the ma~lor effort required in develop~n. pr~lor'!' :. be' ~ ~ a~y Materiel Development :'e~irqrrns anr:"rQ.'edtureue.d tesvir. prepareki iy t'eJSAC!2?.za!."Al ncB ex~ceed ¼. 'hne. Is 2 years or le!so: and (3) the RD7E costs w.tIVe_(QMO0) Apprt'val development ac The first formal re6q L'.1W t. will1 not exceed $10 million.
t* !:':r.tr...of' :.rad be zupported :.t A ? C or• .ov. .t "ne opera%lorra. Inl dJ at:e w!.! req. or feedback of defitechnological breakthroughs.".: ' .'e'.:rfor•.of*he. p(.dt'e ÷S' blS?!'" b . QMDO's are published in CDOG so that all Interested commands 3nd agencies can be made aware of the obJectiver.': a: o•.1r n.<l' p " ad'.•Ker r'ea' r.e are .r :: a:. 4 a 11 QXR.!rem. Headquarters.ans are prepared.. The po%ntl1al of 17iiiehtly . prorr'i .f r ACSFOH £'er appr.an.aay be initiated at any stage in the researchanddevelopment cycle and may resulc from a combatdevelopment developmental experience.'m:' *.. 1c 1 """) ri Xtlall r.'. I fo. pr fcr n p "or. Development. "Ia]!~p~rk f~ _:.e'Jee• *xp olted or or .M.r. .. ' f'oz a'Q."c oruvactIz. >i a r ••:e • . . ntudy. .1o make e re" na" .•.0 T P ( ".)n* or) al I .•.. "v.en*A ne !n: 'ur. .:V 1 neJs h '.m'" .rn. fl'. . is nnd Engineering. 1 ienti" p r :l. lrm. .. After DA approval. 'r.ve.v'tome :< •:'1 t.: ~ rr "I:.z1 #ýIrt A Imate i and _oricepl a~ of c 'hea~ arts Feppl led areearch wcrk. " 7 'cbl QMDO's . arc' !` on.I .d by AM: ' ~ a• a ~ *It .re. .a.f re•: :ono'n•. e . au ihor. user operat 1on=eaeer'•h 14 ~ q2i~ 1:*. the AMC focal point for processing all new materiel objectives docuAfter reviewCDC rev{. t'rose reqý. t . and submits it tG DA for formal staffing and approval.Li y for pro paratlor arid • :. 5Vf v bpen .. ACSrOR has DA staff responsibility fOr all QMDO's.pn 1er.~l ke he *.AMCP 706. csear. IOt o' ".t.onduw.."Xt. ).t mkua. The Director of Research.n the.. general Prp]$r17 o on a .. y anI ra:p'.t1ee 'of1ri)os ]atovti oy tdeve2op.'.191 Wt!o:e I CIve It) t .me~ w!. ' en :pi on of t"Al . fltrm mlll*.'. operational experience. Eval jitzorn rc~:' : •zry l '.. eri.y i.e * and rvrurod Qii 4DO.€' ý '. .! 1 f everi2 yeara (?. C 'a"O'T"y de veI ipnen.:I '.. ' ...r. po.:ere ~ . ti mefra' for co?'pie" ':..s of: *.1 Vy 'r 1e en ." :relet.c' • l.C hway fro"' . 4 e. e l1 op1 '"he C. ' kt'...n Ibl Il .''.es it ments and for ensuring that adequate Q1MdO pl.. AMC. _ o• 1)P 10PI"h .v 61'of %:1.4 1.. ciencies in existing equipment.'*' :.¢ pn.:*::J4"O. .Msar~f by i'FP )r Ir :eq.or V t# l sor beween ty !z. A'.c.'. Is w io: wt: :PC.ed1e The eff(er. _t..q: "s . ing all the omments from other agencies on the draft %1DO.O.t f.1h.(r reviewed. fe 1u ...) n ' I:.. rit vjurh i s f). uv. : .  . ~o.d .
.1' in eh ott.)r~ *5~*NeverI.lectlva :hCu!. .vtl..r i..enou..¶vt irc' f ' n Inv. the ob. 2. 0.L in term. l >h trust bo employ'edý In 1Thf ctu~iy. 13tating the detailed requirements.QM141i. following evaluation and feedback. and * imay be hlzivly Infl urnotd. eq n lhe.I'e'Iu it. the evrilwaticon rer as: w'il 1 ao ditatin. knowledge acquilred tby 1. 1Jniike the W00D'. It.1'2ctives.. pnrtiesar a~t~ o!'r'. muy be possible to trat i~1t'e tech~nic&A. objectivýýý.'r ~ir'. major mato.re an.o mothoi !'Er "mck :1ir.'o.ystem delfin!tlor'..' ei'~t1ilto the entire anal~ysis.'~If I' ?8.1 . Ito miossin. '~~c I.. I ft''r lv ti o I.tantiaily ImprrvoŽd materiel that will 6ignifiountly advance t.:. 1:.Is essential to take the information as ztatedl in !%h study directive and define an acci~ptoble set of requirements and ob. pr.t t th...h f"jc or.ur emphasis in this section is therel'orc given to ouch prior "valuations. It rlate:.h~ rppropriat. the synthe.! effort must be mado to properly state the system's. it is necessary to devine the boundarliý 30' th'ý aruilyzis In terms of system objectives.y .1n1ii~dvd An the rif ya'.: speýlfic in describing the~ re~quiremenit. ..1&1v. th~e types of models wh. It. W*11AIluat Zyltel..sti.king such evaluations before recourcesc are ý. they may require updating. 't 'r 1. data ineu' .f mtlltarý' c.AMCP 706.. Extre!rc. MW*L :nor.Army 'ibility to uccornplist.Ight blt.rie! r*eeUs In lem. since It Is tlvý major factor In th.haracterlotics and priorities and reiates materiel to the o~pera~tional aind organizational context in which i.m.nk7 objectives andJ cons~roing resour~r~e'. t'i' .major interest currently 1e ~n .'r eIb p v~iu 1. thr. ~r~*. it. aj f: toy th.o efl(' Ilthe missilons. nit ýilwayo aozy "o decide what ir'ýo be. progrreu!ed. Mu.ryotemr.o Into a feasible ¶ystfnr. *dun an' marmoe mttos ant Ir.191I Al'fr rtoonrch ti~d exploratory development have..i te sla':r" in gene.ý of In any eystems analysis. Ii the life cycle of a ~yt~.ntablirshing the objective.'k~~r ' Vry.heleIrns proper r tn.i. of thc study ef'fort.h laborator1.t. arid obje~titvec is a major par'r..it any point.2 DEirm REO'IU'EMENfS AND OBJECTIVES I While thlis eVdluntion :. mm TIhe basic task bef rstems anaiyflis i0 to Ft..~. . ~oit onerrttonc. of alternativl.ral terms so that a comprehensive analysis can be ma~ip.twill be used. o#ý nr. Initially. and refiefinitior.u'.riMrl r I' !sYi "'Lr. drolIs ion mlist be madr~ sub~jectl velIy. It will prephre a draft MRor r'rmtr1to CDC that a C. In r. ty .onanzntted to creating a sy1tem. v.141 be prepared tind Js~ud The (M~ directed toward Ir 'it~tntinig new or o.to the Pcint whRre AM.ub:. hou her. anid influlcacing factors.
If' nn.. (2) the objectives may be limited in scope. good alternative systems or other considerations may be eliminated from the analysis which could result in a less than optimum system selection.%wi.is increase. Again.  .1.. There are three pitfalls encountered in specifying system objectives: (1) cheanalyst may state the objectives too broadly. .i always b . this task cannot be defined for the general systems analysis or costeffectiveness problem. it is necessary to selectspecific factors to be considered in the analysis. the uncertainty associated with the conculsions reached in the study oncreases proportionately. the rcanon for m the tking as7umpt ion ."o! lea :onv ) .. as to describe a perticvlar system :ather than a functional need.ntud i .AMCWP7064191 the enalyst must rely heavily both on past experience gained through conducting and evaluating similar studieb as well ea his knowledge of the military environment and operation. 1 rAd qnVi to pinpoint rir.sumrptirns ihould be explicit>% rt"ite.az iwh rc orrPOP: ri'h' . Xist. b. If the objectives are limited in scope.. less tnar Tc properly stdte the systemr's obJectives.. m'lh. .:•lne f 'onsentus) sIo . All a. Generally. All external factors for which the gross cost estimate i. This undoubtedly eliminates worthwhile alternatives from consideration and biases the outcome of the study. c . Sometimes the objectives are stated in trms of a specific system rather than a functional need.sll lfd e v . exept that those with leverage effects will be excludei if tlhe r inclu•lIon would entoil an additioral level of analyttsaI ccnpvis that would threaten the timeliness of the an3lys iF. however. F: F totr with relativecost estimates over X..tn. broad objectives often large number of alternatives. or (3) the vbjectives may be stated in such a manif the ner. " rdcu J. as the number of assumptio.. obleztives are too broad.. XI of the estimated cost will not be considered. reasonably complete boundaries for the system. . a.  J.st cd to 1r. * Factors 4ith reltivecost estimates between X•{ and X4 w. In addition to establishing... this results la an analysis which includes an irAi •practically AdJitionally.! and .]< n:1.h• w . general assumptIons can be suggested. and these can be formalized when the requirements of a specific analysis are given.a. Typýical assumptions include the following: * The system will be in operation for T years. yield an acceptable degree of confidence in results.ll c in: cnl if sample data and knowlerige of the rcaticnshlp ar. lead to a large number of assumptions which must ce made in order to evaiuate the system(s).
that the car must be new. for which a solution[ must be obtained. automatic transmission. the number and type of communications equipments required for a mission. They may include a fixed budget. the set of mission profiles would represent all of the tasks that the transport helicopter was expected to accomplish. environment. may be ercountered. he must relax one or more of the constraints until at least one feasible alternative can be found. this possibility is taken into account in the presentation of results. a constraint can be so stringent that no feasible alternative can be tound. however. the information rate and reliAbility requirements of the communications equipments.  4 AMCP 70W191 . hoý. Also inicluded in the mission profile are such considerations as threat.conditioner. 2. and that it must have an air. Thereare problems.000. the enemy threat. These requirements and objectives are then translated into specific statements of performance .ever. and a leather interior. : J The constraints placed on the system are essentially a set of boundaries for the various factors within which the solution to the problem must be foand. •44 . the functional concepts to be employed. If the person must have a car. These mission descriptions or profiles translatc the requirements and objectives of the system into specific statements of performance. radio. the constraints associated with the systein serve to designate the amount of freedom allowed in manipulating system variables to obtain a solution to the problem. and tactics. the spectrum of environments that. wid thus tbere is no solution to the problem. The generation of mission profiles can be characterized by the flow chart shown in Figure 22. However. Constraints can often be used as the sole basis for distinguishing between the feasible and unfeasible alternatives. or a method of operating with resources. and the range and weight constraints. the operational rc'quirements and objectives are determined by considering such factors as the number of missions required.3 DEVELOP MISSION PROFILES After the requirements and objectives have been formalized. If the system being studied were a transport helicopter.for exampie. but they also must be flexible so that they do not preclude solution of the problem.J. Thus constraints can be used to reduce the scope of the problem. I: Itially. and any other requirement as stated in the QM. There is no solution to this probler' within these constraints. a aesired effectiveness. An example is a person who must have a personal automobile: His constraints are that the iost must not exceed $2. In other words. Some of the required missions might be of greater impoi ance than others in the set of m~ssion profiles. the next step is for the analyst to develop the raission description. a period of time. They in fact describe the tasks to be performed by the system In order to meet the stated objectives. 5 [  .
ies meeting the ritks cicassoiated winthrm the obetivemaynbe tno o (2 Pstlaio isios s otsley jb oraalst. Functi. Type (tact. Number or missions .Characteristics Weapons the misConcepromile The pPaetrrorstofiludrisoehemsin)sol (1) m~~ission ilitaryccmmunities nical and (3) asrte cnieertaevoingms bea teeask iporetant. Mobility Requzirements Speed Maneuverability Payload Requirz'e nts .# logist. reureet Communication Requirements of cOe~u~*Number nicatior ' devices 4 Types~ . maytr necssayto elmiae sionssebseauae high. *Reconnaits sac Inomto .2ate8i .Number of weapons . .onal concopts .AMCP W 919 AiWObjeativei Opeostiona Requfreamntui A .) Commanid and Control *Doctrine *Intelligezrce. .
. tknoi. a'..1a of s . xar.'eiv' sLonali:.* Some of the performance requirmentlisted in the specifi..r: ei. such as sensitivity..odel.catlon 'or the ANTAPN7OA.l l::.Tr%. I'.n oscillator ral. 'xc rar.'2< anc stabiity. and their relevance to the problem being addressed must be examined thoroughly.. m%: not 1b tive. i.cbJeip .ms . quirements of the AN/APN70A (a navigaticn re! iing set) are q good examplie.a ermerrfortn r.t .r t:. their expected interactinns. (5) The missions must be able to be modeled  (war gaming/scenarios).t1e 9ndn wh I:h .. ouwl' beto els "C"o 'IlLator rIivrlat on may bt ar L...4aticn. '. Cf scjnonar. sbcr" I.'. wl.. r 2'. This analysis will show which variables are critical (and nay require more detailed study) and which variables can be ignored.rz r nPn. therefore. 2. directly associated with the ob. the r* u reocnt tbediff toe APN70 is to re. seicctlv`l*.e ters.'.w. * From MILHP6B i .ieýtive co the rn.1''er checking function a. threat.(4) The missions must be sufficicnt"y detuiled to enable •he analyst 'o test all the significant system parameters.v5 o r. •ccuracy..''' aw s .isely whihn rwrcom scýinuisi.nere ro . be Thu: an 'Item.ren n mrt~n 'rc as el. porraotn r. because some performance requirements interface The performance remore closely with the system objectives than do others. Consequently.'h. r'a: e no tivL ' the bceci _ t _'. cult 'o E>wever..4 OSTAIN CRITICAL PERFORMANCE PARAME TERS There is no precise procedure for defining a systemn and its boundaries.r."nce of the alternative systems. a valid sensitivity analysis can be made. are .!.r. er: of n C.e:':. sytem are rt tnt. perfurmance parareter: ttrrt Of.Cf t>.verra 'ce.r ..c. cn. Not all performance parareters of q systerm will be neeced in the evaluation of a system's effectiveness. achieve the objec. is f rst necps:'nrv ". Of eA.:"i pr. The final step in generating the mission profiles is to combine all the various inputs into a scenario format that represents the combination of sys tem requirements. and tactics. The missions tLtus serve 1 as transfer functions which relate thp system objective to the perf=rn. all pvssible variables vwthin the system. If many variables are considered in the study. "The general description of the AN/APN7CA is that it ic a receiving set designed to furnish navigation information to aircraft up to distances of 11300 nautical miles from special ground transmnitters. a[pear that ml.thout b. If a ry.\•:.'cpa.s and WouLd. ".i . . that1to talk tntel'. environment.ro..' th.
and there are some variables that can always be controlled . Still other variables are never subject to control for example. For example. The expense of changing these repair times is earlier phases. the time needed 1o repair a failed item during the operational phase can be the times to repair are distributed according to some observed generally higher in Other variables must be assumed these variables can be the operational phase than in early phases of life.5 SYNTH$ESIZ 2. Some variables that cannot be controlled can be influenced through variables that can be controlled. inputoutput formats.accuracy. memory and analogue to digital capa transmit and receiver losses. rt.gain. Antenna . lives. controlled to some extent during the planning and design phases. Later.5. distance. always subject to change.range.for example. of cost parameters is Hence. CSMuters . input power roquirerents. For example. the cost of fuel exceeds of the two are the same. coverage. bility.ýViceived of in which the cost of amnunition ev..!rm wSystem" appears to develop a ralar set. Another example is a battlefield war game in which player A's strategy includes influencing player B's moves through the control A has over his own forces. capacity.ract Within the company thi. noise characteristics. money. function. or area. The cost parameters will depend on now costs have been defined in the costA effectiveness problem. For example. Another factor that must be considered in defining the critical parameters is the concept of controlled and uncontrolled variables.I . physical limita tions. system operation. Janina vulnerability.1 ALTEINATIVE SYSTMiS a mi1t' untU1 a certain turn of events limits ar be . language capability. computational speed. 2. to be distributed according to an assigned or predicted function during the during system operation.e. receiver sensitivities.. Two examples of variables in this category are the mission times and mission frequencies for a new helicopter. during performance Some variables can be controlled early in the system's life. Later. The criticality They may be time. controlled. transmitter power outputs. the weather. a .3 raltir tny be thought of is a 210 VOW.'n though the icilar costsq The Total System to defy unique definition.1ompry may have a con'. AMCP IWI*i owmmlncgtiois . pay scales. and number of channels. one man's sys A The t. fuel cn'nsumption may be hardly considered the quantity available. i. ý. retreval speed. A common example is the set of variables representing the opposition's reaction to changes in strategy directed at them. tem may be another man's component.
ýt~c.he% neel for which the Object System is being d evo Lop 1. constraints. Relatod systems are those wlih whlh the Object Systers must . However.izen ". and others). demand nystem charac'erizen the potential users of th.AMCP 706I91 system. Development of the Object Syatem must be accomnitshed in consonance with the requirements. for example. The Object System may be defined fragmentally to coincide with the scope of development responsibility which a prime contractor would normally be charged with. Ob.' coninuncatlonr: service and their habits and technical requlr"monts. a. This world is shown In the figure. transportation system. however. At the center of the total system is what is termed the Object Syztem. it might br the nppriarh of an enemy aircraft. It will suffice for the purpose of this Guidebook to define the total system as it is shown in Figure 23. ?he demand may take the form of a threat more rpecfircally. trIstics of the world in which it categorized into four blocks. a definite danger is involved in not recognizing adequately at any given level of consideration the relationship of the given system to all potential supersystems and the Impited interfaces. . a maintenance (such The to degrade system performance environment. this same radar may be visualized as only one element of a larger "system" which he is planning for the control of aircraft over a gegrapnitc area. rystem which provides service (such as a ommt. 1ho yatemi is one which is necessary to the performance of the line.ntcations system) the. This latter ma•'s system. Soystem se Envmronbtent System w Object would3n tem t ln d Related Systems Systems THE TOTAL SYSTEM oupportlng A n system.e in performing Its Intended functIon. electromagnetic demand system charn. or systcms. Tn a milit~ary rituntion. and interface ý'harac will ultimately operate.ooporsw. For an Otject. might oe one part of a much larger system which has a mission of rtanaging a large mass air There is really nothing wrong with any one of these persons feeling his own scope if design is a system. in turn. To tfe customer.lect System but not In the direct functional The environment which would tend physical environment.
r. a system or 4et . . (6) single reception and analysis (7) transmlt/recelve diflexing.nicM realization that each function •./ Daic Alternatives •. 1 m:. rn..itr R"~t:. * A working knowledge of the stateoftheart capabilities and limitations in technical areas from which the potential new system may be drawn. Anr appreciation of the ultimate user's capabilities and limitations.system analysis should not !ttcnfttined only to the Object System but should be used to charanterize the :our a'urrourding system categories.y. :'ir... Eich of the above functions has a rather direct relationship to . the functionsi necessary to support a longrange rearch radar are (2) antenna. 13.. •n . and to need.nn i.1re .2.: L'Ienttfilation should be carried down to the lowest missionoriented level. System synthesis requires among which the more Important are: An adequate understanding of the mission profile. (8) signal processing. i.. techn1'a1 not to unintentionally preclude approach to configuring a system. lines lnlicktIng only very basic relationships between blocks.tom Confieuration Synthesis After the req"'.on of lonpgrange radar search. Table 21 ystem. p1lii. .. : 'r~~ .xcoinnl•.m."...mtnce parameters obtained.Th 'an Le enumerated..'ments and objectives have been defined.inal formation and amplification... the critical .. and (9) sig. :". the advice of experts.AMCP 706191 Thus.nI#:.at" alternative systems can be synthesized.h ian enumear' Ion for the Zenith mli*s ile 7•L... This system is more complex than the and In t'trn the breakdown is not carried to as low a level of The breakdown in Figure 24 is shown in block diagram form with the .ned. r. ir. al area~. wo see that during the development phase....'r. Figure 24 illustrates a similar breakpower supply.'rl. Tril.1::. have been defl.a . One l . . .1 . ph:.• el'rmont. For (i) 'n:.. rtn pll..izat•lon of the hnsc( flnr tloni . L Basic Functional Subsystems in questionable or critical Th. and the mission profile structured. * Corrmlm ens tochn L. .complishing the mission. Intuitlve• judgment concerning the effect of combinations of equipments operating as a system. jeveritl ingredients. (3) antenna drive. (4) antenna feeds and watch(5) 31.arelful. nuprlrtrin.t step past a mirsion profile definition i& the identification of Sfkzcttono nec'ýssary to any system capable of a:. The lefthand column Pupport ing the mirsion.ra•nple groundtcair missile system.1. L .'Sy:. 7 in ta:Ing this firAt step.•rtI'ulnr denrtlf4..
Is a column for entering design factors which could Influence tte selection from among the options. To accomplish an equivalent effect.ýrtaln S[ I Airf razie Servo Control Surfaces SR Iead Converter Interial Platform P~ower Scurce i Coiputer Amn and Fuzing Warhead Data T~ink • iData litnk L Thruit Control Pouso Tropulsion FIGUIC 24 ZUNITN MISSILE SYSTEM .1 the .eatedorion contains the configuration options which could conceivably accomplish the function.AMCP 706191 TVhce are arranged from top to bottom roughly in a reversed order starting from missile detonation.insile is to be detonated over or near frienoly forceA. a nonnuclear warhead would involve several times the weight of the nuclear warhead. a nuclear warhead tas certain disadvantages over nonnuclear warheads.FUNCTIONAL DIAliAM 213 . Next. I1. An examspie of a related mission factor can again be given regarding the choice of warheads. Same of the factors entered in these latter two columns will undoubtedly be the basis for eliminating many of the possible configuration optionb. The next column includes factors relating to the use of the system (such things as side effects of the selected options). An example of a design factoris warhead weight. In studying Tab2e 2I. The first ofr the bai. Others will simply require consideration in making a choice. .
3 54 C3 00 P. '. ( .) a) cd) VI " 0o 4 Oj ) ~4. d 0 44 0 P4 to) C 0 vl 4A . 4 Luj 0.44 41)t od co v4  ' ~r 0* U) 54 LaiJ 4 t) 41 4 V( .4 t 4 0 1 0) C Cl 0 54 0 4).4  > 0 0 4)I1.AMCP 706191 40 0 to t4 5.0 . .4 r4 V o C. A. U)54 rf40)u to 0 4 4 (d . 161 > u V) r.4 Cl TI 0 CS al LI % . L~j 44 Cen 4 . Ito .4 00U to tma ~I 0 bb l Q.
l'or pre'ct1'2al purpr~~es.. 1. couAld be called .vel parramaterzs boý. a I. For exatiple.ynthe~is is to define a hiserarchy of' p~aramieters w~hich bridge the~ cha~mu bet'weýn mission profilet..t cases.a parametors.s~vol per'formen~. to say that the underscored parsiretfrz. 0.'e are rLwo basi~c misbion pterforman. At the top ot' the figu*. Avoiding7 th" question o!' what Ir J. is not necessary to (3a s0 a this s.bInonu or' options will turn out to be Impractlcal from the interrfet7ý stawipoint. rnoIul. are called system l.AMCP 706. tharacteris'Licf: of' deisign options. and l'unctional suzbzystern perf'orma1nce. and the bfa~iC ".I¶erarchy corresponding to the 7#ýnllth smystem.rn art:ý undlerseored with heavy linef.1 be countinued down to tne le"vtf W. The parainetere whi.inctional elementrc an defined in T'ible 21. suf'fice 1P.2. Ite hierarchy In Figure 25 conceiva~iy ýoul. not.owever.ycmt.3 1 1 FIGURE 25 HICRARCHY Of PARAMETERS .91 ý:umtgU. toritaterrenta about ýtsteut'thettrt arid gros. Figure 2'3 depict. In noi. since týhe lowest leveie InAthe fig~ure repres'ent pararietetu o.tago of' 1"v'elopmentp r.a Identify Useful Sytuter Level Perforýiance Parameters Thei next step In the prcc'ras of' sysitemn . repreaent what*.i they are the UinY between mlnsion pro!If'll 3tatements.5. the une( of thrust vector ':ontrol alone mayv be sule' cut if* the terminal flig~ht ot' the mimssile Is to be unpowered.nlch entily relate..ý nnil evon plecepart output parameters.:e pijLramt e r's: 'ki111 prubability (P ) anj time to react and et'tect a k~ill.ystem level arid what I.1.
proach. 1 !i'ii Linecari ty it Notio' range EffI I ti DO I v D I Ic.o II1 i'o threthold j3at'Lratllo.ria !o b ti FycIq IM Sen~it~vIt Frril' hr. of' view. They are (10 the technical lt~tabI~iiy of a proposed technkicalip. LDyn~aic AUBLE 22 CHARRACTERISTICS PERTINENT TO ASTATE or THE ANY ANALYSIS IELECTRONIC) Ccmt Ln~.n which wqoul~d be sublect ot' scrutiny in dettrmining. Taule P2 I& Illus~trative of the overall 1tt~m. (2) time phase consideratlon ..AMCP 706191 21.tyor a giver. qnd (3) the economic Implications or Incorporottirg. tirnrt frame. ar'oa. rr#~ o prant. .tevelopmnen. criticiU' derigi. or component.I' ra V It) rfIf'c tor KCI oi r . .IhouUI bo viewed fromi three general polntt. each crit~ca1 dealggn area.7 StateoftheArt Analyeis In a st'ateuftheart ainalysis.5.ýurlbing ctll of the particular technical approach rlating to the ma~nbtreaz. the stateoftheb! t ~~i i~i'. hee ttýJhnlcaI aplproacn into the system.
hen~ 'ar~inf nr' cr t..orrio d~ii ois made that furtherE h by 'ncrea~ez ilt2efor zcubsequent 4erI'n It lo:i rifl1 reluces tho.:pi Lt ~c yrtet7 Is Completely d(r7in'rd.Lrequire atlref.T. 'rttleritlon 1.r:At urtoh !*tr. it i F a. t'i*:: k!rt!. ludo wheni hactior . oion: on ft'rntv varlable seiection should be continually tnrl .'. One ol. tho major benefits of at& analysis in that itcan generate new 4..f'p ' nlumbhr i~"..: Ing..lh. zay !hc c~omuni .. ný:'snary In responne tt" r.yrtem' si fir '.' !'Utujr' ():' thýe 11yrte Selctior of one of these alternatives 1!..'t 'an' rno I 'I.nli'ysic. ut'.. 2.e I. with an Idea and i::t~go "t :'*:.t* ~''i . .: 1o ... Iriitla...y'er. .. r' ri .ay the:'rne.. throur ý.. many Iin.ning.t' fra.>i..*c~t rnh*.4.s t~o  ~r. r.*h may be~ combinations or modifications of existing J~itlyif! ~ progr~te.sI * 'buout tthe nyctein.to ti.voAut. certain altternatives3 are well defined at the beginning of . lon or' a ýysitert I.ierit!1i Uzuailly. detk~rmine1 ty profile:.an~alyzed f'or quitntificationor~ theses alternatives are also.Cortiuuit ion AC 0..: o" or ti: ttl ternot. The Iob'..:. r. or e'!vriu'ýOol Irn terrncr . rr 'f r' the *er~t atinue v. ny nemn ! w~~~::in the subzyzterTn.ithin  ~1n:'. of A 2te. a.ey.' t e" 'r' r! r:~ w !iJ ~r.ea that can hnv6 a nignificart Q11 tf.n whlch ~ : .At Thoe frtr one I eriei. . e.~~ 'b gr I.ives.z 1*. in knowledge About .9 "rhit rnjor ooipý'tlnjg altefrinatives iiiust be identitried or cyntheuized.o). .:! procurcrent 'A' atiew nionile..n~tt hrwt'~c a#ah..ý.'c~1V r(:ý7'rrcP.yt.la deployed. I 1 legrsee :. identification and select~on of . With each temn .don: a . appi icat I '.ige tnorre aroe vitotrnatl'. ..1. throu'gh preliminary sen~sitivity 12.sr.'~tr .~t. The! ho! in*r r the r.. ý.ib<:i.i. :'rs'r' ob..n 1.''t or: tern.. r onra! .u. eh'..~In ?nowl~'i..' Ip. !.Ir.g.. Onoo n mit :o AI .. ''hI: p'T:'~.h u: comp~ex procesr. vc. I. 'I'rwlthir.o'Ž .rnailve fumvn of whl.A.* 5.t~ve IrýriL!*' m ..1 DEVELOP HARDWARE CHARACTERISTICS Th'' h: ar'Jw'ir ' etl' " "or m'"!.vt. u!' at tunt ion to~ [A nfew iet. t ivern and resoure I 'r.' .rnati¶Jet. . mlisri 1.. jui¶ I~r . . tthreat. y. It begin. artillery . '.
romusvt be rairczted to the syst'!mi att. 3y. 'rho WSEIAC* pf'~t~rc'dU.ffectiv(:.ity. 2.buten that.ware characteriattca for a comiaunicot~ton system wou~ld be dooterviined ty the perform'Wice requilrements (range. while the muatt ip eengine is safer .:r output which war bhf& 'wQ Ci :'cr buying. I. i. utimi'tte' output of Eauiy ay.. .ýte.i. app~ile. zyv'tenm rellablllly..:i~c rtr but for the Present It Ir c uff:ýInnt to oA.". otc. .nferal definition: . If th'ý y:'eti~ it performsn tthi: function well.. 1. weucnt.' nr'o e it 1: urzloll of *.icch as L31ttiLt'Lctory mesiagv trun:nA. te c:. pe":ted to aiýhieve a set of .i j . lestia In m~ainitenance U&Wl Inltia~l lnvtjtent. w gz . if 1t.Art? deficient. efe' tI'UO ben defined In a number of' waiy:.1 ISTAILISH BASIS FOE IVALUATING CFFECTIVENESS Th. channel cuipa(. (ete~Atq.. tile sys~tem: the perfurmance of somiw irittended funic1±0n. j: * .AMCP 70S191 (Lsz~t!nttlly..d by ýioufl. asy "!x..muEffectiveness Is a mneasure o~f tihe exte#.nded1 :'it Ioni. Or. not #. i~' ri e~p ri'pp roi~ch rconlzi~t o!i' U b. tC' n 1:: 'r! .:t Lns'Ž: r :.rlbe the overull capabili1ty uf UIzy:'tem to accom~iplish i¶. performancer of Somne Int'.~ij*: L tA 'l \ t. htij Ic ftppros~ch for evalutit Ing the rI *r or nrirAytlc.nt tc wYhlt it my.te:!i 4. Ti.to Jýh±l. t'. i . f1epcfldtat! 1. I ' .3 of' the variety of aystems to which 11.'f.r1'fttblor . . rj .pecc fi... Tho~ (ipprk fv1 Ir n elo ih n. `L y. n..ed tlh.temn. ol.y~vem or weather identification in tin ai~rborne wezathcr radaiir.i*thaL cytrmi iz latftd to that property of zyz. Tni~i function 1:...fomfir&.Irl.3 wiuiabiil*y. P rmr'.te.nalcn In o . 1. 1'requently culle'l t!:.~ : A4 *. ~pu~ r~terL~ti B ':l.xnisz ion Inl the cy're Of a For othe~r typez of oystem.) fjflj by the constrairits on weihr~blt.. ma~y b'e deiszr~b#.no... a singleetigiresystemn vost.r A more preelue uefinlltion of' this sexprerzlrn w .tni'r:gi (C'Wh* m Ti. of't~n u:ý'j.he fiystLem' .` 1fyt rppron.nd 1eue vunerr~ble to enemy The hard.( tern.  ' '. i~nd cafjU11 11ty.i.
ani na r. For the very simplest of cases. y .rat Ifn.e following funlamc. botms 2on00 . Availability is a measure of the system condition at the beginning of a mission.. in whiL h a system must te In either a working or a failed state. as the data becomes more available and as confidonce in their value increases. the analytic model gradually Smerges into an eizpirical model.mnt a r. mlsion? * If it " If is working at the start. a balance is sought.ta_ questltnos: ifpendatilty.* an i s on rqe '. given the system condition t the start of the mission.' *'men ! h r mode p 1 . dependability is a measure of the system condition during the mission. f rearf . crability represent t1. inornryV t. m o1n! repaIr. not very useful. Although the empirical methods are required to provide inputs to the systems analysis/costeffectiveness process.. One analytic effectiveness model that has generally been accepted is the WSEIAC model. and capability.• * wh'.availability. the measures of avai~abiiiv." The need for analvtic mndels to predict system effetiveness is based on the r"ed to evaluate the effectiveness of a system before it has been in the field for many years. t. 1 o . wl 1 t us'/ iy h" .!Iu P f. states. IPI moles of( p. and the capability measure relates these possible sys~tem states to the possible mission outcomes. it is necessary to delineate possible mission outcomes and signifIcant cLsten. an. arr more than two possible sI rteI 7 h tFir dr. w'. the ml'ssl or. ol" t1h. while the latter yields answers unsupported by facts. given the system condition during the mission.ra f.Lred becore t Tes I m! m. ) cm. ..vf mission si'seSS7 As th. it is the analytic aporoac'i that is the most important and useful. The WSEIAC model is baseJ on a breakdown of the effectiveness parameter into three maJor components . on•rmt. of course.. given a mission definition and system uescriptioci. The availability and dependability measures are then re'ated to the possible system states. statistical sample data "supplant the assumptions. capability is the ability of the system to perform its mission. To apply the mocel. I hprf. and " Is the system working at the start. This balance will normally As data about the behavior of the system bacomes more available.rPr. the mission? the system works 1 nl•ru 'It worklnz threuho'. dependability."AMCP70i191 Purely empirical or purely analytic methodologies are. during the life cycle of a system. The former yields highly authoritative data too late to be useful. througho)ut. 1 env I ronm.rr i. Schange In practice. 'a rpnmfit •.
alab lit epenabiitCapability FIGUil 26 SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK Effect 1 Avaiability Scheduled Maintenance Checkout ependat.uj. The general framework Lr the analysis of system effectiveness is in Figure 26.epair Time Mean Time Between Maintenance Actions Spares Loctrine L Yod e s aci'. but they still represent the fumdamental WSEIAC approach towards evaluating *ffectiveness on a missionoriented basis... Sectlins 2.AMCP 7MI01 questions may be.7. too diff±.t Range Operational C onvironment 1a lure Rates a Teegrade Mds•If~alr Circular Errcr lrobatllty Hours of Operation Channel of Trouble "Shoot .1 through 2.7. and are outlined in Figure 26A.Lt toanawer with simple model construction. Mode nf oxration ower Output  :_ingle Thot Kill 1rot abillty Manpr" r FIGURE 24A ELEMIUTS OF EFFECTIVENESS . given The elements of system effectiveness are discussed briefly in L j . 1 .3..
spec.s. it is therefore usually necessary to define more han one system and its associated mission and to define availability for each "aee.of "ant in ro ro p of Iake. However. inme. missions an! 20 percent are Incerative.7. several tanks. a.onuer~n9 the system's condition at the start of a mission.. 1' "i :. the more generel WSEIAC definitior. whe' 'O perter' .o.rie.for example.se.'s' abe for acs irneer' at any '. In another 9!1.. an analyst may be equally Interested in :he availabilIty of a single tank. R " " . be a measire ct' . Application of the availability concept requires clear definition of what is included in the system and of the system's reission.Tbll'v of zero wer P11 larks ½ "•e ýrop are opera '. In estimating a system's availab~lty.orhl. Availability has also been expressed as the protability that the system is operating satisfactorily at any time. A.be possible to draw a replacemer.'Ido anks for spenWc r'ss'orns as req :red. For . since it migh. when used under stated conditions. Assume that the system is defined as a group of fo'ir tanks (frcm the 2r) and that the mission is to attack as a group.f'.e r. and performing '1'eir assigned nrssP. arnd The measulv of availability will be different in each case.re of "ha' are operational &a an'. personnel. seve:tl systems and several corresponding missions car be defined. and ope'an ' .he Pr tanks. In this ease. is used..2. it I. If at the start of a . snaNe ava]ahi2:'y ray be zero .oisulon one tank is found to be inoperatlve.t'y is considered zero. hoirdware. The WSEIAC definition Is am follows: f Availability is a measure of the systemcondition at the start It is a function of the relationships among of a mission. :mte. then.nter of opora' !onal arks.me.ai~lability to a specific measure. 'f the sys'em cons*s1s cf all 2: anks and 'hse sysc'cn' mission Is lo prc'.zr.•re . and the group of "ank&. and procedures.orr. Pov' this guide book.r possible to conne!ve of ar _'/a'.of 'arnk .rai s'a* .n from anolner vro. with "emard to a group of 21:tanks. Tn this crf. Ir Is not a measiure of *he n .f 'e 'rks are perfrur'. ava'labali•v mi[gh. the system rIll be counted as being in an unavailable state. On the o'her 'and.1 Availability 7I : _ The 'oncept of av•!lab~lity . avali•1. the "system" has been defliied and bounded.at all "arkv• 's s " 'tay `e ''0 n. and yel 't !s no! neeessary o abcr' 'he mission.a' :or 'he eas . The ip the svstem mission 1t 'o ma!r. the wroup mission Is not necessarily aborice. then. care must be *aken to consider now For example.
han others.erformi~ng specific mnisglor"b X2Dependability The second major elie~In the systemerfeotiveneas framework '.hs.f F.f it appliy'rr was hat "Caiiure" be explIcItly def'tned.ýýally der!rned as ý1f probdibI]ly th~at a system will performi catisfac'orx11. not '"~a 1. or a ro~p .ror ~ a' uinder 'hose same condlt ions. oba. 'rn lp2'. l tI 1v " 7 t~'V' f 7r ir '"'in rn' r. defiritiorn of :i~ . eperbI'2.'fA P. rf I 'Ieweapon fall o'release from *'..r the tend4'tric/!:3 te1.dep.se several years ago.! ii'e he favorab I or faorfn'~~I `f rr1~ a system or mission.nd!(saes tre. o S nol I ~ abo."'rnp FIsyal.tI?a' ln o. foi. Ing 1hs.. fort ''.#m nai be iapatle or a rumber of dIfferor.5 coitpoeitlor' antl mnission. tho target. On the 'rther hart'. ror av least a g~er pertlod of time When ased under stated conditions. applI'a*_or if ýtre dependoblllity concept Lequires an exact statement or' ttre syster.r' 131' missInns. Ot~h the concepý of availabillliy. pert ormnfe nder l. one or the rmos' Imor'a:.ý' the causes or consequences of s 1'a' r'..measure of the system condition at ot~e or more points durlng the mission).Pn~ ' toelnd 1.90. (*:e OTw"nirat!on syet~em.r40. (1omhIr.' prrreq~r!*#. T#rero 'r a`J1 ed. .e Ws. protabI~ll'y that.!ýIe systert.por'r e(~ r'' 'O becauie of had wpalher? To eval.nt in tre ny~r'. When the prohablll~s'2. wtn probability 0. Is tined herein since the system's maintainab~lity Qharacterastlc. except that reliability is .. * ' he prot'lems become more oomplox :r 'r" 't e 'Fp rr .P will be obt*IrA'r. It ls Inpl1& * a Vfa.AMCP 706~19 It is imasible that aviablty will be 100 percent and yet a specirf i: acr will be aborted bodauai all'tanks are already p. 4o'~~ar i~onsider 'he 'Ircnums arices surrourddng... given the system condPiton at the start of the m~ssion.orable res. <. A. For !rjathrrce.This Pralermen' a'so l.ore gen~eral WSEITAC def~rln!or. * The nature of this e~oncept in similar to wha' !a coriT2orly referred t~o an reliability. an equIpme.h a wehpon fr'om rot al. Ion may not ionvey 411 tMat should be knowis alboz~ 1* ands relaie'i estetmr.e.ver on~lotA '. i 1*t' ')le r berore reanh~n.es* ' A single eat Irate of dependabilIt.a'oho ~pr'pivrlv. ry '~''. 4n q.f'rc ae no:'e . Is said that the probabH! *v of' 'I: is' arge' wI. etr ~ since to say what Is sdttsftactory. The m. the target will n~o nI' r.a dependability.!' 1r.a fri'!.tank helicopter !a 0. or mloqie~." DIAd 'no weapor. If' L~ertccunrwr rnrrk single i ft oyster.~ urfnvcn1l)p Th Tit~erest may be centered or.s' I necessary to state care fJully What In ro. The WSEIAC definition !a as follows! Dependability is a... also IhlJ~ence its dependability. when It. n '~.
. that was designed 1.''!. Capabil2ity depends to a 91git~ficant degree on 11%e m~sau~or.AMCP 706191 chrarctern.Aarly ae2'dl'. In.e for '.perýp h . F1~ ~epa. in Rt In. Msasuremer't or dependability roquiries identification not only of each critical syitomand mission but also of the Implications or success or failure in each instance.'' f 'he . ..7.)wftP it'rj for o nv Ir'rnme nt a. ire (syser.ored Par~ler *Tha* 1'l's.'erpi'ra' !'e thon t.. I.o accompl~sh a speitf!. ~ vaa.ei.. Then the several estimates or depend~bblity are displayed In the form or a vector.3 Capability The third major elewer. asnivredi lo the syst. 4e or :crp1Px m'soon. orcneyj:F s.: 1V e noted th'at capabl ity or' design.ý' npP. . ~ . adequaey to not solely an !nlherený 'frarafrlerlv le of sysor~ tharaware...thing.'~i roda.In spe !!fl instances system capab!Itiy way be expressed as a probat~lI1sh.stics of the related osyters and mission.fnrve '1~p.e Prys*em I's operating withirs desi. tnodit2 myricml ard appl *.a~'fl ora~..pl R?. 7rP s o ~ *~' nrldsrd .*rnd ttl on rf . glve1 !_hat !!.t). It makes the process more diriftcui.' bv m:.ts rarftc~erIts*Ie of a system It' probabilistic terms I's Dlesign Adeqg. If ".em.en'~qr fail iro a~l'! n" 1Ralk of depioe1t~n l.qr.'y for this new itealon may he1ilThe measurement and probleT In 1ýself.ry well hýave a hIgh tcapabll!y .ap&Nll~y !es ralher com'pTi~x a fC.1ity. rp epvrlad a 'g.. gi.iH:It) !I!.ý la!3 . * *~" 'o iýý !rr. A similar concept that ezipresese *t. or.has not yet beenr standard technilqies..s trv V was~ repr'.1.acy. !'a capatfl'.capab!.. Clav Ts *he f(VtOF).e * nntV . '"~Ia¶I dpAcpý c " 'ar the q'. The Will.s.~ ~*r nu he~weer capah'il": and depenrlabill. Although this type or display does not focilitato the decision ~king process (if any.r' exp1'!!1. . 'rin llpa )f * lin W"'. and t o w Iths tand h Igh lýr~a<! Irotl'sn attri huted t lack rnf dopomndatbI t' `r: Fit.'eaigrn Adequ. *h Flirfh'r.. bi.a or.ven the system condition during the misuior. is definied in the WSEIAC report am follows: Capability is a measure of trne system's ýttllty to achieve the mission objectives.gn specIf~catior. A0 to more ac 2."p j* iaf ýr.hat task.s. whtlct han beeii deftned an tihe probablitiy that a system will ajcce38fU11V aCCOrnPv!ON its m~eelon.he 1 1 wout ( f A A'uro) 1.acy isu~' However. (!n protlh'ab!1'a leeM. the more general WSFJAC def*.nl 'on Is tass1.. Iiitr~e systemerfectiveneso concept. Capability spe'!Iltcally acco. it does 1e curate decisionmaking.i . Ire and the rcinvressrre:rdl'. 1v hyA *diep'*ndlitb I I I.. this gulde book. prediflicr of norr. t se for a rro:.rts for' ire performnance spectrum of the system. for '~~K. ple ml s 1ona I n he are also presert !r the concep. bo p~r*!'. ¶V eflned V.*df. A system.*1fled tby The system analyst n.!oPip*. 1 nrm thef~ .
2 defining measures of effeztivene.. a'.. severe environmenta (perhaps 40 mph at 800?). for other systems. ness have been develo. 6ystem effectiveness of the tire In either case.t ibupr unsa fa.ct.s systems.". Frer_uert fa~irf.ss can now be expressed the system mlssic. the effectiveness oecause the decisionmaxer can still is presented as four separate numbers. cannot be obt&ined. 2.1 HUE KANHS if IFFICTIMIESS The measures of effectiveness** for same systems are easy to obtain and "commonly accepted  such As tonmiles/_. er. the effectivenesi mst be related to the.: 1! y ' .y for a transportatioa system. on the blotiit ocfurs an a tire des. it is not possible to This is make a of system may be measured in system reliability.  In the operational sltuqtion..t. but Its capability (for the particu:ar misston) was less than adequate. terms of info:rmation rate. but its dependability was low. ia below the acceptable level.rornc to a af. not necessarily a disadvantage. terms of how long it If tckes to in.'.re nea~s "e en.ý. and system availability combine these four factors into one overall measure of effe.s ma'y be measured At another tire. i. .ed In that the effectlvene~s as a probatlilty c.r n *ree nlas. the frequency of unsatlsfacory rorformance. a&: ompilshnIng all er a gi..e..'eatly reJu•..'. t'r.'e b'n iu may be measured Intruding tank colurn. choice even if couroe. in At one time.Ity. • Iack of either Also 'alt'i . then the failure is attributed to lack.. res of ' .1pd to o"rate in MACh 1008 ': the other hand. spee. other cases. and singleshot kill probability for an antitank uissile.. For example. whi>1 nfrejl. in norma' clperatlýn maker :apability susp•.f. of capability. In the second case the system's it is Important to note that the dependability may have been high. all def'r.iiat~r••y SUape•.tiveness. 'hannel capa..ie~t !a! .i. the prCblem of the misston proflles . However.r. however. cr iepaiat.# In the first c~ae the tire (system) had adeq'ato *a#ability. t Much worK Its urrn" tivanass. the :hoLce may not be as simple or cledrcut..rr. bss d r.. including many electroniz.rcep! .•u~es.AMC#7l# sattsfactwoy operetion were defined to Itclude these severe gnviahmtC.en part of where A set of specIfic mission profiles rarge. physical character Istics of the syster. effectven.. In g.rlt'rla 1. for example. etc. The measures of eff'ectiveneas are subject te chanwge with time in a battlefield situation.t no over&!! meabures of effecLivethe effectiveness of a communication information reliability.!". ait in terms of the iamage inflicted on enemy supply r.
.... modeal integration is a great deal of interaction azor.1 Oe~a A sys7t•n model to easaeatialy a xmther"%tleal.......ael ouilder is required. there are many other schemes for classifying models.. There Is.. naturally. mentation.. to construct a model that will enable quantifLattior... the assumption that a set of system objectivea has been translated into ax'optlzization criterion... the areas of cwncern is __T ros itU o po: 3 r * : tIt f_ .... largely hecause the va' dity of the model cannot be tested tnrough controlled experlthus the collaboration of people with wide experience in an important requirement....9..AMU 746101 2. I A . ConAtructing sutmodele (and Intpgrating them Int• still for most *real wotld= situations. For deallng with the effectiveness of complex systems. and required [I required. 'rhe overall submodels.•+(mathematical model) or totlputer program for simulating system operation I jOn "I (siulation model). It Figure should be noted that each of which may be based on modals at still effectiveness 27 Indicates one means for submodel classification....... or phileal repreawtution ot the tntoowepadencies beituem the objectives and the resources as lsoatd wi t h the systo and Its use. A I ML t r dsIAC "O _ a SSU I IIIII AT sc +T(..... the ... of the critical and cost parameters as a function of the resource variables... in the same sense that system Integration iE an overal model) is.. minimally... or both...a the submodels... the mudol 4 usually In woe form of mathematical equations :.... logical...... costeffectiveness model Is usually one that consists of several lower levels... more cf an art than a science........
tn may lead to Ilianrru." " '. ':.'.'*ertAInty. r cLL.r ' n f•p '. I 1.hanpulPt'^n of the model.9. rr • ?rprc. a t t e . .' el:tp.ih P r:.... In this sense they are quantifiable.or ..r•#. .a nr ot.'y.t. a ia.'Thanr e.AMCP 706191 Z. the general '. AS afn example..ogical unmrtalnt•' v.4 Representat iveres. b!.3 Adequacy A model must bi adequate in the sense tLat &11 major varlables to which t.(. .e :g .• errors might be introduced. ' . Trruugh n.j: rr.mA prurtsr Tn v a r 'f %Al t yp . ah Inputs to a Ir. that the model reasonably represent tne true. r n U.. wtch must. in '• n. : t. in order to Indicate the degree to whiqh ýhe &zsumptions will require further Justification and to pinpoint th! areso in whic. x .r 2.wsuttons All assIapt Ok requireo for the mz4el should be explicitly steated and.ou~n no mndel . n. s T} .. For *thr "n of' cyp.:An r. . . If no such evidence exists.. "Th. . r' r r.'ity..1.k.r.V ýuptý *.t er gcvprned by the laws rc:.4' .i razie tor..oat. There may oe t. rr ."rea..nunques. The output.v may be usod.ei act. o f u lCer t . Fc. .l.u)purts cf tht proLleint.ertaln.h Ii.xtne I no.. t... .uarefy.hez• .ntem alternatlveh. it is required A1".g.. re"' roessin' correctly for every uncertalr. supported by fact ual aviwence.r vtrir. worla". a' ther/ I nr .9. mathematical simplicity or consensus of opinion.:. tr..1" .. . a I muI lat ton prc'edure "..e norel.mple. te w. analytic representation may be pooslult !t.onp 'r.v In !.I.. . 4erzttional un.• ma.rr i.an they be "azsune.1 and '>•t 1he rrylzg m:. e. ''y . cy '0  *4" a tdnn . it Is advisable to state the reason fot.he solution is sensitive are quantitatively considered whe:e possible. be pieced together through appropriate .  nr•r . some of the variables may be excluded or restrictec. . ap~rra•. "I m r. I neor. t.. p " " .. Many or these variables will have been preselected. ..l. ty ':uit' .7edured as Monte Cqrlo ýechniiu•. the assumption. furnct.. cf" u complex maintenance rt s. 's tf: mavae "best guesses"..' hno. frved cr. miuy tý.'erta'ntie about enseny trat#. if possible..f.: r. rter. " resuItant costad piptat I r: at r. Pf• to a Ft P . f'*. Nonquantifiable variable6 must be accounted fcr by modification o: the solution rather than by direct Incorporation Into the model. 2. cltuatlun. .'r .'c alrra t.. '.7' r tit.2..ertalInties lftInvolV..celi. pia. this maj Oe pus.l .an ?. 2. ftr t r "Ar.. . nert aint' oJ I i n. ur %*•. and others may be introduced.r cars Irnvorivlng statistic&I ur..4 tvk.2 As'.Ible only for For complex problems.ma'..
' 0'.e . en c.. eu~e. AMP7.. . .vy GnO 1W~i 10u if re q~tI red to obt aIn the nect sa i y d~ta.Vt r.pot supýrb just4 the model accordingly.*''" % .1!1.j* descr~ted below.a ft . 7t. h¶ 1 a% ~ . . os. T'iere gire se*.e"'r '2. Wg. of the tour lsypcthesift enate~orinn..&v ta !mot~i rolo. ''t tý. 2 general Qr provide a groat iJpr. .2.> r..9 tIn icaee ment and application or amd.te#i (1)~ Coi:str. icn: i: weakesse tha canbe orrec*.** '"* '. .*.rt 21.9. 1. 6t..*** airnplit'ytl'g the ~ ~ ~ .. 1± t en h ae t fi.' 1i.! . . v it. to the a !n *' '* .ilability of reltvant :iatu &r.6 Data The av.:.' 4 t n 4~II hOne. If at Prvýt tht: JANUy~ L Y ' &. r 1.' Unf ortna ue .
( 228 . all aspects of the system. generally Examples are a controlled experiment of in a simulated operating enviroitment.9. and its operations are simulated in an abstract form.4' Operationsl Exercise. usually through I compute. In the operational exercise. 2. or physical analogs.9. computer programs. 2. programs. The basic operational flow is structured and probabilistic paths are determined through appropriate randamvatiaole generatinZ procedures.9.8. An example Such computer models are popularly called Monte Carlo procedures. operations and resource usage are simulated Personnel in through scale models.3 Simulation Modelb In the simulationmodel technique.AMCP 70191 l 2. is the simulation of component failure and repair times to provide estimates of system availability and maintenance and logisic requirements.2 Gaming MoeeLs In the gamingmodel technique. and thus the number and extent of the trials must necessarily be limited. Examples of gaming models are military war games and the use of aircraft simulators. its resoureusage. actual systemresouweed re sed. weapon firings involving military personnel and resources. anda military field The costs of such exercises are generally maneuver between red and blue forces.8.8. high. operational decisionmaking capacities are participants as an integral part of i the model.
a basic routine for oonutruoting an approp.no probability of a systemstate transition from state i to astage over a fixed period of time 01I 02 C .UOuri the mode: framework. a&dependability matrix. the "model" is actually a framework for effeotMveness qianf '. . •  . As stated mam times in several waks in the WSIMIA• Ta•k Group II rport. represented by the K) 229 . and a capability vector.iate model. • • . the dependability matrix . . Alt. . ?4 • .is i the probability that the sarstem is in state I at the begirrwin af the mission the probability that the system will make the transition from state o state 3 over a fixed time period oij i the probability (or expected value associated with mission accomplishment) that the system can perform its misslonsgiven state1 It Is emphasized that the WSZTAC Model Is not a selfcontained# directly applicable mathematical equation tor: efiaotiveness. an]t the availability vector d2 1 d22 D = • Ldnl dn 2 dij ] . .. . given the system is in state j A typical term of the product is A D C aI dia Ca where "aj is d 1 .4.ctlon .AMCP 7019 The basic EBIAC sy'steueffeotiveneds equation is the produot of an availability vector. the capability vector o  the capability of the system for performing the mission.. a2 . • 1 d1 d1 1" d2. which are defined as follows: [a I 1 I probability system is in state i at the beginning of the mzssion drl .
with' its solution. then the offoatIvenesi Is represented by Z(tk) (0At)F (tk)] If the mission is one in which continuous perfomance is required over the mission length t 3 ..)] of the system at time tk for all t. assuming wellbehaved funotions. If D (tr.number of system state*). dependability.  As a simple example. an If the Nkrkov assumption holds. An extension to the VSSIAC methodology is necessary If the Narkov assumption In this case. td)] (2 (t11 t. the above equation for 2 reduces to the expected fraction of the mission performance time that the system is in a satisfaotory state. tE IuL 3 I(t) dt mJ Note that if at each performance time the eapability coefficient oj equals one. and if state J belongs to the "t of satisfactory states and is zero othervise. (_ 230 . Exhibit 1 presents a systemeffeotiveness problem. the end of the mission. tC. and capability be inoorporateaS in cuizh a manner that the model framework could be applied.that io. It wis not Intended that this product be always directly applicable . that illustrates the application of this technique. this it not reasonable. the effectiveness of the system.AMCP 7@ ~l~ product A V 00 can In some instanes be used directly. [D(tr. may posaibly be quantified as the time average of 2(tk) . to)]I (tr' I.. the oapability matrix must be written asan does not hold.e.only that the elements of availability. Matrix (N . with an entry for each state transition. this sMiple product will not work for a particular systmamission omabination. product A 0 in actuality is based on the iu assumption that mission performance Is evaluated at a single point In 4t1e to) Por manr oases. Is defined to be the dependability matrix over the time interval (t rP to). such that tr<ti<ta.
the remaining one is capable of transmitting alone (A and D are statistically independent).1e! EXAMPLE OF SYSTMEFFECTIVINESS PROBLEM Two communicatons *ystems A e&Ad . Smlnd either of the systoem fail. respeotive moan failure t1mos.tial) A normal tmra 6 hours 8 hours 120. it is not neessary in order to start that both A and I be Id operable corJIUt. r  A' A 12 hours (o~ezostial) 12 hours (eWpne•. Failures in either 'or both) systms are not repaired 4uri•g a transission period. r4VW231 .AMC? 706. are used slmaltameously to tranmit information.c a transmission). but are repaired during a period when the equitpments are Wolmaly shut down.000 jAur 10C0000 bItsAiur s•saion period oonslste of 3 unint4•rupted hours. A tr nwIssion will be started whenever at least one of the systems is available (in other word*. man repair times and bit rates for A and D are given bolow: System Tean Failure Time. T LThe Remr Tranemisusi• Rate.
232 3 ( . 2L it• tA". 9If effectivenoes to defLna4 "s th pr~obability of trwmtsattinS at loeat 300. Ineesed at chsaing the valmee of Y.. 2 I. the values of! awI both decreased 500 For all questiois."ue or eare in What.000 bit* dturlrd A• Aoml traunmisiofl peio? VWat to Ch effsetivenones ti effectiveness of A and B ccsbired. instead of ohiUWng the values of 1. the value* of I awe both do•me4 50 S~n Vihst is the answer to queetion 2 if. the systso state deolamtnIon vill bet Oontiguwatton Al State *mb~r 1 A.Is the anwowr to Question I it.) nAmber of bits tranmitted durin* a noreal tranmishion period? What to the answer to Qiiutton 1 if both v&Uwe of P ane 1nwreaed 50%? 1hat i the Mow•Ber To 4ussu I . if defined as the expected (averaB.*ast c t•hs effectiyories of A an 91 coubtaod.
32 0..25 0. Reliability# then.• 0.8 . as the ptobabilIty that a system will sttiLsiatortly perfom its functions for a given period of time.12 0. •115 of this g'uidebook.4o) (0.12 AA) (IA) (As! .(04o) (0. is teftns. p..lal 0AjggMTile availability (A) of a system is the probatility point in time a.p(stat.20) .a I where t is the mission time.a function of the avoilabilities of subsystems A aM B): S.0. respectively.80) . q• . . Thus the ?eliablllties tot Subsystems A and I are as tollows: (Ri (3 .60 &+z Definition: .60) (0.48 0.is given by the equation: ths. . . 0.tonic systems are being costiteroi In this examploe the reliability function is t assumed to be ex~onentlal and Is given by Ithe equation X(t) .I~~~ oN3s Samains am e AMC 7I All calculAtions rounded off to 2 plc"os " they occur.(0.islobli soa.80) .(0. Because elec. the availability of Subsystems AA arA AB are as foflows: A 12 .80 a.08 1 De/.o. a (3hus Rellotlit" .B8 Reference Idkltipeston Low.125 o. I exists at start of trangmission .32 (A%) .(0.0. a sFsto is Oesrating at ai' A A in particular. 233 .en~blittt Calouatio s The measure of dependability that will be used In this example is the reliability measure arsoclatea with the qeation of subeystems A and A.60) (o. j.08 where AA and An are the availabilities of subsystems A an& 5.bill. (AA) (As) £2 .tyA hours).A . SMatrix: &[ o. 0.(Ad) (AD) &I% S ..20) 0.
(o.(A . A)3 0.p~tranamittiag a 300.(0) (0.19 14 %21.AUCP 7"1111 aifmntal YTrnsition lvobabilltlss .78) (o) 22 (0.78 .ouig timoM C1 j .A)3 o Definition: dj.i 0.0.2 .88) 0 o 0.(' .09 0.22 p(i .(0.88 0.2)3 .03.12) . 013 331 o14 .78) (0.12) ..22) (1) 0.09 (0.1 p(oiLng .19 0. (o.12) 0. the state tranaltlons (IJ)3].(m be1ow) "21 " 022 a 1 004o 00 0 o2 a 0 I n0 224 (at elw) .0.22) (0.0O0 bits uaer.22) (0.0 3i :.0.78) (0.W3 0.0.1 012 1 031' 0 32 a 0 Definition: .88) .12 Pot'.88) ..(0.78 0.69 d32 d d33 (0) (o.o frm state I to state J)3 hors State Transition ProbatIlItless .88 ( p(A a") 3 p(a 1)3 .T8 o 0 0* 0.78) (1) d2 4l (o) (0) '0)(1) 0 0 'L23" (0.0 d13 . oll .8 (0.0.22 0.69 ~Nat'ixz0 0 9 DMa tr ixs• D" 0 o.2j2 0J goubility C.22) (0) a 0 d3 d4 (1) (o) (2)(1) o  4 .!) (1) (0.
(iAD 0~ (2 . %~(mctvat) WMU *.1 ½ *WMDS' * fllenfles'A %9to * .WOL= times T >01 190 rA? eto VA. Aptat~mau sODstQDI .00du DU to be tmmitteds Je tA rAA A' 'tA "ATr L~ A? 0. mii [0.1is (for' the :mmew ln~voi) __ __~ :y tA A L C A f1 tsA rY A 0i 015 ~~0.AWM17N91 Pat03 ad% smaNor.
) O .(0.10 + 0.19) (1) .(0.48 C3'0.. 0 *L *a~w .43) 045i) 099 vs it vu)~j (0) ECi (0) (0) +(o.68 S*(0) (0) + (0) (0) 4 (0) (0) 4 (1) 111) 0 0.Y.1j ~IJ*3 jii (0.VW+ 0.2a) (o.09) (1) . (0.19.69) (1) (0.(012) (0) .Oel 012 * .61 du ON a (0) (0) +jo) to).0.08) +.th* *rct~t~tlve oevettou Is 9tves by$ Jai 4I d i 3.
a* ohaSIV tie to(s*to"" 1 Y ~1j he <2T) I.) Is* ~of bU~ a~t& ..i saftrtat <I (Ma'am) (US5) MA Ieswu ont t I atS* WN W "a tau kv" . <lto ao tnow ata'ia.mb (2if .n voe) 2bw t op Aum A ma b iv a <)3o.wo) (i. ata ~ fal1nw rati wo aas mgflnlt'oM. Vw awt thinm ISO sa Amtft.Ow ¶1' ba fwaM Q)Msla 1 oocwf In thw MthtLe. om~a efwtUtam now w At fadlui ago I. Mi alAuMt~s dot~a fta. < L 2 ho i.
ooo)+(0.o C4 4 .78) (360.000 0 + 0  C4 3 C.03.(100.468.360.o9)(5l0.69)(66o.ooo)+(o.000 + 150.000) 317.000 C13 168.000 .AMCP 706191 maT 1 It follows directly that( so t Tso that 1AI a 3 .000 bits (6) a k 3 .000 bits Definition: C .3)3 Cll 30.000 ..000 0 W m 0 0 0 C22 c23 C4 360. and the D Matrix is ur~changed: 4 It~ ai (o.510.318.000 0 .000 68.0Q0 00 Effrjtiveneas Calculations Bquation 3 still holds.000 318.000 .T60 4I d2 3 j 2 (0) (0) + (0.expected number of bits transmitted unuer the transition: (i.300.) (318.0 0 468.000 + 150. 0 0 150.760 238 .ooo)+(o.000) (3) .o00 + C Matrix: C~ [j 660.000 .000 + 300.360.19)( 1 468.000 C42 a0 0 0 + o0 0 C43 0+ + 0 0 m m 0 0 ( 168.000 + 300.000) (3) .000 150.000)599.000 C1 3 0 + 0 0 0 300.(120.0o0oo0 ooooo 00 6.150.000 C3 2 m 0 C33 0 + 0 + 300.000 4 + + C14 C1 2 168.000) + (0) (0) + (0.000 C12 .00 300.00 0 168.000 + 0 360.22) (168.000 510.000 660.
01:i 0.•2.56 bits = Answer .0•! 0.000 4 4  (0) (0) +.76o and B.760 [317.86 0.  0.77 0 r Matrix: D 0 0.• 0 U.287.15 o~o.59 Dependability Calculations .08 ] 28.88) (300.92 0 2 0 0 3 239 .(0.16 0..noreasm' In T'values result~s in: A 1 TA 18.416.470.000) 282.(0) (0) + (0) (0) (0) 1+ ( ..84 0 92 RellabilltyA (3 hours) =e SReliability 3 (3 hours)   0. 0.O4 I Ii.[0. 4P 0. TS 36 The methodolog is Identioal to that of Question 1.000) + (0.167 o..12) (150.10 O. Availab"ltr Calsulatlona AvailsbilttyA 1806 AvailabilltyB A MatrIx: A .12Z + 90.240 + 0 .885 + 38.07 0.0 59.AMCP 7064191 EDUBI'T 1 a } %j 3 31 I (10) (0)+ (0)(0)+ (0.000 L 0] .
AMCP 70*191
Capability Calculations
Comment; All c j values, except for ao14 and o2 4,par QueirIon 1. From Equation 1, c24 n 0.19 From Equation 2, o14  o.56 identical to those in
1
0 0 Effeotiveness Clculations From Equation 3, 0
1
0
•ounded off from 0.996
0o.87
3
0,59
0.10
0,27
0.
X
.9
L 0.
 0.59 + 0.09 + 0.25 + 0
3

Answer
Couents
. 50% Inersase in T vwuss rtsuits in:
1
A

18;
TB
36
• A and D Mstpires xf those of Questiton 3'  !, Matrix methodology Is identical to that of Question 2
CaDability *aloulations From Equation 5, < j " (120,000) (1.5)  180,000
EBI < 3  (100,000)
l.5) 150,000
660,000 510,000 480,Co :Q33o,0,o1
c.0
C. matrix:

t• 3. 0,0o00 18,ooa, 6o 0
L
0
0
0"
0
3X,, 000
150,000
G
j
240
AMCP 70.191
(• ...
ffeotivmene
Calpulationa
Frm Dustion 3,
F639,2W01
H. 0.59 0.10 0.27 0.04 ] x
I331,200, 288D0000 L
6

365,328 + 331,20 + 77,760

bit* 
wnmswr
Ooinente.
S50%deorea
in I values results in: NA 4j
R
3
. The onl2y change from Question 1 occurs In the calculation of the A atrIx • The methodology .'s Identical to that of Question 1 Aval.abiliti Calculations AvailabilityA
, Availabllty3

6
07 075 .S9 0.03 )
A Iktrix:
_A ( 0.67 0.08 0.22
RUfeotivewasa Calculations
ro.,,l
0.22 O.O.)xX
Nm(0.67
0.08
10.811
0.88/
i9nAzJwer
iim
Iomments
.•% decrease In I values results in: 1A 4;3 Matrix. . The only change from Question 2 occurs In the evaluation of the • The methodology In Identical to that et Question 2 The A Matrlx '.a Identical to that caloclated In Question 5
241
AMCP
1•1N.1
599,760
1.
008 0.22 0..3 1 x .1067
401,839 + 25,421 + 6e,040 = .
[317#'760
bits Answer
12 18
24 36
8 8
6 6
0.86 0.93
u16,256 476,208
12
24
4
3
0.92
489,300
'I
2142
INUl M .11 SinM W 2.11.1 Oo+tA
\.
AMCP 70*191 Wetton
?urthIwso, the data on which arny prediction must be
h
method followed in WW cost prodiction Is straightforward enouh but to
apt to be quite laborious.
baled ae difficult to collectp and the gross estimates that it is necessary to "loyoamust be treated with a good deal of reserve. To make any cost prediction At &llp it Is necessary (1) to break the oxopnditursa dovn into rat~ur mall cat"Oloo,,I (9) to collect as much past experience on expenditures In each €&too.,ory I• ossiblop and
(3) to predict from this InforAstlon how muach Is 11MelY to be
spent In eah category for the project being coated. Thereafter, all the coteptwiss suet Malin be coollned to obtain the system cost as a function of time.
2.11.2
A agenciers, both in the DoD and industry, are per'orming mill'4ary cost anslysis wA developing costing methodology. The RAND Corporation '!a boon one of the loeeers in the costing field. The major costing concepts ,roposed by the
I
The PAUD Method
RAND Corporation are as follows: • Categorization of cost& into research &.d development, and operating costs  Use of IdivldnalsystIm costing and totalforceetructure costing . Use of Incremental costing . Concentration on most Important cost factors These concepts are described briefly below, and several of tham are discussed in more detail in the following sections. The categorization of costs into research and development, Initial investment, arnd operating costs Is consistent with the DoD progroing system. 8#ee advantages of this categorization are that the time phasing of the costs are readily apparent, the total lifetime cost for alternative, system lifetimes Is easily obtained, and the Inpct that charges In the research, developaent, and Initial investment costs have on oporating costs can be observed and traded off. Total.orc*structure costl.,W Is much more Involved than individualsystem costing. IndivIdualsystem cot•ng does not examins the Interactions between itself and other systems In tih total force. ThIs maess the cost anialyst's task simpler, a"lt is particularly useful in costing fUture systems (where interactions with other systems are not well defined anyway). Totalforcestructure costing examines the cost of a e•ysti In the framework of the total force. This requires Information on Interactions Iaopg the systims In the total force, and also cost data for the total force. initial investment,
£43
V
SII fIII III
AMCP 7O191i
Incremental. costing is an approach that Ottemines the change In cost If a deeision is amde associated witn achieving some change In effectven•ess. today to develop a now system, Incremental costing is used to determine the cost to eevelop that system starting fros today. Costs that have been Incurrd preuiously are not counted, and the costs for exietirg equipment and facilities that can be utilised in the now system are not counted. In most oases. theremental costing Is the type of costing tOat decisionmakers are asking for when they say, "What will I be getting for my mfetyfu anlyhi• cC:ýasta or changtn4 each of te v'ab2.rtIn th.e constant, to determine how mall changes in each variable can affect the study result.
study in turn, while the remaining variables ara heol
A .ene1•.•2•
A costsensitivity analysis is normally used to datermine which parameters have the greatest Iapact on the total cost. The cost analyst can then concentrate his efforts on the most lapo~tant cost factors. 2.11.2.1 Cost CstegorivAtion
System costs ha'e been categorized i•r a number ef ways, depending to a grea.; extent on the type and applicability of available data. The objective in anc of these categorizations is to focus attention on the major resources that will be consumed during the life of the system. Zntozuaation on resources Is produced th.et can be compared with information on available resources; alternative courses of amtion can be evaluated according to the amount of rescurce consumaption they involve. The military grouping of costs corresponds to the progrem phases in which the costs are incurred: !esarch a. Deveioisent Costs. All the costs necessary to bring a system . into readiness for 4..troduction Into active inventory. Initial Investent COSts. All costs Incurred In phasing a system into the operational force. They include the cost* of procurement of prime and opecial equipment, facility constructions personnel training, and procurement of initial spares. All costs rwessary to the uperation of the system once pjeratira Cosev,. it has been phased into the operational inventory. While both Uk and investment costs are Incurred just once, the operating costs continue throughout tWa life of the system. The curves of Figure 28 show typical distributions of thse eostsover the Further subtivtsians of ttese costs are s•h•n in the life cycle of a systeam following paragrephe.
(
AMCP
7
G19t1
Operating
"I
/i
ftamples of the types (%f costs In each major categ~ory are as follows: Research and DmIMoj~nt.Costs •Design and develqyaent Preliminrmy research oxni desig studies Develoymsnt engineering and hardware, fabrication Developsent Instrusentation Captive test operations l~Fels, propellants, and Wrase
Industri~a
• •
O
faciAltte.
systemn test festvehicle fabrication Vehicle spares Test operations Test o s t equiement Test fac erltlra Test I nstr ~aentation
PUels, DIadus prOpellAntS, and g&54 t a otia d eialt sie
IMUTeaW&t facliie
S
S istntentae, supply, niselaoom estv aaement and technical dorertnon
Toenatru
in
on etc.
Coiutr~tien of new tuildinsh aAirfielmds
AMCP 706491 Prinary41is5ion 0WIqu t~.tt
Spec ial~itd equipment Other equipment
"* StocktIntial allowagmes Ialotesmane float ftuipment spanes mid @pae perts Combat Consumption stocks bianitSlon
"*Initial tranilr
"* MiscellanoAms imvesaont Initial trampor~ation of equipm.t and spares Initial, travel Initial propella.,its, oils, and lubricante Operat lawCosts I qUpiebnt and instatllations tepl&C#S*Aet Pr Imaryateis on eq"Ijwnt Spec lalised equipment Other equipwet Installations Training *Par and allows.=** *Propellants, oils, and lubricapta Primary amission equpisent Other yPrcptllats, oils, amd 40wicaats *Services and miscellaneous ?ronsportat iof Other services and alsciellaneous *Nordirect 1afinstrativewA support coats
A military * an amally be dertlmi by descibtaa tiree my *etomtaz (1) the milesion, with thret a&M oairmoanee (2) the me~hei of operatlob, and 3)a deecriptlm ofto PVa pscal makemqp or tiv Irstaf a"d its ek~yout systaf.
AMCP 706191
*elato we define4d &Wi there ame no iterrelatiotnships if ..... se with ~tl Systms tit Must be COMSldauw, t'uzA tim '."* of cost analyisaI that aqsasegoat anhiUaia. to mush&W us"d is the SMlvT4& Imilvidmial mystemooat eaalUOAs Is less Inuolyad and requires fewer data thm wul be rceseawy Iit the system man not Isolated from ther total fares.
the difference between Imflytiua1sstmf and totalfmocestructture cost
*%Wone Is the level at whic the uayslysi to cafrrled mt.* The totalforce
aimsF
a& %455&~m
&VW cmtb
h vttbmut the use ot & totalfomcstructtue cotamljeis. For dawe~catof a mew antiaircraft weapon would regalre a totaltoaceaimuctuae acest mlyeia. goe satine airGefenoo cqpftIiy could be coated (1) with, fm (2) wltbmmt the am leImvidnal systm. )m difference tn cost~ between (1) wan (2) woml be sbe Coet ot the mew Antiaircraft Weston.
example,
ted elistcl.5ly7
2.11.2.3
figS
Xacvawntal costlg aceounts for edditional coats assoc Sted with tha saIitlonl effectiveness o~f & e system. 2Wr major factors &nlrded in ths oomapt of Incremenltal coatig awe 1. aritsd assets, am& coats, and salvage Imbe Ited ""sto are those exuatiz equIjaata. 9eisting faclllti**, a&M trained persoopwl thtait areaimlable f~or 0.4ý isw a.,.tim. Zuaherited asista are n included in thrn Coat comarison for alternative sysems. For ezampl., if a ot anw dade uatem can utilz OxIstlW rePair Installatioans, the initial cost of these installtions is not imcluded lIn the coat anklysta; I.e., the installations wre free. Su* coats wre these coats that heve been expenedd prior to a given dec ision pent, ina time, aoe tbeas @oats we not Included in a cest ca~erlson. ftr examle, sqmoa two altermatlwe eama~lctinsm systaes are *isg Coirn derd for 00"UPeWA, sasaim system ha almao4 Immavr $2 Zillion of NO fund&., whtle fOW the other altermtIve system (PeassIblo an bekoveE "mweto of an exast it system) no MD fmad Mee bseeseaeded. The deciaton to select *itbar alter:*tiv eam be based nastaraly an coat, affect lweznsee teecwn1c1 freesIti, ty, ttae , UWh ntl~xoo Y.'St ?At *z awyel, in eostti4 sac batsterntl sb~ftxt. *C *tU. swa%, coat, and timrefore Is noat al1eOz beta "amta on, the Mat altenst~lw ia 1.*e 0 matter whIdh altrratstie Isaelected, ImbWa o ti cost ciqertaeanot Vul, be ofied. 40asmhtsoml $I a umiie of taf
The sthandard methond for developSif costeattmatt06 relatiocmbIps Is thrcopgb the ube of andtiplrepressio.r~sa *1jatlnj5 In tm Co~flCj1nt# "t the Cr). CoeGtIstimt1AatiMMIsai~ebs The most Irportaaot tool avaiab~le .3 as wrap. eAgo dLe laws been egolrated to Permit developme. a cost category .uiLilit'Y Jf sWb Iliasa fr"m ft~l av~as %ýV sta~rwd rvor#Wes enmre h.pre4ie14on tschaLque 4o not proelfa tho needed accurcy.x~22'.1 1 2  "r 1 ) * 'Zf2(U. The"s provide a &*tk*n of pr. ing X1 b2 2 lag C  . TU1s.In tkis case. bewd Wtp~z *et. iFear toms log a #b. for Xmor SOwame4 Systems that LMAMW~rmte as sOI~staatia 4Wue Of stateoftheart improvements. S. AV " of it""~ at m7te the* 1Avis D"eM In existence for mom ysare. havervo. analyss1.~otI0 tig system.*V1r. or the cost OWls from sellingW the system 2. . Salvage value takes into account the cost savlq that no 14a rosllseA ftm sollift( or transforral a system to a futtre orqwluzation vunr the system to pbwWe oat. for Use an MW arft bt.AMCP 7WI913 Another factor Inc luded In the Increental ooetit Ceameapt is salvae valu. To use the mult~pleropjreson ppraach.n of em. ciar"tely evallablr cst.. tranaronm5 to the ?.to related to the.c the owet anmlyst to the coatetimatiig U met at a new reationship (CA).). are coepted regr*sicr rottffictoets *ltiinvo the gnosral flurtitn is 1iwiarw ith reapex to tU* reamosos ýefflc touts.11. sth "s alafrmes. it ts not apeeSwaiý' Ila withu respect to ic or 'im X's. The"t relationships wre OmeWl. a Opaoral "assiption to mas" that the depenerit variable . by collectUSaa mem2aM coeA doa on asiilar system& and ewrrelattlq such coss to aqrpr~Uate chareterlotSes 4t thr 1155 system (weigb~ts size.4oletor variables by a linear equation of tim 1011051125 fodst f 0 (C) br + b 1 f!(11. .2 W ef (C) i s a functio e oof t he c ost Ill to the f2' f1~2 b 1th proftetioc parameter in the t areunctions of tke X's fn A subsetj .
AMCP M19gi
ftma&1, sq~w& ast W me am.ve1~d fte esb of the major cos.t cataorlea (USeam oh am 3Se2Wateg, WztI42 !Wetsnto and Operatizig Costs). Factors tiat S~~iag cow ot cateway uav ?*vs lttle effleet an swohiý,p ~*+5o or may 4hven lov as mInait mOf htr eSMOVI t. an uRImst tr@bi~br#llsbility progi. ra~ s %lotou"Otly boug qsposored by imP thbauub the three tolvi~s, viui intrems doeipon3t8 Goole buts It IS h*", p813v reduce cpartit cml cats.. Theeufw, pswineta wOJatift to r.1seblity vi12 bav a pos itive develops nt"pot r#1.tI.vMh bet a =0t1ve qiemtiwnalcowt relationship. rt uoU4 bek
...
61i1120Is"
2.U1.4
1% is dee ulabe tc lkit tbe rinal Isume Of pwinUets in Stle MS to dlfriUlty M il 4 am to mWiai USn depV" Of froi*" I'I h Pz~ in Cost heM~W_,O
There e two main tecblmq~ae fo akb% coat commersura'bie: amrtization st anM 41.cos81Sna. ftkrtlat~.o Is U Weeading of Usr ustem research a" &mvlopsea rid lo~ital 1wrseftet "alts *w the LIMtets of the qSYtem. fliscouitIrig 13 ai to reflect the Ugatw valuen of preeet mony Over fiata*i becartae of tba poeli@0ii14w at Invst~ng preasent money for %win. Aeatiastia and d*scavtasnt are wtrnorme]l need lTw military celti~'v
murtt ftnosU rS0
"* G~agrment &uiretve
this UWMatcUtt call ror ~yesl vstmata oti actmar asanui~turs; aids In tbg Ppr~ertJ iOnf tk* awrni b~deet.
"* 4iaofnif raze is lfrricufl to d.tsinin; it has Pees eez~nat~eE to arn
be fresm I perosent to 20 percet.
"* These factore wre
considesst 1w.
a12yl lansenalti¶ve as comared~ vIts othe coating
u*W i hy Its atudies Is 15 percent.
jAt
pr. 2nt, tOw discoutingat et vanlU
2t No etasate is uSagtaia, fre 0. Sital" o1oXrMpcast e~stue ve two:40 t* aweptloo at "suncosts. Cost Aa~usts kwsboo. t eekzeft4 to MfurrW14plag bevea" tau type of wwe* ta *A t1 tw do"t 'Atetless (estint~iq ooa~aity)a aertantie i ~teaetijis to be coist*' (rwqpive. ralatieI&AW
otsas pr5ojet t$w,
vita~t~ ot Slum w s ate
"a a" OtSuleS
Coove
" ouc
as T5 Pasreen
of vtr
Uv"to tee Ueft"910
sag Io Ir tab 0.81 Aeusts C"a MM6Iaulr be amt Lntsa'auJltiwss on u.Iftim cost atimastes, a"e
#A)
AM~CP '06191 Cost'estimatinlg uncertaintty is the statistical umieftainy @8.5. by ewnrs in the cost data# Inaccurate costest2nating relatlcn&:iAV# aA dIttmwers sr. "~he costanAlysis approach. The ana:lyst should develcp not only the cost estiatates, but al.so an liftoatila of the confidence level or possible rangs of the costs. Use at the eastalwastt 4 vity analysis Is also des irable to show the Uqmpat thet uncorta~iftAOf he* ani e t~hs final cost estiina'"s. 2.11.11.3 Data Collection
(
* One of tht, greatest problems In cost .amaly~is Is ObtainingS euficient"t~at and accurate data. The basic data cmptl64, to support the roquiromais of the cost aaalyhis should meet the following flquirtinnts: They should be collected In sufficient quantity to pr~owl"a s43cn"ti sample sizes of the various systanm obarecteristlas aad cqoe. PeaInters being studied. The confidence In results inereaex witht th# qmwitlty 0~ observations. Accord ing4~, every effort must bemade to acqkfr. suW icient data frcm actual surveillance of systems In an operational *nviroamoAt. If, however, adequate data~ of this type are not availa1fle, It &ay bt necessary to resort to esitmating techniques. Severtl proven tochrxqavs are available for various eqlai;2nts. *They should reflect current asytem con4ltions. TIm*4y Collactlozz of lipatt data Is required If tae cost analysiM is to "epict current 06Witlois In the system. Nmay diverse facisors affect theLost 0i4vlpi~,pt~mi~ operating, and maintairir4 a modern system. Unfortlnately, at least fti a costdevelopment standpoint, almost all of these factors aie dyicl. *They should b_3 accurate.* The Importance of using the mast accurate data available cann~ot be overemphasized. The stringent requltaeust for accurftat data is related to the Intrinsic nature of the mathemiatical approach.  Whiv compound summing operations (or aultiplIca,tions) will be accmwplieh*4
during the cost analysis; thus any inaccuracles 'in lat&#u111 the
caaipotnnded during these mathesaatical manipulations..
"ao be
*They should be reprebenltativye of the operaticnaiL situation of iLTArest,
The systemcost chatanteristics are krA*ovn to be affected by ~he operaturnal1
ai~d maintenance enivironmient. Until such time as the dirtotior& and extent of the various Influencing factors upon the oystsm are mor* teplic ilv defined, it will be dexirable to collect data frca the specific, operational s.tuation In the cost analysis.
250
AMCP 7W191
The spec itt~ form that awV cost. a~a~llal will take Upends on the particular system belin stufted. Sfwev~ar In gentral, there ar" throee factors that must be O~t~lGredSrieY1 cotin ptbl: (1) t?* c tIra methods that will be W~tp1yd,, (2) "h type of W&f that vill be requt.rod, and(3 the sources of the data. These factor. wre dis'tassed below.
Tecostestlaatng relationship can be,4eveloped on the bansis of design and perfomnecharacteristics, or previouss eost. The estimate of cost based on a similar system Is used when the system being andtlyzed Is sufficiently similar to an~ ezis ting system that&validcost analogy can be made.
The type of data tkat io required for a cost analysis may be categorized Into the asoapytions tnd constraints, the description of the system, and the cost information. As an example~ of the types of data required for a cost analysis, assume that the avionics on a group of helicopters is maintained by a dual maintenance :OXRanIzatioft, coleisting of organizational maintenance and direct support :uainte
if 'acmp'ýainb against an avionic system is received, organizational personnel txy to vewifY'tha comp~aInt; if they verify It, they (1)perform eme maintenance at tY,* hwlicoter (this may consiit of ehaigtig a black box) and (2) in a certain y~rceatage oft1he cases, geanerate %me direct support maintenance. If they do iiot verify the comiplaint, they have, of acurse, spent acme time An. the invitstigatioa; howevor, that comiplaint to disposed of. The followving data are r,oUired 'nithe dbet anal~ysis of thip sy6stpm:
I
I I
~
*Number of complaints per'mornth
*Fraction verified
*Manpower
needed to verify

*Fraction lioisped of' at the helicopter
" ostL of tebits
Mu~nower neededto dispose of the cmplaint a~t the helicopter and pieces needed at the helicopter Manpower needed to provide the bits and pieces at the helicopter
*Manpower needed to replace the black box
of the replacemsent, black boxc
*MmimaTa~TiTy Engineering", copyrighted 1964L by ARINC Research Corporation, ftblisher  PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,. NewJersoey. 251
AMCP 7M
91 l
• Manpower needed to obtain the blamk box
• Time delay before the faulty box is r"e•aed and .*ady for uV
* Tiee needed to '"air
the azao
box at d
tp
9
 Cost of the bite and pieces nreded at direct spport
 Manpower needed to provide the bit$ and peloes at direet support . Co:t of loaded nanpower for variou categetries of direct Average lifetime of a black box • Cost of various categories at loaded manowr
.
i
Sources of data Include pttbli~htd reports (and unpublished backimp material), equipment catalogues, and financial susmaries. example given previously are Indicated below. The rubber of cowplaints per month, N The quantity N is composed of usage rate, reliability, and the nhauer of black boxes In use. If n black bcxes are being used, each an average of t hours a month, and if the complaint reliability, i.e., the mean time between complainta (MTSC) on the black box, is h complaints per hour of use, then
I
Typical sotucees of data for the
N = At
The MThC can be estimated from fieldfailure data. The usage rate, t, must be estlmated from deployment plans, a must the numnber, n, of boxes I.n use. On a projected system, all these factors will be available. Hence N can be estimated.
The fraction of veri.fied complaints The fraction of verified complaints, v, is another output of the observation of field failure data. If 7 is the mean time between verified complaints, then, V ac.
The fraction of verified complaints that can be duposed of at The fraction of verified complints that can be disposed of At the helicopter, f, is estimated essentially from two pieces of information: (1) A maintenance plan that defines the repairs that will be made at V* helicopter. (2) (Adjustments, for instance, will often be ma,!i there.)
A reliability prediction in greater detail than those needed for A and , namely, a breakdown of A into those cases which will be disposed of at the helicopter and those which will have to go to direct support.
252
(
AMCP 7@bI $I Such ptkidtiotiua can be obtained fros amawe detailed knowledge of the equt~ at, Alt.2Mkt~lr s~ttistical value. of the fraction t for simlart e"uipeitsamne in service can be used as est imates.
If
Direot4maintenarn masaower is Obtainable from Maintainability predictions. 8uppoiss the directOaint~fAnA* tine required And the corrTesponding hourly pay required on the averaep to accesplish the maintenance actions are, respectively,
tand C 1
where the subscript I refers to the skill class.
Then t I can be obtained from Wantai&*1lity predictions; C. can be obtained from lists of pay classes, together with an estimate of the usefual lift of maintenance sen In grade. Here a suitable definition of useful life might be the percentage of the time in grade during which the man is actually assigned to maintenance duties. Besides direct labor, there Is in aa~r orgaiznlation a great deal of overhead lab~or. Much of this is conerned with scheduling anid supervision, and sawe with ~mwanament; and a good deal goes to leave, trainin~g, and ncuainltenance duties of the sen thmsteelves. *time. in general, the loaded time will be a ilimar function of the directlA3bor If Ti is the loaded time (direct and overhead) spent In labor class I, then
K)Tim
a&I + bitl The coat of labor is then given by C(T)
u.X
TiC1
aiCI +
bitiCi
The constants Involved In the equation above are the overhead coefficients, aI and b1 . Rough estimates of these can be made from tables of organizations and free estimated workloads.
j
A good approximation to the equation above can be obtained In the form
C(T) a Ca + C where t is tho total activerepiair time In all labor n~pares. at supplwethpamersttcont the different (1) the average
Themaeralscots
Pthlon. oslmae temtwo kind& of Information are needed: T
amutadknsoKaeil eddt eromrpi* n2 hoto hm
AMCP N4.10
IstImates of the tinds and qun•tities at m8terAlS am be obIrl
or from a detailed reliability wJalsi5, based on otual semmaties.
either

frns a statistical analysts of the behwvlor of similar equipments In present use
The cost of these materials at the supply echelon in quoestlon will consist
of the following: Cost at the hUghe supp7 echeloa, vl$nh supplies the one In question
Cost of the laor noedid at the higbhr eshelon and at the ehelon in qTestion to move the •Cost of transpor'tation pitterteds
The materials cost at one echelon then contair Upllaitly the acrued siply costs at all higher echelonej thus the whole mystasupport cost will accounee for.
The cost of e
M
rOy
The labor cost at sipply m•st be obtaint by an a.n1.ysis similar to that If a detailed anilysis Is not available, described for the maintenance manpower. every action, i.e., every probably the best estimate obtainable Is to asseme tht requisition and every issue, takes, on the average, about as much labor as every other. Then if the total payroll *Z the supply organization It divided by the number of 1pieces of paper gonerated, an estimate of the labor cost of requisitions and issue Is obtained.
The t.me delay: the avere life dof
black box
The cosa of time delay UInvolvins AT, L, UW Cc  the time delay, the average life of a black box in the (partial) urstem, and the cost of the black box to supply, respectively] has been given as
Lc
The estimation of C W been discussed above. observations on similar bapport organlzations. Tirs delays sut be estimated by The average life can be estimated from condemnation rates, return rates to higher echelons of maintenance, and the total ntmber in circulation. if on an average I black boxes a month are condiened, end I are returned to
higher echelons of uslntenanze for repair, then if there are n boxes In circula
La a 4etailed reliability analysis and a Again a and b can be estimated fr malnteonir.e plan, or from statistical vs"*S for similar squip8ent. The nmber n Js deteminad by the verifie4 failure rate and ty logistic policy.
AMCP 7"@$1$1
1A~z now Mua
fhe method used in eoroeuing the model it dependent aa the t•pe and complexity of modeal on the ti, equipment, personnelp and money available. for a emplex model, the time and ooet Involved in eteroiuing the odel on a capter may be sauh leso thin the timo and coot for using people with slide ulIe. Erover, Vf this model is only req.red to be exerclsed once, t•ls cost of setup time for the coator may pweclw4 its use.* In general, the computer Ia mob taster for exerciuing a model than using a elide rule or s defk calculatcr ence n model has been prgrumsed. In actual practice, heoaever, the analyst has an overall time constraint an the study effort, and if a comuter Is available, the tine to exercise the model will not chowe, because the analyst will use any additi•nal time to conduct sensitivity awnWlses or ewpm.d the orrgintl model. Mhe basic pQ±!t to be made in eerciaing the model Is that no matter what process is used  desk c^lculator, creputer, or slide rule  the final result will be only an good as the model and the information put Into the model. The use of a couter does not in Itself ensure a more valid result. 2.12.2 Alyosis of Output Data 1Uhen an analytical model has been developed end sufficient Input data gathered, the model can be exercised, either maumally or by moons of computer. in the aimpleat of oases, a single dependent variable will *sa.lt from the process. in most systems nalyses, however, a whOle family of deopdent variables will be generated. 2.12.2.1 Ansge. of a Sjngle Deandent Variable
Zach model equation will yield one output perameter (the dependent variable) when oe set of ianut pearitewrs (Independent variables) Is used. The output parmete Aight reproent ar. average, predicted, or estUated value. The value could represent a measure of cost, effectiveness, reliability or any other paramster of Interest upon which the mouel was based. The single outp paraemter could of course be analyzed by comarxI It to sere previously known stadard of acceptability. For ezxaple the objective of the waliata my baw been to eetAimte the zellAbility of a product to determine compliance with a proestablished requirement. In ths Instance, a Judgment of SOeetabIlity of the product W4t be made by siMply comparing the estimated value with the required value. U many cues, however, it is deaLrablo (and oen necessary) to analyze the r•aujtnt from the standpoin of the associated uncertainties. Thes Is one 4r0% In MLch a coeteffectiveneas study could be used to determine whether a comuter aheod be emloyed.
.
255
4,
•.=
.
.
AMCP 70161
Mile often difficul t
A.
if
r It
6( &.b sO e31ItSd eoutae.
glbs
which affect the nature ot estmastes,
uncertainties O* not nacessw•ly inceative at redly of cadless 0I6618"M ISbI&U1 shorotu'ilaeg th procedures, but rather swe ref lective at %tffhet
real world. Vrom previou eaporem. eie ,idiee p ts that t puenwe eprediction to a difficult Me. Iietef tellsa us that WO etIe ser ebaI.& 4t in$ the Sue Caeral wa a" by a tooter of Wmt. Oust A fee tweitl t "builtnuclear power plants have besa Ulf et tMthq "atmou vind up
early eetinste. The problem of un@el~atny U2 oeUmsft,~ cost and afret"SVW n for A" 0J8
teems Cabefeoursepnevr be eliminated. 9"'eves the elyst eas MISLIge uncertainty and  more lortant  am aco•at for it in p•ovidifg jartemtln to the decisionmaker. ThIs of ecreres requires knledge at the types of uteartainty IiticL. light be e oomatered. Charles Hitch and Roland N*Kan. in their boo ltl0 S 0g Defte o the lueloa We (Barvard University Preess 19b3) eeocuibe five basie typeos of uncertainty associated with estimtesta (a) Uncertainty about pamodag sid cost teteers
(b)
(c) (d) (e)
tboertainty aboat strategic contextTchnologiaal muectaLatr uncertainty about the ew en hus raectim Statistical uOcertaInty s
The analyst is canfronted with the task af decJiang how MeertaitlA are to be treated. so mset Important aviee s at course,, "mn,'t iome tsmw. * Sadly he mast be able to receise the type at muertainty Involved. IWrd, mown be he able to distinguish between the IqoartMt eam =Important waeutwAtiat In Goatext with the particular analysis. PiraLWi be mat be le to aepmp" en Uis bssc estimate or moasuremet by additiseal crwid•ratlemat tke c•entilaieses created by tha wncetaiAnty. is may etai•tl (a) Stpressnlg the depenm t variable as a gae at valwas, seek ldus having a pwitsbility oe occurence. (t) Assignig omufidmeo Intervals sWNS the etiate, (c) ubMjectively qualAtyint the vatur% of the eetiumted or measeure
?4pre 2.9 Illvtrates six ditferent " at e*ts@sUg a estimated value. Itch vesrsoIve epree,':on tote represents a higer 66gre of speuificity iA treating m*ertalnty.
• ,• •
••,
• •
m2
5
g.$19M. etc. it is not stated whether the analyst believes there is a 1% a 10% or a 100% chance that tRe cost will fall between $11M and $19M. System A is estimated to cost $15M. however.2 Analysia of Several Dependent Variables Most systems analysis problems encountored will involve the treatment of more than one dependent variable. DRORZE OF SPWCIFICITY No uncertainty expression. The $11M and $19M are the estimated lower and upper cost limits. A vague qualitative expression of uncertainty is given. An adjective descriptor is added to convey a rough indication of probability. and this is depicted by a carve. There is a "strong probability" that System A's cost will be: $11M . An even more complex situ&tion arises when the study objectives involve "tradeoffsw where the dependent vwrlables of intirest can assume a broad range of values. A complete probability distribuAtion is given. • 4. 3.95 probability. the analyst is not sure (uncertain) about the figure. mode or man). 5.2. Further. 1.$19M. The numerical expressions have the same meaning an in 4 above. 2.$15H . _ _ _ _magnitude Cost FllIet 21 is vs Case 4 Case 4 is ve Case 3. 6. The adjective descriptor is replaced by the more uefinitive rumeral. nor is it indicated whether the cost In likely to be closer to $11M or $19m. the task of analyzing data outputs can be sublivided into: Compv ratiAnalyses "General Trydeoff Studies 257 . A range is given to express thi magnitude of uncertainty. 2. System A it estimated to cost $15M. For example. cat and effectiveness (sAd probably many more) are of intirest in making the comparison. The $15M is some measure of central tendency (man. (Both the pioblems in getting the Case 6 type information and the amount of additional information provided by Case 6 are of a greater vs Case 5 than Case 5 6. However.12. 5. e. 3.AMCP 706191 ZXPRESSION FORM 1. no probability information is given. System A is estimated to cost between $11H and $19M. 4. at least two dependent parameters. System A's cost Is Ustimated: 411M $15M .. In general.e 1MPUUSM IF MUNTAMUr 2. quite often two alternative systems or alterna'tive designs are the subject of the analysis. With a .
An esxspe of this spgoeh. the terns ot Me so!a• be presenteAtor each require that seperste wsiues 0 cost and effe. could. (or beat). Neoce. levasae effects and will be discusaed in greater tkheSe factors ý* called detail in Section 2.Ion. the finai decision. howerve.wurf ts are beiLog 4ew'•4. is to be noted that th but 4altical e sotI was me" to ton1mise at the n#mbee of pla@ible altemtiee. the imr efective.epasilty is to hOch of two systm is chesger sad better? Little i iLeft for the Zn treatlng the above type atf pzTbla. FPr exazl.. daring ta e O . tht 4ltiste rIle clted. be that of A IS *l.) AA emlple ot such a case s ewident In " aualytical process recently e0p100e4 to select 3 CMief of Police r•r the City of Us Angele& sirverrl ca¢ndidates fri the posittou. are ostuie em as Stweulaft( wich of two or moe alternativeu Is bote.atetion o the beat am for the job was ode d4ced to three. LI. as not necesArily used to uniwi Ob lob~cte of theJ anaulst to to ovduct tred•4* t st. hare not been KIWeOO in the mwe*.but Is &lo judgmt of the relatt~e worth of the two syst•m the 4oedsionmaker. decisionuaker.. h 1% this xWple. there wri a vigorks analytical Wroach (aSLly i model yes dewel(ed with which o estiUmte the setfectivenees of each camdkste).4iee varauelee are to ' etealder ver a b reng This" t f i4 a Nepedendt lati top" 1e o .5/.t to accept or reject tMe beeults ot the amnlyais.rap tct %h" ftquvJ of •cceptability saý a deoelg ha bes gi•vwes a elslmum i.L. the mnber of choi•es sea ree.. Wp this itWA. the problew snlit bat of W ehibh two *ytem is Mroe effectivet or "•W•ieh or two sste • eaw to chea or the smaayst'o . with final choeice of th %etter mne being the dwecJAthat sytem i1 maker's choice.g is one w•Leen the decisionaker doeLirs to subjectively A similar exhle consider cetain factors wiach. Of't~ftU tro or saof oesibiitit . givew bWLoW. by Intent. ndi a single choice twos mmg the satevsitivee. the amist's objective is to present m myo alternative to th deislouiMker. the aiyst etttot*eieftotive Is 4p"te common. e*i.tIveaes system consdered. Jy meeos oa n tthat situation. by intent. costs oWre that system A .l . *l.B AS Ou~wrtive MAIis~ses d ýf hasifa. thn eao Zn OWly cases. U' a*luau A"MuMM SeIM*le variable cestU•tea the basis for ecpwism* tM sdy sa So nt me.
lOb).AMCP 70"191 gCes for the dependent variables nt interest.or to pese !minimsu number.roblem the principle objective is to weigh varying levels of performaace against varying levels of cost. it is apparent that HThF and ggT can be traded off in achieving the desired value. On the other hand ennual operating costs (and hence total recurring costs) decre.10a).e with Increased reliability (see Figure 2. A case in point can be illustrated by the following example.59 .complete consideration of the Influencing factors often can lead to erroneous decision.10c). It is assumed that the decisionmaker must choose between two systems of differirng availability on the bmsis of cost.'rally shown that development coat and initial investment cost increese with increasd reliability (see Figure 2. The reasoning behind the e*phasis is that ir. Zxamples of each situation are given below: Performance ftrameter Tradeoff. Tradeoffs can involve weighing one perforoance parameter soeainst another or weighing performance against cost. It may be gg:. He then must walyze thm mwM slternati'ies within the givan envelop* in order to reduce the number of choices to one . Availability is in turn P function of reliability and maintainability. Wien reliability is expressed at a frequency of failure (kI*F) and maintainability expressed as the length of time required to restore (MAT) a failed item. In this type of tradeoff . (2) Performance Vtosus Cost Tradeo~ffs AMother form of tradeoff problem involves performance versus cost. availability in some cases can be expressed as (1) If a fixid level of availability is the desired output.a. It readily becomes apparent that the cheaper syt•em can only be determined by combined consideration of all costs (Figure 2. One of the major parameters in Aost effectiveness models is availability. Common tradeoffs in this category include: * Speed versus cost * Payload versus cost Reliability versus coat Conside'able emphasis has been directed recently to the consideration of total lifecycle costs when formulating system level decisions. 2.
AW~ 701&bI 2"U"a bweelms( ousnt (b) OW I" t'xt W~tft a *.b ul~yr"bl f't2D4t cWe" iIft 4 Run.~Itit ~1~efolls~i toa.~es&re Alllt1Wtl C t"ofe) do*tl~ occo. ?ot exam2os O.lct (c) ".ftlee. t of bje~h~UY.%.aa *s1wCo tJmazal .
The status of a given projert is .rai.AMCP 7•91i The Interdopendencies between tradec~f studies and the above objectives are shomn in Figure 2. The c*aJective of the study might then be the selection of a minimum set of aesign i lternatives. if require.eiuof accomsplishmt of the obfectlvos would idontify the dependent and inCe psaident variables for the trad3oftr study effort. For ea le. 14mu= .•_• ' Splec i MinSet of i.i _ 0 IDIE 'Alternatives Constraints _J t .E W C 'u ation Prove Technitcal. these constitute the set of Independent vsriables eor the tradeoff study. hequfirments Establish Performance  (or Envelopeu) rI I L . igineering ""Development rtru 2iu MUMPOOMMS KiWUN TIUPKFF I6CT19 UVM A IFe1M  S! • 261 .11. Military Febibil ity I .enU eanmlop4 have been established. ar. Any tradeotf study =wat bc based on a set nf dependit end independent vLriables. Economic.
qviantJfiable terms th( rules or criteria for cboseing the "best" painting or 4beat" automobile..rance. 12 _21r . are factors in the fInal choice.i.1 224imiaosicCriterion In defining an optimizing criterion. 262 . however.MCP 706191 (4)  kensitivitl Analycis An important tool in performi•n tradeoff Studies if the ana&Uals of the sen sitivity. sensitivity analysis involves doseat" iAterzet. econumic.. 7he analyst would concude from the curve that: (a) Cost is highly sensltive to enduranme at low levels of mnd. within so•e prescribed rane of desA simple illustration of saantivity is given In Figure 212. reapfctlvely.' cos:. ruch as the size of the painting o. These example" do have atantifiable characteristics.. In general. artistic judgment and user experience. 3 4 Xndurwie. ard o?erational Judgment. *aeh cribes the relat onship between total 55te* coot and the endurane for a hýpo Lhtical manned aircraft.11 DEVEIFS DECISION NEWL 2. In the same sensr. of the automobile. the choice che bost system is greatly influenced by the use of good engineerig... the system analyst ti faced with a problem similar to that of put•ing in precise. "3 2 Akrea coverage extendlng 1000 u mi _ Li.hours 60 72 8 2JI l[[tl• I•1$1111 2fl 2. signiftcance of a given variable. (b) Cost is relatively insensitive to nd~urince of higher values of endurani•e.ý3.
maximum 5 weight and volume. The (partial) basis ifor final eftoice is in precise. arnd can provide (b) choice can be made. In attempting to optimize a weapon system such as a bomber. This task requirve s preli~ayanalysis.(6) Defining a criterion forces th. or the As prt~f te sstedefniton rocssthe analyst also determines. Thass limita~tions are based on requireLuenxs &Ad availabil~itles. Some factors may be considered fixed if myepshp sub. Thi maintenancetrulsoIng outnefor example. end type and number of support and operational personnel. 706191 It is mast ineortant.iinization problems. might normally be considered as 4 variable factor. however. Through such consideratioan and envelope of design.is teing formulated. and may involve such factors as minimum system output. indicate tevle resltsofprevi. the analyst has to consider whether the system Is to be d~fined a's a single bombsr. ltenatvescan be established in such a way that each overall andupprt as well as minimum performance goals. for the following reasons: I (a) The inputs provided to the analyst through us" of the criterion can reduce the vize of the problem to a point where a judicious   Iadapted I I I. maximum development time. The purchaser of a new automobile. may or may not consider the service policies of the manupolicies. bu atresearch In this are& mW be used to select a particular routine aippli~cable to the syst'i' under ttudy. sic osdrto falpor.. a jphysical I I Once the missiorn profile Is defined. tha haivattained tebarsusInhepast. ~Inputs to a Maen a criterion for cptimization. AMCF.is only the automobile. 263 . reliabilitty. analyst to exsuine all possible ~alternatives in en objective maniner so tha. that the optimizing criterion be defined to maxi extent possible.±lble alternatives will usually e*toproblems of unwmianseesbe size. maximum. quantifiable terms and can therefore be reviewted and revised.[L i)the I ~. for example. consideration can be given to the and beconomic limitations that will have to be Imposed. the fixdr ndvariable factors pertinint to the system. This diefinition will infl'zence the choice of parameters in t.Uniizations.. the system end the bopmdaries must ae explicitly defined. or perhaps to restrict the range to several alternatives. i learnirigproe~iB for fuxture op.. the edystW.. if he does xiot. operational. development.Iye optimization model. a squadron of bombers. (c) it in esier to Inscorporate the ideas and experience of othars if a formoal basis* ftr opt~imization is established. the criterion can be to mathematical ropresentation and IUnslysia.
but the bomber may also have a mission to act as a deterrent o. Factors that have relatively little impact on overall effectiveness or cost can be considered to be fixed or. and their included in the analysis. and the final choice of system definition be clearly indicated so that the scope of the optimization process will be known and areas for possible modification of the formal mathematical solution will be madF explicit. It is expected. weighting factors would have to be introduced to quantify the relative importance of each mission. Some degree of control is thus obtained urcertainties.& measure that is difficult. A performance measure such as killprobability for a SAC bomber may be assignabl. consideration of only extreme values might be all that is necessary to determine the significance of this influence. fte answers to the fo•lowing two basic questions. Where possible. of course.2 Risk end Uncertainty for a decision not to Include some degree of risk and uncertainty.13. a risk involved if factors chosen to be fixed or unLiportint would have had a significant effect if they had been allowed to vary. It is important that factor selection. will provide a great deal of insight for such formulation: (1) Why is the system being developed? (2) What physical and economic limitations exist? ( y The answer to the first question essentially defines the mission profile of the system. There Is.AMCP 7WI1i Now the analyst must select a decision criterion by specifyiM the types of effectiveness and cost parameters to be Investigated srA by asigning numerical values where required. variability. if not impossible. however. It would be 1*oosible to establish zii4 ground rules or procedures for formulating a crite rlon for optimizing system efrectiveness.a difficult task in many cases. however. Th3 choice of objectives and criteria Is perhaps the most difficult task in system effectiveness optimization.•• develop theory and accumulate experience to help overcoe soes of the difficulties of this task.ionable factor might have a monotonic influence on effectiveness. that current research In the optimizing of system effectiveness will . . to quantify. to specify how Xt is rare In many cases. possibly. Factors that fall in this "gray area" may have constraints imposed upon them in such a manner that the more detailed analysis to be performed in the optimization process will indicate final disposition. the definition chould be translated into quantitative parameters . making it possible. the risks can be identified before the decision Is made. can be ignored. For example. effects can be over risks and much risk can be tolerated. It is for this type of iultimission case that judgment will become especially important. 2. if a quest. Even if quantitative requirements can be placed on all mission types. for instance.
"ia possible OuteeMre are kama. bet in this eaes.AMCP 70I1 (~. its Implementatlon is virtual' ly Impoessible# except for the most simple problems. a magnitude that would tax even the largest of the available comuteos.) se L Eil'tiatioa should be made between risks #Ad UanCertainkties. or even hand solution. 20 praetie. is optima. Ohile this approach 1i conceptually sLmple. More than 32. are listed In Table 23.13. The list is by no means complete. and the probabilities are 1/3 for a red ball sad W/3 for a ihlte ball.Lons of risk aws preferred to those %aer conditions of uncertainty. I=me of the more commonly usei techniques. It may be known.echnquae for apti•ltation essentially Involves the application of effectiveness and cost =orels to all fassibie designs and selection of the design which. Techniques a"e therefore needed to reduce the amount of mathematics and celIutation to a size reasonable for computer. that the nomew of red balls Is betwen five and ten and the number of white balls equl ten. according to thj criterion. 265 I . all that can be sad about the Mubetme Is that a red ball or a white ball willte draim. Consider a problem Involving Wl tee variebles. these techniques are sophLitlcated trialanderror routines. An el5 o o a r15 A probability be aessgned to any event that 16 ecosideard a risk. the distinlton Is not always clear. or fields from which such techniques are derived.000 possible system deesins would have to be considered. but no probability can a rod ball from a urn containis that he Will 4lie Isa 5gbler amkna a bet 5 red balls and 10 white balls. In a sense. 2. ef efort nut be sad* to learn re about the system and thereby reduce the imont of uncertainty in the decision. A brief description of several of these techniques is contained in Section 3 of the Ouidebouk.3 Ostwizition Tecniue The . for ex"4e. An example of uncertainty Is making the "sn where the number of rwd a~la and the anugar of white balls are unknown. each of which may take one of cray two rossible values. geometrical. be m losi to d ucertainty. Sines analyses vader codtd.
Mey arn overloowed because they do not Increase or diminish the total coat and effectiveness of the system being iialyzed. Other l~mtaln demeign Dynamic programming Linear PrCaremmiuW Nonlinear programing IV. Investment.6&161 Calculus Calcthuo Ulrth 4w deat u A of Vsepatosw lme Stastalt pMoeeese W .at deal of emphasis is necessarily placed on the three basic types of coat: resaarch and development.4 Lverege Wtects During the analysis of system cost or costettsctiveness.13. other Operatic"s esearch fteh~ai"us Nomte Carlo tsohni*qus allue theory 2.ayesian aalsis Declisio theor Method of stae mtC±MM thory Stocatic t mint Processes Programming Tchnaiques In. a g . However.uence* (acts as a lever on) the cost or same other chaise 266 . and operating. These costs and benefite are callsd leverage effecti in that they come into play when an alternative associated with the system being analyzed infl.AMCP 7. costs &aW benefits In another category are often overlooked during these analyses. IV.
. mssw of the excluded oactor. associatid with It in order to perat ci Inlarence the 4*cisionr mM factors oust he excluded if the system is to be repressated by a model and pertinent Informati~m In to be extracted hran that moel hoa after the model Is a"i1.191 twigtles ot s5.SsseO asa quetity at dallane ties. for "svelaost one of three alternative power lastas A& mod C.95tCm~ tI * It. S taxos of toe deflaltimn of oceteffectivemeas mal"sl Sglum eatlierp a leverage effect 1 Presented as me cusadmnt of thil earnq at s'buterlstles mmtl~med therein. OW am be soly)j facts or olzomtmcess that shnald be ctasiderad In tMe declalm. leverage effects. d that the total sstm cost and a: o estiost ar: ac alteratie a tollo: 0.15 *stio As Indicated Previ~osly.95er prov cid ftw e 0fetma. Iftdequa4e dte. e4. ~~K) . Ena $30. Iomegas effecta lInclude those allied factors or elos" *ah an eteiinl to the system bolas studied but nor here. model of a 00*10X proceSS is usually Incomlete becaUSS O WICONUewatiee.000. selm* thw powerpluat for the helicapter will still cost O$W. nosqusfitatiVe factors.wt or.0000 because of shared develaommt.000 is a leverage eff act. a slanit*int If mot ov"Muedeml Aspet 4a the flai chaise smogs syetai alternatives. to the various sitenatives. are recans)Aered for the final decisiao. is assioN that the total cost at a am poamrplent developed far teto 4aloe would also he $ftso00. It Uisotmee for use Ac a new helicopter. 5. costs.l0. tanrqe ateffst nesed at be eIW.g."o.AMCP 7W. bat thAt :r reverp). 213. but its deveinpeat will effect a $30. A ollitaryagency is to select. anid Inadeq 6te £cnifmtrtio of the effeiuts of the process an Ssytems ad Operations at 267 .taw apstlm.000 saving in the allied C0 6 It night boo &Mete that is eorege effects could be Included in either the Isolate the problem ad def ins a system. or vtol uts. e. .OO00 In the developm.9 aeceti 0o.000.mt a were selerted and de4veloped for the helicopters Ite total cast would he reduced to $W00. This saving of 30. retiees Levenago ettwta oam be illustrated by a @uilv sex#".000. the task now a"ke C oppear to be the beet bVt.
Umnever. oertaintes about the validity at the standard of .eeqptabity aed emewar t o ath ** wh fs A j tatle m ma aems.osesunmat and the socurmn of mhe ast""" WAG about liethew the criteri wre prowe is the rivet piece. a sae aunt about the we~lJabillIt at a devIct is . an the belae at the attaned rowsults zW reveal .. *saRoi teesawk prooeehr ieh. Now1. Ivan if this at&fa rd Is eve~n. ae t14s oftsideref.6 capdw0 wil 3Figi GMAY partIa MOSAIC SolutMM. further coopieatv the estebihoawt of declisio Criteria..eves " n tke Mhe optlilasatim process. beemue o atmi presat na~bliflt to s1oplya str~cli iiMay~tical aproach. as It 'sald be IS #$Ml SIMNIhhAW 2. ft* sftroos at these alouiwcrvm. 2ke nofeal arlteals. the f~erlione an jiaipmt ot ariogenet latet mo~m 4albity for the final 00les. tents. M there Is so doubt ocacewmiag the . serivas pzvbim If It Is the wrong aw. therefore prowlAWde the ftowmswsi for a tine doClaus. the reftit.ssiasloges wvless a standard at miaUreinalt Is xiven. it OW be afesr to exenane eltemtive oebeetvee we taw hbv tas mauned pvlem of I lInt ISCleSta the option objestly. I# a *"%Tro.. .6 . oAt III the overal e0. Pinwe *the 5aut* Value of 4"Ai or coat mat a"t be overiOsted. hewever eupl~tnoss I&lp~beem sioabe prevai end beams af Ilftatiain ot welichie usotbods. at the tiAIsMi* WooWam 464 AWASIOet %bebeet ""An OPIUMi the uipltifetWIcMS 0090111106 testralemw reqirsled to aoiwmest the V410. YAeIa b*0411e St 06 erteiAtleS. Vases the Satwds for kiagr the uaseurownt *wer avai4*1e." &int thi be *veiavN4 thre **ov t. xf the Process is based an a nOmct tm'atm ULU ath "u asom sd sqlloiction at a reeasabeb modesi the declaim can be ezltila13 evauiated ad evaitqbiv mcuifiei. lirr Instowe.p uo bgeee sof. modig deoulai in the abence of criteria con also hae" h5batvI cowaqslee. ane those wIhb remilt In admin Ofteativiel~s Mor a £lvsI bu"i or a sweirled etffctiie6ess at slalom a"%*. matMden vothatleal t401oliwes. IhSM M %MeRteste oft. syeme atotmelv eqmsooofo or a Mad *ost# b mb r h w&bia ehual be uised? Seleating a particelor cniterift for lot OC a better me can creste. the s"totnt vWORM .AMCP 7i*112 hblabw esi aisosi toelss ~a s" e"s.me critical Ouflelwles th atm be rOetiti...ste me. fte a4ppriatsees$ 0 decision critera&for aiwterT uysatm erlxpoilt. I of &adecision. Usueve.tiil te neiuS~ee. adi the easociated ep"Mu se t of amtvsat". Ao underetmeida ~sthe ca~1eztty of criteria to *essetWa.
I can be displayed Ina ~ maume that f"il~tate Itsea Ineafis "U o tim th th* daecieionwuker's exprt 3euftmt. The major assuotions should be explicitly stated at the beginning of the stiay effort wad. PIece GA~iditional barde" C" thte lyst.bwc t o aparet aterexercising the effect ivaess modetrt te atamaive Cosidr" I th MMPLSare all extremely Vuluerable to "AVmaction. Other cowiderations to be *bsare.a the high rulnserblity. thAe should be explicitly stated hemin.icA fectare awe contributing '. the solution may be to go back an cansider a aem alternative system. Th3b~f" a ritria do"wt irsb~etheanalysis at costa temdrA rt Sems that as w~h informti~fs. examined at the decisionmaking level to deterrsine if the aseimptions are valid. he must maflt"Ai &grMat deal Of fleibiLitY In his 2144111% to make his esa'yis adapable Ito ettulgio Safoimatiw requinments.e the output at e*ery staep li the *ystemo aaaalyss/roetetfsctivemes~s process to detsisiie it the roesult appears to be corret..)a fed back. It the miSSin proftles are cfti4U the bS$ vulnerability to &an av~idable tactic.pssIbl. makIng level it necepaawy.. this Wanftation should . the anlyst shoul reeamine the allssin profiles. eta. MhAl~ the Informatimn ammbe On#W 0 Ino asingle valid criterian. If feasible. tAt all aseipti xe and subjective judgments uased in the analysis are ideintified... Vt the threat appears to be causing the hig1 wulnershility. is toProvide Caustent Vipatin of previous Souts and analysis by using the infartlc aindfo h uypoess as it bccs available. so that the ztaitaon profiles can be cheicked iro posseible cheage. threats. 2. and perforowAt characuisritico may hav prftebilitleseand confidence levels 4associated with thafoef. an the system must F beriwved for consideration by the deaslsonmakere. Ptesultz ftutta that are intuaitively wAmexpted "I lead to a 4*tcraination Otht*w tu@tor In the wtAlysis "a izadvsertwcaly onit*td. t Pw eaW~k. cr possibly chw* te prfomece equremntsofthe systew. fteuncrtantis o fuurethresats usviraimmeta. MhA rm"uirmet.' bouwe. At this point In the system analyuis/coeteitectivenesa process.14 Lmum mi aIK REIN WIUUU ?be major fIstiO4 of the evalmation an4 rfefdk iuformstion process. . the ratio of effectLivenes to cost is not etffatLYvMeSSe. and hardware charaicteristics o determine *. to the decision. l h netite that wcur In the analysis are treated.AMCP "6491g U th ratio at effectivenss to cost.
effectiveness divided by the prodwt. buat that pieyslsur~iase effecti voraes rs ive times s imortat as the Seacndwryfaiesaon effectiveness (condition I). the analyst mnst be eareful not to mat declasaoi toat on: preparly bae"" in the Jurlu"diotem at raeilm~r it is 4auis"d that tne "sum mA30swa/o'ts.he may ave sod *am dueilas I that shmId have been left to Mmnaginat. 1 adK repreeent the weloted 9aporaLasios. for examls. ad five year man atbavIde of tiftemn.supios and varlablas tend to be( sensitive. amd t"e abenceo aty 4witabls aMetutte for* the 600110Dý uabiwom iubiits &W proan~t. diVeste tob tNe infer of Wthd tla. Zr the wesult of a study are senitive to the assalmu that a qeytio viii b Is persUi ter saw fit~M reans. Infusmitl adn data that sae essential t kts eel"i a proper dwecison. 0etMe Of *Ae effects of selecs"ti VrIem coufse" or aetuft. In a usefu fomal. It. It the sawlst atteouts cat additional. the analyst decides that the In3w IU. stop *developing a single costAftect~iauas W~ax fras *am or all af these data . 1 04I elysia laovePrOridi tbe best 9000014. at sffects be ia Wet villing to ascopt. (amvst also. four. In Oseoms.e pareastwlc treateet of as. 3in Wort. Umiawer. Yhw array el'itat sobo In Tab is 24 for eaub of three cometlog system represent a set oatdata econs tered by the analyst to be IPWotant to thr dacisianmiker.iw Preparin apnpmrate Infamsift it to the Oftslaosim.) on p~tfall that wast he avoided In the system 40117SySl/cost oftestivenss pmeas canonaeu the a owt detail the ayt rsnstoW ~looa a xAuction proeses or by the szWsItself. ¶1w desisicom v nt. desida which Pet. almse data reduct SEA analysis tlwmlve *ou decilaim.AIMCP "6491 * wU.. two. of coat ani tine. the vauldty at the esatmante Presented to bia.. so bee ad ia recalculate for me.er wre She fansawim at the analyat.1" ft~t1C it SnqAd. Mai would be :Mlcated through the u of factarsithat lanc*6 of the pries acd saeond" I. attstiMUMem U. the so" fft. DSSattiallY. at Comms. In the oxm)s jist given (Canitlon 1) 19 Se . 3Jig..mer.ffattivem s pyress" do" notrereen adeaelaiM It Is a VMeS"e that Concludes by pregenting to t00 decdaicam.. avo VIs apparwnly the preferred systeo.
90) 1(.AMCP MS19 INNE 14 ~P~e42? Rcnt~ m to ) oanm _om Mi _ _ _ _(9It + 12 ) C? (5 (48 (2) *AM tMo C2 rvt syt~ A for CcMditim 11 to calculated as follws: C2.* 2) C T * (.Ku~*K3 A.7~0) .
it owl Mu"ee d"Ides ta" the Pv11"" .* dA. Botpwmt A .utimeu of th = cooo54 insl can'te *ru imemeialt thar Ob. e'osso SA coat) we them et du4trabla. so IWX 0 g0 2 t i 96 100 . 7wo ealt"Lee ste In wawe 2U~.. xwm . by a curve.3. 3WaIpmsnt.ft a.eas tbare Is aeod no tw effectiveno"s VM*at thMe 96 psetm Wo imOe tha $.AMCP 7WI91 ?hewefores it the inaret deoldes tbat pwiay MleisionOm eftalswm ~a lNOrtnt as the sftmhaeiysxi~' strest.j for 2441pmet S.s~ts 13#50. anlvi effctivuenes of 99 CmowWSl.0M *lAftld bo spent an this e*iUp 0 90 9e 96. QS7*i A£A emd appew to be the preferre eiwtaL elve Umse A favorit sstho for pweewtix the iesutst or's costefteetvemmgs at Is a cumv "hat to p19ttd iaetI coot a th a*& Ieaa am. . CortsAl miamll 1iwwsse In tzh* e t. A cM PM~t@Ob.7y SULOW Am 4"4117 SW .tmt (Ow6ItImm II). or ton oft eletImas of 95 Portent. at tugs type 4C Dý gUwI1' to* c4 ~ss (^ Uw"'6 gab s4ttot~ e fox sk s) la. Mwmo. M.viee (@t±u ~ Z) 3 e the Pr~tettd watm.
most be base rmSlyo the lfoimtlua I& the C2 amy o~4wpot .ft*~ fumtio Vr of aals p&yte tois grvdtedeii9ik decigsizmia~o miust also arcout for Wh imiain i o nteqatfe etinmmO m utat aO~s upt solct~ntbaefrtov.
usualy In a statistical seme...wa. there are four techniques that ar applicable : the systeaansalysi/c. The first class oonslist of technAques that are used to represent a system's eiuavior a" a function of time . unce the representations are often oomplex (both matheutically and physically). Wreover. and Identifies the section In this guidebook in which the techreique is discussed. Indicates the igener'al application of each one. Pr'ogramnodn • Analytic Models * Game t Theory S•Ionformation Theory iesthematioal Tabe th3rd class of techniques consists of those statbstioal and elationships among such system paraieters f tools used by the analyo e t to dentif in cost. aet. There are three broad classes o! techniques that can be applied In syste  analysis and cost effectiveness studies. and determine how critical t+he parameters are In the deoislonialn process.Confidence Intervals • • Expe•A~ncis Curves Sensitivity Ana. perform&. This class Includes the •'ollcwin techniquest • Decision Thneory SThe •~ •tlmattng relationships Ra . 31 .Linear" and Dinamif. the marmedzatlon ao s plni rzatfon of som objective fundtion witho n sprioifed nonspramntso Wathin e th class oois techniques: .I AMCP 7WI91 !.osteffectiveness .e.lysis S~Table i 31 lists the various tech~niques introduced above.Sequencing . a comater is often required to manipulate or solve then. This descrlption is generally probabilistic In form and thus relies heavily in the theories f robability and statistics. generally Saianlation • Queuing Theory I tehond class of techniques applicable to s•ta•is a nalyss/cohteffectiveness Is honcalryd witho findinl optimal solutions.Inventory and Replacemnt process. s. Withki this first class.
Training 32 largePoole conflict .wll nlatic. A simulation can be employel in man t~pes of" systems analysis.AMCP 7W191 TAN 3.1 51311 UlS.1 3.e an b emloc x in mayt'so sytm anlsi... .5 L:Uwar and Arnamio Pftogrwmmtr Deqeciing Theod X x Analys•ic Model D Aecsimlon Theory Corot a X (sl X X I 3.o /tiat Relationships and . Identitfoation Looaof Critical tion Problem Aroas Book x X3.Rxperimental Impossibility .g.and tion or WloO syste Ut•O I aEfec Effectiveness Optim . Cost .1 SOlWLATI1 A simulation is a model (usually computer) that duplicates a system's behavior without actually employir% the system. Fstheetioal formulatilon . Some of the more Important areas and circumstances ame • Environmental problems .4 3.lack of analticl•• solution technique .poenoe tConf I ntearovals 14mrienie Cu CoCtSensitivty Ana~lysis i a Xce 3e Xbles X 3e1 x 3 .12 j A.. Time .oeo X 3.itlvIiS/WtiTI[ngTNIEsi m~iulns Technique IntraRvstest Cost Znter.ud Sffeoive Optma s Inxes Oompsziuons Studies* Parameters and Mystem ______ Oot.2 In Guide simul.ation Qufoina Theoeory X x x A 3.e.3 3.1 P tnventoery Replsoemient Coceses ntdi Sar1kov X X x x X Z I X x 3.
to simply system operation. They provide a means by whieh the analyst can handle large numbers of vsriables. defense. Statisuical sizes and constraints are deter•m•d.1ms dealng with continuous functions. 2Me qiuenton clot properly be adads how Is a diita slaistion of a ocwle system obtained. • The simulation model Is oxercised.owing stops ue necessary: (l) (2) aw ohaxaoteristuos of the offnie. and. the flow between the threat. (l) )(5) (6) (7) nputo we Incorporated. most Important.o Gaug. distal simulations in the emoNO of his studies.. th. LEtailed flow diagrams and submodels are developed . rantd bl A log s mlau2tons ane most often uced "a£ m of solving sets of difforential oquatIons or prob. and environsent are detmeineg. deteotlon and trsok. A general flow diagram for the 1mulation Is develop•d .for ixmpl*. Owneally. They rane from strategic or tactical operations to mananemnt. 33 .AMCP 76. A formal branch of statistic• Is devoted to this problem.fort exaple.2 MUEU TEKI Queuing Soblems my develop whenever there are demands for service from a number of more or les independent sources. oncepts a hoot aot' blUm.1I ShLmINaIeSS "A be either amalog or digtalp aid both have been appisd V%) several otbe SampLtng. An Im•ortant aspect of Nonte Carlo Same aimulations is the Design of Uperiments for testing numerous variables and reducing output variance muile reducing the required samWle size. say. the systems analyst I myaS Ihely to encounter. WUthA the set ot *mulationsawe suoh as Mti Gen. fainlas Devieos. based on probability theory. Queuing theory Is a technique. me4wd of acoutInd the 1ookon probability fo' the tracking Wader. and tar interceton ' (3) issile. 3. SThe applications of simulation techniques ae manifold. for a forwardarea airdeftewe problea? The ftc. that supplies a smans for mathematloal analysis of this class of problems. uncertaliAnls and alt•enative steps.ng radars. mathematioally Intractable relationships. Space and time oordntion rwe developed throughout the simulation for each smulattion element.
average arrival rate a 0.Thn uM6er of sericang fasilties MWUD "s"e * Mhe qufee 41scip Lith knowledge of these factor. S. Awng these are* thwu~ oaaW 4 In the nalyad 0 The piobabitr £ bu ioumerlyi arival times • e pfb%1M1 M9 at2Yf * Me~ .inbe of waiting litwe .oiietiMe ceateWO *uetoWr eeniMi tafl a bottlmek.. Naval Institute. "34 . p 238. clerk will be put on when a message would have to wait at least 3 minutes before being processed. what higher rate of arrivals cazn be tclewated before another man must be aunu±d? For this particular type of a queue the following relatienships can be derived by mean of queuing theory: Average number of messages In the oommunloations center wheri A . messages an*e every 10 minute end arrive at a oaminationo center an the avena with Pousbon distribution: te service time for rooessig the mssages are assumed to be eaxonentially Tts questions to be answered ares (1) (2) *%at In the average number of mnasages in the oommnicatlons center? *hat In the average length of the queue that nay form? (3) Asruing that another message.AMCP764S amiea of psals (oW Waitss liMe) uituatlfams w neme~ rumw in a( at &uePaIr fasilitYa dmd flew Of ". WReproduced by peraisaion from NAVAL 0PMATIONG ANALYSIS. IL . the anys7t can often predict suih iqportant resultsa s the average lergth of the waS ung line amd the avenge idle timetor & Sariesi facility during MW spnelfied time Interval.1 per min. . The atI•lty of tSW mhon d am be demonstrated by an exole.33 per min. Annapolis. Md.cverage service rate = 0. Copyright 1968 by the V. JbW fateres msat be os of queuing problems.
qmin with Mhason awivSl. . •3= 3 .)')1 . .26 =sespa Par.43 =.1 (1) U E~ AWSne umber of smaesu Averag loaeth of in the M. "au. 1959.that of the etrIleNeve. aL. t 0.. Mhe IpwobabilIty of an arrival In a small time InorsmsLt# At# Is )At. which aore govn4ed by the previously cited4 fantors.JL.33(0.rapss r~im.)The probability of a serviced unit leaving In the Ufteral t.nauto (3) Toerable arr.. P.3. occurring in the Interval are taken to be sero since they are proportional to 6t 2 or higher. eand n " the probability of there being n units In the sustem. nem t• • ens • • 1.Lval rate 10 meemo& Per bow to obtain saw Ineat Into the ndurlryla timoVY.0. The r obei of units In the systom Is found by deslopif reoursion rso•tioehipp. conidew the Amplest case .pt" quea .o Posed& theom 6193 0.=te.43 sum *s j ~~(2) (e) v.33n~s 0 gmm mn7uSP0. Completed In At As* t events we eqvalent and tu: their probabilitIes of oceurrence *X asioni.the total nmber In the system (the nmber bedna survloe plus the nmber In th.AMCP 706191 • a Avstlap loat of *non. Operations R~esearch and Sot. Assume that the queue dGIsop'l * is each ••t an arriyal moves Imedlately Into the service area I• the area is vacant. Let n . t + At Is: 0 If no units are In the system at t Pat It there ame oe C a mor umite In the system at t. . :0.••. queus).Avserae waiting6 tim Themaswes to the thre questIn. S . Just 41Miuae4. Gonsider the following two conditionas (1) (2) 0 unIt• in iystemat t + At no arrivals in At + 1 unit at t and I serie 0 ites at time t. John Waly "35 . Ifthob aM Edoblems. st. The probabilitles of no" than one arrival or servIce or both. Inc.
and the. IMw 13001o4tYa. The deeive4 answer Is the . owfis"Sr the simple case of tro sequential sewvioo tsaI~tlOSS 4safh Pewfwmis te WOO SIm~wly.opsote4 the am rjueus da~llas 36 .AMCP 74191 to Owtan PRO Nov tMe 1 . TO ilustnete.496~e ahMUSb606 correspondingly swr difficult. go"n knoim but rsot nuwossarily s1V~pl* distribution. rslationgda rush theme OsW In therVIU 01 exmpe um to round. As ths arrivel and sswvioe dlatnibVUtCAis oe001oated.u ths aem be Witten s v . "Ien the mathematics b*GoMB too OGWOe for a Cosoed anaum3iol soltt$A or too costly. hWe ir g but not zuoesawllv simple distribAUtic.i~ pjri "e" the w lom t [1. the swrviyls. spint aASSU 1as pwvloualy.(%+ at) +e +I (ww) + %b" SUa ow then be wamrslun"to wM. the Munen of waiting Unse and service f~ lmIoasSo the Queue discipline beoG wos omloex. by Irdaet1. the Onroach employ" is abnte Carlo.(~) ~ Pa I so that Po 01 IIL but ones the Pn ane detesw~eM.
. o Ift WO IIIO uan LU SMIW the9M TO reulin 46ate4 xeted time In the qstm can wi~lt~h MW patlo and serin to statistical sooulenoe req•'frninte).saenger routes witi•n a division. h4 ana• gous operationsb• • lm Is the nelcation of . 37 . fequeming Proble" fal U*to two pmops (I) performing n tlks. rewd.AMCP 7wI ) timt WOO IS the 4Mst 4 f IS WWOmU~ JV ap1INi Ute OW20 tesbcdQures to the three e IteUmIPeuiif w Wh Itern Oft R5 O55 tU* t. Unfortunately# both types of problems a" exceedingly ditfioult.. is to use sequencing as a azagemnt tool iA the development of a comlax system requiring =mrous tasks with various facilities or remoutsoe. NO nm can be anglyse. consider a messengerrotate problem Lu *loh five s""a are to be made and the requirMMnt i0 to MAnthe route i lvolvg the winima total distance to travel"e. but oomp'61*ated "with the added constraint that the *saelýVr 10s~not pass.t requiritg ownicifing e of the seqensoing problem Is the Travllig esman" problamin *Inoh samesma mist visit a series of loostions. 250. at present. A further potential aplication. are to determine the otInam use of the facilities through proper eequenoxaj of the talks perfozimed. ee e Is a Aietis of te seqwne or order In dioh a mer of task ae performed. dth the deisio of the n+l tak being made at tM cmpletion of the nt ta*. 11 seviced. "to~ing at eaoh the locatin ony owe Mad returning to his starting polAt at the concluson of his travels. the same paint twice. Por this type of problem *bers are (ni)! subsets that mAst be searched for a solution .in this case. 4! w 216. At"i only for same "W ob cases of the first type. Mei Problem 0ould alSO be viewed as an allocation problem. 64eh eoreo eeMMUl eeping track of 1 here Item tIe Vie dptis Can be deter mu IF 81026ng &No l be SSsatOMM (bj"t. The objectivem. A classialt *emz biquMoing is related toth order ft %iiehtar . TO ilitatrate the technique. p. each of wich reuires prooesslng on em or all of a differeant i IUnesi (2) processing aM a lit of n aulks With a machu• m. It a=3ie at eWass of probe sIn * Loh the w cr.
AMCP "St. l. (6) am lUne thrguoI waikod rows.e"t malleat the isnlest valumis is1ua4 the now astWU to as fe'lowsa ijIb~4 33 XX1 33 LI~X5 5 38 . Nut" raw. (2) Nut m=U4 owsm (3) "t~ eamm l n a"in .~~'kvbse.19  * Ion* Ljai (Me oarw as W1*s).'ne Aa iJ a~~ 5 b~ ~~ a S~tl *~ 5 5 dlaf"it vw olit valm uraw" wg tampaet.w Uw mat am n wmw at. (7) k'sv lin tkvoigb naft" os1=s.having amemonts In a"%" o1in. 64sft olo1tl amit to ltt (8) 8. i  0 3 4 0 1 0 2 6 4 s aoomsh I"* byth tollowijs oePe: IduSKSM uwoe ad ttoom se uemam Samn. (4) aft ..
ttoloh.UI p1bee Is #%M watuearagj (1) Us Oot~ of ua4. Ir.14eM*W SOar (the aaonlmet POhM bam besss aplwd). Lnueatw3 a2 (3) sw oatso IawlrAi 44 sLoahwI eartave tworold: The PMobMi teat* VA (1) an Otte* shsz.ttlalw VlAUW Of It$ Wffo446 The a00t &&MOoated bePaInSI 4 orsosaaUA idth s&*aInlas an Imbe~tay ams nonw. "0 M51. tile DO %VW of400 n.eqMWsela.mein m UNUinv Z=006097 sOM be *dIRSS as WA pyalead stof of Soods bapt an beud by an the *. in %uson" is is assXW to . Ostat tMW ePOe I0 In MAI the Pal he amoww. V2#4 AJWLYiz3 Capyrs.a 4064MW pae~s in dadef hew ou tma~tie Gepeudaes arGARSWasAM pee OS Dh prnr. 4 a Islue. maftel rowvnd SMe "der.:7 taoa mthantseal &"raw&to ?1341J4 ts 0OINN bkeed an the imaws* mat winl uiAAeSS !sresW~ UlM "u quamitiy aud to *"I as wwYreU 0084 of Mlnttilft Uthe 1ftW~tw.et rNe Sa Al  0V ate.14 he rwaemsh? (2) au ash awax to tspiwaot ~e~s*.WIM aweS mo. ~y p*atssoc frve SATAL OMAXI UtttAt* vsVV4 AfPAP114 YA.o e.5 +1 wrat. (MelIt the cftM am dm bempeu'ftineabout UK Other 2 Olaming 9it umId hae. &UUIx otae.) m. "Vtdoum Is to bacrie go 0 m'1 beheirior stat istaeg2y in terne o tStre I INIMOlam WRO Mad Its. *42e lit *&As U. 309 SOM ab~ alet.+.2'tlen Is a sAAM mhe bshv~w at a weae vatS W dIscrios sta~s~ vith ps'oebauistie 1'9 by *At 10 ROOM a8 .pt 1968 by th ..fejn"a #t a own Ot g vii abo at b e n* 0 Ode toaI~ 13. Me Oheqk the fyaam* beat 061sus by ~aspasn about U miniest ino~awso *I Mat. . sOW be P 1m 4 anth Passes.T* W.2 M~ft he Sot.&"t or heolaf pods.
i.mvr .w 4. so that the pm~taoo to to mecr4fsr e'. wlO. I(t) 20 + tr it(.n addfttloa tte Unks botmew afttlone oaan war' in toms (altsgle.*@. roOw4.surJ lhew to be fawt b"t "Vm ~ fewz mt. la i am el tim lnbeam1. on* be fialt. ISUDIO tWatce' SIf MITIu ~i~A.8 ttctw an either kw hoeA DaeuisU tlmf tim rbArn Is n14 to P~wibeu Lt the paramptat we constant vl Iuesamo be statusi It tb a". in af (3) WAn . mt.Lbit) wot Dm. the woblem Is frdO Ith crompocAsll limathowtima ifneulty.clalob wAd the arrIvol of zeplaemnto miss be oooumi4.avorlme levels. A ^Imzil toalderaticn to be ftemismm cooaeU'n Inveantory aota Is.4.ivrulaa In tU* 1 "ab luvsAty Problem 16 also O2. twaao)4 tabe as a WAI*. Yfe Prna. a!' &IU41* oftslao 'Po Al1atnate thO teohaiqw. posi) and iwto (mv (Ammfiaft e Vib cal .isuffe4 $A to=*.sis" af mAIpWt tOl Vie and*). the dretw wan beOcnaawmIdw MAIoDrMa to a network.n tMo 418"y is that ruthorm 4.z.A .r..Anst.t~lAvontery to . alternative. f lq% mi Ute o' 6t&Me Y. oorai4s the alWv4 *ample*a fti.pa otn be em wlhsi !A teof Ot "Ov teqestlw Pau*e UVAws mKY tim alsnu" l.1ak' ta4Wo bstm we*~ sad rpIsi~a.s at law tim t Is a* S~)min b(t).4 chat has a waiaces 6emw rate bit) .Ipal tlftsuamts.a watt Per WL~t roare4r ocot to C. tZ.tha 11141.)ietIQ~k cc I3min bwtvom remlts *no m the 4. Thor* lo m~ opptleoble 4014r U *YS*7 T days wth g iIU4S ordere.. . of tUP 30w't of tzmi4%ds rog0ml1og themi fatwol .AMCP MIS491 2be wwmus oam thm be whow** of as *oa.t melawsis thebe S (a) mimi. O4tte timW three typs of assultluo ee wrdm cmow Owtaid MAS U.acZgt In m Um.. mw hentwatou Sgates Itmif wag w*Owwass. wrlora o"Utto (Rwl~e sad Parallel) &W~ . fbtlt si.*MDT~u Ps'ble".
eitftrwtiato r~1th wrup*ot to T ma squat* to sio": 001 fsquanutyt to be M. Is For a ula± 90S. a"an Uthe I 01301C fI A Clio(rpbt mt i 0N 00 ~69a sm S1wtpw an vast t5i.I ~ ~ MU %M"W t e f tow helT a" 1~*14 Wa 1u m" ft Is Vve 1"t MMM4 WOS W mat *.I no to %et* ft is ml 1 tainIm~n costs ~ "M Iubntq oli mt I* W. 2U tUWt m 311 .or. total oast j3 tha j dWAU be %WA~.as me I I's the s*ape %emy.1ma is then man miziiam amrce. TMa pwObI.. +c AVISONOt theoW7 la oaornoed with siutistons In~ viOb systse pmrforanlý* ondition om e restored to Its Inifiat 15 imtrowatsta with timm mantkA ayet UNMw these actions 10 t~o i9.tart s Iau ýgSaticof. Ow .
A And B. Transportaticn problems generally deal with rouriV4 of units between a nmmber of souroes &nd receivers in v•ch a manner as to rn:. suah &a the direction of the ineouality ae whether tho purpose is maximizing or minimizing A number of techniq'aes hae been developed for iolving linearprogramming prnblems. "* Type A carries 30 troops. a&sigiAent and transportation. 3. the problems need not concern only asstgnment or transportation for line'proSgramming techniques to be applied. "* There are fifty pilots avai!able.eotive. rM=0.near progranming is used to determine the values of a set of vaiablea i 4 _I the Objeoqtve whle the variables a linear equatio.5. Two of these. B requires one pilot .tion of the forper. N bmbn 6 dM.AMCP 70619. c:rcumstances.'&phin'l ind one analytical. "* Type A requireL Lwo pits..S LINEA AND IINAIIC PINARINI( 3.xmInze or minimize the worth of the opsrati'on • However.eated° simply A mathematical representation of the tinearprograuuing problem is NanXn nl subject to 0 and. and the following. •. Any problem that can ti! formed as optimiz1i a linear epression subject to linear constraints can be t. Ascignment problems generally deal with distribution 'aetween a nube r of alternatives in such a manner as 4o maximize or minimize the total worth or ob. B carries 20 troops. Linear programming problems generally fall into two oate'ries.1 FogammL Linear L. There are 40 of the Atype heliuopter and 20 of the P type.ere an\. one g. Consider the problem of twc types of helicopters. although the latter is actually a generall'. 11. 1. * The objective is to move the maximum niunbqr of troopr..i that produce an extreme t are aubject to a set 0f linear constraints. e number of variations in forming thEe r•lationships. are troted below. 312 .
and 3. • 1'ote region allowed by each . For three or more variables. The graphical method Is a quick &nd easy method for solving linearprogramLIng problems. I 50 Equation1 I Solution Point SOptimal /Equation 3 Equation 2 Objective Function 0 10 20 30 40 I XA 50 The procedure followed to find the optimal solution is as follows: * Plot inequalities . provided there are only two variables.Equations 1. It should be noted that constraint number 2 coula out changing the solution in this example. 313 .iaside croashatuhed lines. Plot objective function. *Note solution region. analytical techniques are required because the solution space is no longer twoAve been neglected with dimensional. 2.AMCP 7W6191 The above statements can be changed Into the following mathematical *jrzesalon: Naximsie 3OA + 20[i are the number of the types A and a used. * • Note maximum distance point (last point in the aolution region that the objective function touches). . • Move objective function (parallel to itself) away f'rom the origin. ý5 of A. The solution here is to use 20 of B. subject to the following constraints: (1) (2) 2 XA+ I o50 Xj a40 (3) Xs a 20 First consider the graphical solution shown below.
314 .40. althoqraa tedious. If there are no negative en nies. thus the solution is not optimum. the solution to the optimum one. X. 0. examine the objective row to see tf there are any negative entries. and the following procedure is carried out: (1) Determine the most noeative element in the objective row and identify its column (the XA column La this prob. by introducU4 a met of Slak variables . contain exactly one 1 and all the other entries are zeroes and all the !'s are not In the sane rows.u.) behind It To solve the sample probtas. this is net the optimum Polution.20 Then. Xs + S3 . XA S1 XE 0 1 20 .em). . The theory Is oomplioatod. but the application is relatively siple.0 However. (The technique is readily £iropeaed for solution by computers.. For the matrix shown. there is 1 30 and a 20. S2 .S 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 M 0 0 1 N' 50 40 20 0 4Objective Row 2 0 30 ObjectiLve Golumn DeeigrAte the M column as the objective column and the last row (objective function) as the objective row.40. rewrite the objective function a* (2) (3) 3"XA 20XB + 0o (4) where X represents the term to be maximized. other "han the M and N columns.e. 20.50.. there il a feasible solution: I . thus making XA. no troops are moved.to write thw system of inequalities (constraint equations) as eqwaitiem.S V. through . fow construct a matrix of the coefficients of Equations 3. In this case. S3  i. it is first raecsma1y. A feasible solution is present when at least two of the columns. AMCP 70WI 91 The analytic taehiaue desdribed here is the #implex tUchniq'e. To vheok vhether the solution is optimum.. 21 and $3: 1 2 XA + XI + Sl 50 (1) XA +s2 .
The next pivot element A row 3. The resultant matrix is as "A 1 0 XE 0 0 1 i j ½ 0 2 0 1 0 3 4~ ½ 1 N3N 0 0 0 15 25 20 o 0 0 15 0 5 1 850 Since there is no longer a negative element in the objective row.4 Sl ½3 j 82 0 0 M X 0 25 1 0 o1 4~0 0 5 15 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 15 20 750 Th!is procedure is repeated until there are no longer negative entries in .vwt row. AMlu P It1 Into ()Circle the element proftaing the ama~llei ratio (the element 2 in the " oolumn.on. Finally. nothing h As to be done to it. xultiply the normalized row by 30 The resulting matrix is as follows: I the objective c follows: XA XB .. the "pivot" nmver* (4) This is known as Next normalize the p1vot number and rAakp all other entries in tho pivot oalvrm zero. the solution is optimal and equal to XA = 15.20. for each other row. XB . to row 2 to obtain a new row 2. there are many situl. has a ratio of 25).AMdCP M0G. For this problem. However. Row 3 is already 0 in the pivot column. A necessary conaltion for the fcrmulation of linear programming problems In a linear set of objective functions and constraints. and the resulting solution is optimal.when one or more of the functions are expressed as a product equation in the arlables . and add the tuo rows to obtain a new row having a zero in the correunonding position in the pivot column.every elemnt In the pivot row by the pivot number to obtain a new. the normalizing is accomplished by dividing the pivot row by two.Ions In systems analysis .in which thto technique can be applied 315 . and M = 850. whick. multiply the nqrmalized pivot row by the negative of the correspondirg pivot is rcalmn element. XB column. This is donet by first dividing. Second.191 (2) DIv0de ea*h pjitive oornspo'•JI z element in the 5leclAed velue in the N column.aolized p. no. and add it to row 4. t herefore. then multiplying the new pivot row by 1 and adding element by element.
AICP 706191 but not all thi equations are Ulnesa. R.is.21 1m '3p. TMe often oeaurs when kill paobablt•lea of targets azr being de•tezlned. nor are there any general altornth' for pyprogramingltio u. 1957. Princeton University Press.J.mximize 12 log Pi maq ijj Iog a P. in the sequence of decisions "no the ontJMum decision with respect to the conditions resulting from the prior de¢'*. the equatios Is linearized by converting to the losazithlis of the funct. ?rinaoton. Dynamic PgEtrammi. Bellman* (who is the originator of this method) set forth a principle of optimality stating that an optimal policy was one which insured that each decision. there are no oestrictions on the set of equations.. incluegramm:ng wee developed an a means of studyolg dlcison processen and determinrgi f the sequence of aeqsions that results in optimizing a predetermined objective funcI tion. The objective Is to determine the allooation of weapons to targe. 316 .)K1 three types of targets.. Sc ie recent applications of dynemicprogramming techniques include: •Determining thrustcontrol policies and fuel consumption reglmes for putting satellites into specified orbit altitudes with maximn horizontal components of velocity *Bellman. To Illustrate. I mauch a case. N. Lot P denote th'ILe probability.ion and optimizing on the loS (xhich Is monotonic to Ito antilog).2 eqsetnts cited. Taking the loai~athim results in 12 IQ2 3. This Is the same am minimizing the probabillty of not killing any target. hu r (1Pll)Nll(1P12 N ( 3)N3 (lp2l1)N. son Dynamic Progra!EEMS In dynsmh c programmin. In defining this sequence. oorsider the case In which there awe two types of weapons and with PIj being the kill probability of the Jth target type by the 1 th weapon type.5.2Dam roj aog 1=1 (1mming J1 s e can be minimized by maxslmtzin og function Is to ..slo.et to maxlaize kill probability for at least one target. Thus the objective J3 subject to the 3.
e The folloring terms are used in discussing Same theory: * Game .cit.one of the opposing interests * NSided Game  N orposing perrons a decision always to follow a particular course of . dynamic progremng selects the optimam sequince of decisions to establish a polioy that will bring a muimum return.a same in which the gains of one mide equal the losses on the other * Strategy . It has found extensive application in military systems and operations analysis.1 u 1Mlw Oozme theory Is a mathenatical theory cf docislonmaking by contestants with various strategies. including payoffs ".one complete run through the game. Annapolis. p.ZeroSum Game . S.the Awpected gain in one play of the game with all players using stable optimum..191 )what D&• nin Og IRn stc41gng ratio for p sa±ll. returns that vary according to the success of various plans.30. 317 . * Each person has a finite set of strategies. Peroon . "**SasiM. The theory is deflned as a mathematical demonstration that if opposing interests act rationally to achieve desired ends that can be set forth validly in a numerical scale of expected returns. *Reproduce• by permission from NAVAL OJOATIONS ANALYSIS. Copyright 1963 by the U. Md. strategies A competitive game has severa& chsaracteristics worth noting**: * There is a finiti number of persons. It was developed to handle business and economic problems. the appropriate strategy for each side can be deduced mathematicalv. the size of the bets or penalties.a decision to choose a course of action for each play In accordance with some probability distribution * Value . however.us (how inow booster stages of aUleS result in most e'tiont Mhsiles) Establishing optiaua Inventory control schemes for Interacting inventories at differont locations I vuseary. op.a plan of action that Is cumplete and ready to use before the game commences . Originally. Navel Institute.ni.156. Pure Strategy actf.AMCP 706. p. and the payoff methods • Play 5f the Game .the set of rules that define what can or cwot be done.. 2.oki • Mixed Strategy .
the be•. a MaxMin 3lution. in the columns. and the values are shown below the matrix. and the resulting stretedlas a& Pure The value of the game is 0. If no Saddle Point occurn.3 0.8 u.7 0.6 0. Is &utratiy examined for Its worst case.us reflecting the poorest expected return.ts measured In teuas of the expected error prob4bility.aploy.4 0. "Note that in this case both strategi.4 o. while Ihe enemy comander has five types of Jiamang equipment to e. This p m i n llutratva Is planning to wploy a ocommiby a problem in which the oomandio of a wit cation system anJ he has ?our candidate systems.8(11) 0.There im an outooma of a play that determines r set at payoffs to each IIr System~ 11 I oIi II IV1 V Error aiu Cinvu~nioationS sstem A B 0. strateg.6 0.8(mzI) o.1(A) 0.es are defined by the *ee element. comuunication ssatejma. From the matrix observe that coaxuniuations system B and Jeaer . his expected return will be reduced (in this case the error probability w~od !ncrease to the coamunicatcr or decrease to the jammer).3 0.1 0.8 0. each jamming This Information 1i shown to the right of the matrix.6 o. strategies are mixed strategies.)B) 0. .8 0. The appoac taken Is to examine each communications strategy and detarmine which results in the pooreit return.1(C)____ The commander's objective is to select the strategy that gives him the minimum error probability. and if either side uses a different Strategies. slaultambo ]sl.5 0. 318 .3(B) 0.r The problem Is Uo select tih strategy to be amployed by each omimander.8 0.AMCP 7*S1 .8(4) o.4 0. The payoff for each combination of . and To Illustrtte the gane avl4Aon is the set that maximizes the expected re~urn.. in the rows.1 0.4 0. Each corionder then selects the best of hie worst solutions as a strategy Thus. Similarly.4(D)Jf.6.? 0.:vseam III would "e chosen. The siast game is tCe twoperaon/serosm Sae.2 0 11) C D I4Iimimu Error 0. Such a solution is known as a Saddle Point. lUok for a MnMe' solution and (circles appropriate values). Strategy cho)ices ares ma~ ulayer. Ass=@ that through analysis the following payoff matrix was detezu••ed.7 0. while thp opposition desires to choose the strategy that m•amlizes the error probability. t.
Point. The new matrix Is as followst ystJemIIg jan sg j Comunicatlo 21stem 'Error  II) element eng~d A 3 0.(YIII YIV) equal the optimum mixed strategies 1 of the two sides. column V is dropped from further consideration. Of the remaining matrix. Carrying the elimination procedure to Its limit results in the following: II IV Now let X . g. but with the (B. It can be seen that na strategy dominates within the rows. Hence. consider the sast problem ais abuve. hence. 0. However.8(1) o D minimum Exror 0.4 0.0 0. 319 .8(inz) •(D ) 0. r7) 0. within tha columns.8 o. represent the expectation of each side.5 0. there is no Saddle The first step to the solution of this problem Is to try to reduce the dimensiox:ality of the game. x.3 0. to iay. The gain ia now a random variable.1 0.AMCP 70&111 this.8 0. x.6 o. row B is now seen to dominate r'i 0.7 0.I(B) o.8 0. (C) From the matrix observe that system B rapresents the optimum s'•rategy and Jammer II represents the best counterstrategy.7 0. XD) and Y .8 0.8(111. pure strategies no longer exist. is 1(g.1.1 o. y) )X") ii I J jj Let Va nd V.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0. and the expected value to each side y)  Z aiJ XI YJ E(g. However. cc umn IV dominates col'mn V in every row.3(B) 0.1(A) o1(0A ) o.! 0. which is to be optium.(Y .4 0.4 0.
3Xs + 0. and 0 The above inequalities imply the rollowing relationships0. V3.(o.ny th4 + 0.5YV) + ]V(0.3YTV 0. 5 + Yl..4~Y + 0.r ?A Vj Thu terear fie aw~onc and Zeun relatlonahips. XS YO a giV2~ T is" Ptsm 1 o "Mar systft strategy sin"s the an" is serosmm.OY1 V) a V Y+ e. Y) a V1 given X0 is ortiams oaiNmOWation system strategy R(.319 +~0. their swd*aivd &ARSw ooinuoide with their 9inSax eMooted gain (or in this case thsir muzimm) is being min Thus WSgJ 3* Y) a T 7(gj X.8X% s V 0.8 0.51 3 +0.5115 + 041D 6 V 0.JIYU + O.3)r3. W~t It is possible for *qualities to hold in the four Inequtlilt.11% V V V 0. Thus 0. yo) .Vs *dOh means that If both aides use their cp"Im1 K~inNa strategies. Yj nd V 1.513 + 0.8y~ a 320 . 0.g.V AMC? 70161l Tftwa strategies suet be ehoseno so Nato 3(613 zo.8%) aV YXI + 0. YO) a V Wbabtituting for the expeoted payoffs yields Yfl(O. Not all elements oan be be*ro.V2 * V3(g Xz.5Y1 1 + 0. .3yrv 4V Thus a.1%I) InD(0 In I/jdIt~on..5YII + 0.
02TM hUS system 104e4 SO 2/3 o4 atIons set B twothirds of tVh tim and set D tLe remainder.AMCP 706.8 2.1 1.9 2. he would have been sue of no better than 0.•467.rbed. ober nI flveaIxths ot the time "A Jaammr rv SImlarly.457.191 1 yt.an% Oonslder the rew*ued ztrix of the ample problem: 11I B0.5 . by Jewdzag with Jew the rm&ULnr.3 2/3 3 1. + ÷Yl3. 321 .3 1.o3 3/6 V6 Slia. he would not have been sure of dotn ameis with Iag astrioes ae oft better than 0.3 0.8 1. IA 1TO. However. 29 . whereas by following his pure strategy.. the enem Is assured of a pagoff of 0.7 .* V 0. 2isu by ualz o the ownMsder will zrealse a pMot of 0. tedious to solve by use of the technique just deso.4. pue stratea. whereas If he were to have stayed with his best.5. It is relatively simple to obtain an approximation of bolutione the ". .
crease.'k pla•e .8). the value Is 0. for this exanple. It$ ýVplicatIons 1Ave. The approximiate. espnl write oorKe o r• mn add onj and 44d (5) Repeat procs&V time.e& after V iterations am then the minber at aiweled values A•vided by N for each choice.467.0.mzstion .er and lower bounds for the gae can be dete~r*ned by dwvldlr the . S'.awevtr. and the dilons~o. 31 *11SRA~I sN rnfnrvtluon tl.a .egAr.107 onverSenoe Is not Y I  0.667 S .AMCP 7W191 Solution ruues are as foLlo"I" (1) (2) . !e orToaie value fr~o preceding tir  .11y ir. The . 0.5.strix (0.eloot the row . Thus.277 Note that the values are of the right oJar. but thei•r particularly rapid.It has received other sp.833 Yri0. right (3) (4) Cirole lapa vabue in colwmo to last rove allest value in rowan Cirole to last oOlumn* and wits•.468 . . (0. the czmplexlty of the go^* solutlon Incrasses :orrespo r41nly. oor.0.ituent system probleJ. by dividing the liwest number in the lart rov (8. the number of moes per play.3.3 after 18) by the number of Iterations. as .0o of the . str~tsgý. been In .723 .IC ty .667 0.e a andt a s r4.a irtensre?or lSyst• anslyMs.•i.333 S.li•tion Irn such diver** ares.l'"ro lnltlaý anvd mo~t r.o. Solvi this system 1ed* to the following values: S0.*. of course. . As the rumbvr of ei'es.4 after 18) by the nuber of ltoertioj.ettir !.latively new tool 6o the systems analyet. and highest number in the last oolumn 18.33 0.3). mr. Circl.45 while thv predetermined answer was V V a 0. 0.e usmallest value 1A the r~ow and vlt* oortespnda oolwmn ".md.
t1. POP s quantlttive. f ~~A poasrble agnpliAti~ of 1inooitlon theM ory to measure offectlveness for a e~oueatlan systrA. allstply stated.)etalsity that he* been reduced.'eened in Xalwy Units. the Wefomtlon conveyed by Zlipping a leg~ti~terA I * a1 coin Isa bit.6ls.e. 0).L*6ý Ili 2 Por example.. lret. tnt Itfoortio Is exprewstd tn bira~ry wnits and written as I .91 A~ ~ ~t I mass 3Sws~l.e.ur "as "urafg merely thn saat tiout a mse" r~r. ~Vowaway So be MOss" or. given by I . this Is tre average uncertainty air a sourrv or m4"sge. ac beuing eq. tim. &weS riot rWapws. .AMC. or hm fast It to waveyed. Thus for a message conasiting of asingle I ywbol. a Inon in dvanc&.44%in PI.** 6Mio~nt~Ag ma ysb. i. An important ocaoept in the otuf'y of Wnormation sthat of entropy. several cona~pts must be Wetrý. treatment of this subject. In which there W. blat s of 1Ei. the ou'oae Isto ' Los2 (l) 0 bit%. A.rt a body of data. WNAM there Is onessto1ty oommast ba uroe thakt to en laormaticesaink br a oharane! that m~y per'. 4whe P to the probability of "hvivngselected message I from a emu. 3PM pBtigular~l. tbso7 man Ue app"ie to my situstlor.. oin is whil* thme 1Worst ion. h ?~illustrate. in t urdoi her4" are two simbola .17ryl 00 u *333 . how much Uraormat on is conveyed by the system. The most Meuently used oewe Is ta binary.nformation Is deftin.P 706.oA&idor the e~rtnpy * 1 inc twoMIglt metatte 0.e I i. conveyed by s tc4.
It can be proved that the maximum entropy is achieved when all of the messages are equally likely. the entropy of a message of length n Is n times the entropy of a single symbol. Further. consider a simple binary source having a symmetric channel that is.B) H(A) (A) ou tsI (A3B) AIBi H 324 .HAIa) H(A. A channel Is dasoribed by an input alphabet A end an output alphabt B and a set of conditional probabilit'es [P(BJIAi)] .mbols are Lidependent with the same distributions. the probability of an error's being introduced cn a one is 4he same as the probability of its being introduced on a zero. The next concept to be defined Is that of a channel. Symbolically thia is expressed as follows: A B where the cha•nl matrix is: PP 1 P 0 e 0 Associated with the notion of a channel are several other quantities worth mentioning. that are the probabilities To illustrate. termed the channel matriA. when the s'. given Ai was sent. of receiving message B. MuulInformation (the inf'rmation provided by the obr rvation of an outpu Tme a Dio eto I of H(A) .AMCP 706191 Thus H 149o 2 + 2 V/8 4g 2 8 + 1/8 Log 2 8 + j LohJ 4 l 3/4 bits of information on the average is transmitted by a message from this source.
the preceding can be modified to "if the rate of transmission is less than the channel capacity.Max I(A. then it is possible to encode the messages so that tney may be transmitted over the channel at a rate R which has a maximum value of 7/H.  "*CID. It "*If channels are cascaded.BIC).(x. However. ".B). Channel capacity is a measure of the ability of the channel to transmit information. 19b0. the solution will be unique and hence not deenoent on the coordinate system employed. i. i. 6 0 6 . If the concept of a noisy channel is now introduced.e. P(aI) Ch.I(A.. it is possible to encode a message for transmission so that an arbitrarily small percentage of errors may be obtained. they will tend to leak information. **fbid.''"* The prec.(A.. Then. However.. it is the mutual information that is of interest: I.y) . it is defined matheratically as C ... 325 .e.ding discussion concerns discrete messages. I(A.B) a I(A:C).ns Research and Systems Engineering. a completely analogous development exists for the continuous case. I(A. 5 90 . Thus the entropy of a continuous source would be given by*** H= x) log p(x) dx Here entropy will not be unique but will depend on the coordinate system used to represent the variable.H(y x) P(X)log p (y) dy   (.AMCP 706191 Some interesting properties of mutual information are the following: "* is always nonnegative.e.B. d. as long as both terrs poesess the same units. * Mutual information is additive i.0 dxf px(y)log Px(y)dy This equation represents the difference in entropies .C) . 597. g1e et. :ohns Nopkins r.C) + I(A.&nnel cepacity is commonly expressed in information unita per unit of The notion of chaaina capacity leads to one of the fundamental theorems of information theory: "If thie average amount of information per message from a source is H and the channel has a capacity of C. wherein summations are replaced by integrals and discrete probabilities by density functions."* time.one tern representing the received signal and the other term representing the effects of the noise.H(y) . al.. Prear. 0perati. I*Ibid. p.B) a 0. in the noisychannel situation.
Analysis of symptom/failure frequency data yields the following matrix. A simple system experiences thyee types of failures and exhibits four types of symptoms.fnel must be evaluated in terms of the mpecific channel used. The channel is restricted by the bandwidth available and the power availabl. 7/30j41 1/15 7/30 1/3 1 326 . the component. given by: C. However.a maintenance system. the channel capacity Is Log (1 + shown. an amount of information per ewape point can be sent over a noisy channel as given by the maximum of the equation above. consider a slightly different example .AMCP 706191 According tc Shannon's Theorem.t of "he system are represented as channels with appropriate characteristics and the inputs and outputs correspond to the information passed by the system. where each element Is the number of t1rsz4 the corresponding failure/symptom combination was experienced: Symptom S S 4 1 S 0 Total Failure ?1 1 5 2 2 1 3 ol 10 F2 F3 Totals 2 5 20 10 1 8 2 7 30 The first step in the analysis la to convert the elemental values to probabilities. To demonstrate the application of these techniques. for the signal waveform. Failure Symptom SI s2 2/15 1/30 S3 S Totals F 1 F/ 1/6 1/15 11/30 1/15 0 1/6 1/3 1/3 F3 1/30 1/15 / /6 Totals4/lr. Thue the tradeoff between power and b'andwidth Is When the basic relationships pf information theory discussed above are applied to a systemsanalysis problem. the ch•.W Foxr a signal of average power P in the presence of narrowband Gaussian noise of average power N and bandwidth W.
) Thus. mation) is given by i(S.w)r) + H(F)  H(S.233or23.907  3..1) .1.AMCP 706191 The averoge information contalned in a symptom is 4 H(S) iI F(S1 ) o0 P(sO) 2 15 149 2 IL  7 L0g 2 73 8 (3. V(S. defined by 0 ii  0.585) + 5 (2.807)  (1.907) + 7 (2.e.P) (This can brderived from the earlier expression for T that Included equivocation.j) Log 2 P(S 1 PJ) 11 ai 1_ 2 22 ~ Log 1 4 Lo9 1 2 (2.213 bits the mutual infor The information transmitted from symptom to failure (1.997 + 1.585 .585 bit5 per failure The Joint entropy in a symptom is found direootl from the symptom/failure matrix (note that In this case the matrix is not the channel metrix): H(SF) P(So.100) 1.21! .3% 327 .000) + 5 (4.1.997 bits per symptom Similarly. the entropy contained in the failures is (1) =• P(FJ) Lo0 2 P(Pj) J1l  Log ½ .3.9074.369 bit's One orit~erion that can be ap*ied is the efficienci of transmission.907) + (4.90) + Z 1 og 3.9072.0.
Guided Ntisslle Design.B) .** These are written as db * M. Lanchenter's Equations Lanchester's equations deal with the Interactions of opposing sides in a dynamic battle.. thereby causing the number of units killed to be d'rectly proportional to the nuaterical strength of the opposing force.7. One such technique Wihat is common in calculus is equating the derivative to zero. However. the effects of regrouping of oomponents to reduce troubleshooting cimes..628 bits.iru' Paor'e *t"r's u. p * 0 Ibld.h a4 pn4ucLion rates.rall effectiveness of a force equals the average effectiveness of the individual units multiplied by the square of the number of ". P. and k and k2 are unit effectivenase factors.AMCP ?06191 Other items that can be determineO Pre the equivocation. Van Nostran0 Compary.H(B) .e war. 3. p. Armament Launcning". the Ghannel matrix. respectively.1.H(A. v. Lncheater's equations state t'wt in a ru1tiple ergngement "the . two other t¼ohniques are worthy of mention: Lanchester's 3. For example. In their simplest form.8. and the capacli. one such modification Is tu write the two equations as being expressive of national ef'fectiveness In a wh.nits cngaged. t is time. Prinil at 328 . fnic.l. a. 114.1 ANALYTIC MODELS Strictly analytic methods are another meens of optimizing that the system analyst can employ.. the uffectiveness of the system. and the calculus of variations. and. These equations have been auosequently modified to incorporate ouher factors affe'. H(AIB) .. in the case of AIDS type systems. This signifies that on the average each unit will in a given time score a certain number of effective hits.1 tuations.'y. "Opera'ion RHenarch. The system can now bs investigated to determine the value of troubleshooting strategies.* In mathematical terms this means that aB Jr Ic~llII where B and R are the numbers of blue and red units. Nerrl 11et.
operational lose percentage e .production 0 L .AMCP 706191 where P .R .effectiveness .wse 10 8 6 4)C B A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time T.IBO A0 . If all inilt have equal effectiveness per unit of time. and yet its tuil Ala. respectively. using MonteCarlo tecn. consider the follcwing nuz.. losing bWt Three units while all ten of the effectiveniss was only twice as good as A the engagement If B's effectiveneso were raised to 0.1 and B 0. would lose all ten again. The eouations may be further complicated by Introducing probablitles tInto the picture and by exercising them through a simulation. 329 .4 while A's remained the same. Let the effectiveness dA TF dB 0.rical examples. Sides A and B have 10 units each. niques to determine engagement outcomes under more realistic conrl 4tins and with more variables introduced.10 10 !0 The resulting time histozies for 'he two sides are approximate]ly as ?'oll.Number of enemy destroyed Number of friendlies engaged N .number of forces engaged B. To illustrate the equetl=3c 3L4ply. opposing A are lost. Thus. but B would lose only 2.2. (kills per unit of time) of A be 0.2B 1.dti Thus In this simple example B win•s. the engagement will be a draw.blue and red. Furthermore. would requir3 three time units whereas before it required seven.
. The •r • . energies in the a.na of motion of vibrating membranes. In this case the probinm is forwletd  Jtz where U. t) dt .. si of Integrstin.Miniata kinetic. X•. . Thus.. 7re..y. etc.  K(x.agoL _Variations Tht •rlculas of vart4etona Is an analytic method for dealing with problmas of m•Lxxss and minima.t devised.. 3. Af the optimA filter Is a direo spplioarion. it deals with finding the * trsma of intograb of one or more ntcnown functions.. by ter rimnbers and xult' effectiveness (and tli~j are ap•prrt.. radar. It has found coneidera•We prior appictctlon as part of comwmnications.Md few. of then#equations. a .ru.3 KCISIH TEllsY trnt end points but fr•ee to vary wall amounts along the paths Decirion theory roprepcita one of the moat recent developments in operations research. represent the potential. 9(t).. x x. a . In this 0e8.t)] dt .8. FOr exAmple. slgnal. its applioations to the actual decision proceia have been relatively receat #.ing Hamilton's Principle). Ltn application of the calculus of variations.NKaxiar or Kinismi The mathenstbca involved in solving a variational problem is qvite complex.g. optimal strategies could be ŽaL•.. however.A.AMC P 7064191 thwe trm enrp P ltye trsderfti '+vi. the derivatlor. Tn pArticular. aid It Is desIred to find the Clit•r transfer f1mctions such that t2 : L (yS^) dt  2 A secir• example of the use of this technique Is the derivation of the equatt.A(xy4.:v. (vt the filter output) are given. plates..y. and a recelvoi signal.tiosa o' these prvolems is to cond*er the functiok . from an energy standpoint (e.zt) . ". Yft). electrical or mechanical engneers have probably anoountered problems that could to eolveJ by the i'alcizus of variataions or haie applied results thaPt were derived fros.ever. and patternrecognition syntems. the type of problem that io addressed is as follows: find P such that t2 F(x. to the sol. )•o. 3. In docislon theory two factors cintribute to a dcilsion: (1) 5Y) The probatdllty of the outcomes If The value of he oitcmes a given decijion is made 3i• i • ] T . in the calcu'ul of g'triations..Vr ThMus. ard applied ýtively..
~itty tei~c ErZfoctivones rart9 ` 31 . the equations or relationchips of interest can be approximated by a streight line or by a hyperplane that is. initial investment. to have a:7e exclude! (4) Parumetero that Per meters tave lower priorty. senestivity.ýory. (d) Parameters that exhibit 1'•tle variation emong the systems In the study are excluded initially. Application of the theory re•5tlts in identifying a best course of action.onsidered.ESTIMATII IELATIOINSIIPS All CINFIDENCE INTEIVALS 3. The first step in the procedure is to establish a list of syst':m ppr&metUrs on the basis of engineering Judgment. cr operating phases of the system's life iycle. process. the list of system . ratio.11 COST. establishing new values. characteristics..1 CostEstimating Relationships When the system is complex. volume.sameters that might be difficult to quantify duýrii.oparameter formula that relates system characteristics ýo system performance or system cost..• are the usual priorities for parameter selection in the regression analyses: (1) Parameters that are *. The foilowi. 3. sagnalroiand cost. generating alterrative states. of the following ctegor>re is lAalally if p)asible. there is usually no simpe tV. (3) Pa. selectivity.10. on a cost/engineertra secondorder effect on the applicable cont cator&initially. However. 141) Farwmeters ire selectud so •n•t. highly oTrelsaee vth one or more' other parabasis.arameters would include such items as weight. if the system were a radio receiver. through the use of the statiotical technique known as 1inear.g the inltlai procitrvment stages ha'e lowtr priority than uthers. because the ease of computa*ion and the adequacy of the resulting prediction depend primarily on the discriminAtion exercised at tLis point. For example.rt ch'racte:att¢ 1ý Ivxiy. values being associated with each. a straight line 4n n dimensions. this list irncludes system characteristics that are expected to contribute suignfinantly to the variability of system performance or system cost at any time during 'he research and developuent. and providing a dynamic framework for the decision The th.AMCP 706191 then. stress Great care should be taken in compiling these lists. or q~ia. at least one iroc• investigated: esth * %M_*on characterlstoa .. attempts o defotnc the decision process in terms of a number of states. Stat#ofthe. xegresslon.
C.iuquWIs the &%nt%. 13. + AYk 4 + XX 4 2X 4ax 4 +i 4 where N Is the zwicber of samples. that hove to be* deter. tie v~lu* of' r It the "vlc (or !:yperrlare). and !... beefSettuttfl toea.Th teitt. of t. re wot slpronlntad by potrtzt~ equatior ttojsld be Lr~e. 4 ne. The sesfld step 1.g* eOrrwtm r. + =  AP k + r + +Z3 =ZIb 3xx ZkX 4  &Xix . thl*A the Sa~ y . can9 be calculated from the tollawing fotwIAl: r BEXX 3  Z X5.u Mh "ext &nc~ of lth4eeet U. Orce the conetants A. A complexity characteristic such as rwin. ()Where there Is a choice between two or more equally tmpctsnt correlated parameterm. and D are coetfirieftts. or cons~ants..2..f t~rtir fnt >32 . lesn thAn 04ý.ezrTined b. ¶hr~n . o'f Is r a O~r.A* t~w Siample rOints Ile ant th~e An rat.C. the regression eqAaticn Is 6eterminvd. Tha constants can be &cý.r StArdgrj er. and D have been tooAnd.'em parsazeters. the peraseter or pArafteter combintation that Is mast conducive to establishing tradeoff relationships is selected Iritisily. B.AMCP 7W6191 One parameter may represent two of thi above charncteristics.ned and the X's are the system pn'ameters or combination of syA. C'IZXlX3 XZx)+ D(9EXjX4 :Xf4 Tevelt~ec the nt!Astipt*O and 1.. and the vAius of trze atultiple cor'elatfln coefficient. r.i#r of active elements will often COr"eI'te well with reliabtility.4 qEiitc s otbir t~mn VA t. rtgressinn equation In Section 21Ž! can be writteni as x A + b + DX4 whene A.". he procedlure is to detenni~ae the ooeftftrintm of the regresrLzo equation.ýr or V' Cq ~t t regnetollote n tt:teA . "or example. solving the following set of ectuationz slmultaneously: Lzi a MA + Ba2 + CM.
?The atz.quipant ±is KI the. or R*vM4~ amr or t. of tomt at (*/2. .4i the pria4icted e ofd of obtained fric the t.' X3.. Not wir when the "sq'iatin Is used to) predict tbw ooit of & new pl*oce of equipment.191 o h . are X.p. samei~ polits o~zwlticr ocIfflai~nti Approaimntuly 68 pepoent of the oa. S i lonts about the plans is mwoure4 by the stands @170? S  ~ ~ ( 2 xI lAane If Wt~br 0.ginal3 data point. treet t.8$ *We of th* **timt*.he rIrvt c 's ý Ders t. n2) :# a v*4Ege ejrmw iecfro th4. roedv is l up. giv. vrniablv used in Vvedlotir4 XI~ x r  *imbez 01.vad of ttkg'iaz ot . pariiweteru for the new . end Xj. the prediition Interwel or co .1.f1den*e LntervsJ is givwn by I. t dCstr~bu'lion o ~te st"e Vali*.*e mreWV1n m at $is t~k *twAnard tet~ia'. about the regresIom p1*ne.se aI a o toe Ww of rtUjtero used in the pmdlcti'ar eca tyI it to *rwýAned b:!low ~oo~an heUv s~in a&%" Ytes in prqw*IIAI~g 11. an indica1or of t"* #p. meor.AMCP 1%. of tt.4epd error of the estimAt.Vle points 110 4thin IS Of the vitk~n *23 (weaumad In Uth XL dfrectin).
and U44. whicd are solve<. along with the value of t' (based on a 95 cent confidence level and the number of samples.NX3X4 13  Now.V32 . (z3)2 V44 _ =4•2 _ (=4)1 V 3 . N). and U2.1 2 To determine the values for L32. which again are solved Sfmultneousl:: V3 U2+ 4V3U3+ V341 U3 '42 U32 V43 "33 +44 U34  Finally. using the roilowing equations: V22 .4 tht values of V are 2 substituted in the followlng equttions. the values of S.NZX2 X 2 VSV42   =Z2X "' XZX 2X4 74.U3. which are solved simultaneously: V2 2 U22 ' '% U23 + VA U24 . 7he relevant statement that 334 I I .V4 . and U are substituted in the confidence interval equation. if the 95 percent confidence interval is desired. simeltaneoubl•y V22 U4V23 0143 + V24 'J4 + v33 043 "'32 U42 v34 044  0 1 V42 U42 + V4 3 U43 + V44 04 The confidence intervals can now be found.NX 22 _ (ZX2 2 133 _ 32. to determine the values for "421 U4. the same values of V are substituted into the following equations. to determine the values for U22$ U 3.'ad U341 the vlues of V are substituted in the following equationm. For example. X. N.AMCP 706191 calculate the quantities V.
then other methods are tried..366 7..tween the upper and 31inle LUear ezress'an (Two Variablep Given the Information in the following table. until linear. The form of the linear equation Ii A += where X1 reprecents the cost eud X.19? can now be made ti that the estimated cost of the new equipment lower coneidence 3. such as logarithno. Since there are only two variables. represents the volume.278 l•v9 6 6.3922 12. an appropriate prediction equation can be obtained..t + B zi22 3 3 c 335 .isving isquipmant Volume (Cubic Ft.AMCP 706.) cost (Dollars) URC32 W234 R. and there is a 95 percent probability that the cost will be somewhere b. 4. which has a volume of 30 cubic feet.. determine the cost for a now piece of similartype equipment.3U7 14 4.10.628 3.. the relevant equations containInC X3 or X4 ) are (exeluding any tennr x  MA BSX2 " X2 ZX I A D.3 Ixeaple: lim4ts.9 Xl.580 MC20 MU1R1 XYZ2 I36 18 30 x The procedure to be followed consists initially of linear regressior. using I k the method of least squares.390 URC35 •hc9 MG21 20 2 3 12 10. the xyz2. The values of the ooeffeioentN A end B can be found by bimultaneously zolving the following equations. • If it is found that t he data are not essentially quadratic. 2.688 1L4. etc.
EX a 1 .on ootff.27'8 + .qui rient wibh a volume of 30 Is x MUMI326(30) . Ii 336 . 60.600 + ( An alternate method of solution.. equati.326 and X .1840 t 326 12 1 ThuG the cost for an .8A + B(139) 1. 239  XIX2 ..AMCP 706o191 Prom the Information In the preoedlrg table.8 .33. 3529 Substituting these . r.28) +.. . 1.I40. 2.. 20(10. of a number of s•l&&.>..62o .ar•iea the value of the corre1 !ation ooeffid ent r before solving for A and B.411.o det.335 2 w 20. for two variables is given by N xl . wvh.11. N.A(139) + B(3529) "Solving theb. does not require the simultan eous solution of two equations...392) + 34(12. iU aI vN(Ni) I the mean_or average of the N sample points. I•d tLe !ýtandard deviation. B .ons simultaneously for A and B Aields A . 103 ý.ies imto the above equatioxin gives 6o.620 • 2 (20)2 + (3 4 )2 2 N. a.•clent. The aooTOrat.$12.+34 +2+..
7542 .6  8(7.. 8()0 (60.554#500 z(k)2 _ (10.] 8(4. m 8 OI . for an equipment with a volume of 30.278) +. i.278 + .e. (d x1 ..54)(17. 8 3529 r  f(20)(10.7 wll yield an aooptable result. the Information from the table is substituted Into the above expressions to yield the following: Ell a 10.191 Note: the absolute value of the oorzelation ooeffiolent will be somewhere S betwmcn I and zero.  60. the data points are es~senti•lly linear.326 (17.278)2 + ..637)(12. the absolute value of r will be 1...1840 Therefore X184o + 326 X2 as before. negative slope.392)2 + (12.89 A . If the data points aotually do lie on a straight llne.392 + 12.6) 12.600 33 .14..4) .14) 0..' A 'l1 .335) . It has been found ezpOrioally that an absolute value of r greater than 0.IM• + 326 (30) =$21.BT2 Por this example..2 Z(Xl)  (20)2 + (34)2 + (2)2 + . Zý a20+34 +2+..637 139 ..I AMCP 706.335 6.39") + (34)(12. A negative value for r indioates a line with a The values of A and B oan now be calmilated by using tht following equatiuns B r aX.
4637 41 .(0. S where ox S S.14o0 + 326 X2 is measured in terms of the standard error of estimatc.t e S where t is a value obtained from the t distribution tables the ordirate of the regression line for which the confidence interal la to be found Other symbols are as in the previous example.'o applicable for simple regression. respectivelj. .0. the number of data points within ± S and ± 28 would become closer to 68 percent and 95 percent. Therefore. and the 95 percent confidence Interial for the xyz2 equipment. and 95 percent lie within ± 2S.This is another form of the equation developed previously and is al. The vertical scatter of the data points about the regression line ¼ x. the following equation is used:* X1 . r . As the sample size increases. To calculate the con'idence interval :oa the cost of the xyL2 equipment.89  therefore S .89)2 2130 Note: Approximately 68 percent of the data ýctnts lit within i S of the regression line.QX] 1 1 \r:2 1 r It has been deteirinied previously that W 4637. . Sis *Note . the parallel lines at a veitical distance of 2130 from the regression line XI 1840 + 326 X2 3ontain approximately 68 percent of the data points and the pirallel lines at a vertical distance of 4260 from the regre!ion line contain approximately 95 percent of the data points. if a graphical plot of the data points is made.AMCP 706191 Determine the standard error of estimate for the above data.
22 12.447 (2330)/1++ I .2.45 (from 't" 8 data points) X2 . Y.600 8 .exponent of experiencecurv* slope 339 . which can be reduced for a Auantlty purcha•w. the significant fact Is that without an indication of the range of probablt valuem. the decisionmaker would have no feeling for the accUAaoy ot any predicted par*meteor.600 1 2.mme. and the cost of uaterials. However.191 For the xy"2 equipment.600 * 5900 Therefore.ne curve T .AMCP 706. of co.4 table for 95 percent confidence and N°2. which can be spread out over a larger n~mbur of equipments.' where Y m cost to manufacture equipment X a  cost to maonufatoure equipment rniber 1 1 . Another faotor that cn reduce the unit cost of an equipmant (unrelated to the two factors above) Is the learning curve. 11.11 IXPUIII•[ CURVIS There are :. 3.2130 to . the estimated cost of the xys2 eoquipaent ii $1i. the total zamber of equipwents purchased In Increased.02es6) .30 cubic ft T2 .500 and $5.700. but this can be aohleved only if a6iltional supporting data are available.a.equipAent nmAber b . or experie. 95 percent This wide range for the oonftidenca interval is quite lawc. It is better.17.. and t'ýre Is a tonfidenoe that the cost will be somewhere between $17.(0.nit cost of an equIpbeLt as Two suoh factors are the Initial tooling cost.everai factors that can reduce the .6 The 95percent confidence interval Is 11. 8s. to have a narrow range for the 95peroent con"ideanoe interv&l.•)0.11..
There are. Normally. 240 . $20. the cost to manufeoture each successive equipment is reduced by a constant percentage. supervisors can develop Improvements and chortcuts In the process. is 0. note that 'a" represents the coat of the * The value of b will always be negative unless the unit cost for succeeding equlncnts inareasei. suppose.. the experience curves are developed by the equipment manufacturer. and cumulative costs for any number o' equlments with any slope. however. Another method that in usually s good approximation for detcrmining the experience curve Is the "eyeball" method. average.000) (16)0"322 $8. The mathematical method for fitting data to the ezperlence curve Y . the cost reduotion described by the experience curve is due entirely to the reductton in manhours necesery to produce an equipment. 'nt of calculation for unit. the data points are plotted on lo&log paper. The cost for the sixteenth equipment is found by using the regression technique.aXb) from the g. For example.000. if it is found from the curve the ninth equlpmer• costs $500 and the eighteenth equipment costs $450.322*. Grephically. The experience curve is based on the fact that as the quantity of equipmrntso being manufactured is doubled.AMCP 706191 Empiroal data have shown that the oxperienj curve is appropriate for predicting the costs of aircraft enginev and airframes and geveral typeo of electronic equipments.200 Tables have been developed by several Army agencies that can be used to reduce the 2. through the natural proceas of man learning his job better by repetition. The slope of this experience curve can be found readily f. plotting the data points and then drowing a straight line through the spread of points with a straight edge. the cost of the first equipment. then the clope of the experience curve is 90 percent. fully automated production lines with experieno' curves based on the fact that as the production line 19 operated. Por example.aXexiats.aph. It cne n'uipwent costs $1000 to manufacture. sixteenth. the second equipment is following a 90percent learning curve. and if the relation Y . then the data points will fall essentially al•ng a straigt line. Normally. and the eighth. Once the constants "a" and "b" have been the unit cost of any equipment can now "a". be found.vm any two points on the straight line whose ordinates are separsted by a factor of two (one equipment quantity double the other). i.ab 3Jiglog leastsquarts regression. To establish the valuea of "a" aud "b" (In the equation Y .e. and thirtysecond equipment each cost 90percent less than the previous quantity. and the value of "b" Is is given by Y16 (20.
ow 320. if the total cost is sensitive to any assumption. while a 10percent change irn the equipment cost changes the total lifetime cost by less than 1 percent.oO0.000. ost.2.000. and that "b" can be determined from the slope. used. the total costs should be calculated for operating times of say 75 and 125 hours per month to determine the effect of this assumption on the overall cost.191  ( first equipment.000 341 . Seoondly.000 2. the rewults of the sensitivity analysis should be shown to the decisionmaker with the range of the assumed value Indicated.vation that the cost of the first m ent (for X . a 5percent change In the maintenance cost of an avionic system my change the total lifetime cost of the syste.DOO st_ B $.•Snsitivitynalylis Problem 3.2 The cost Info'mtion given below for two alternative is oased on re gression analysis. therefore 2 b (for X .00. For example.000.000 fecllities Putl ations NaInternaoe Annual Training ArmuSl Pso111ties 4.01Y) 1. any asswiptions that we"e made 1n the antlysis should te cheoked to determine how changes in the assumptions affect the total cost.000. whereas a relatively gross estimate of the equipment cost will be sufficient.%pwnt Acquisition Parts Sp ans p" Ini tital Noalntonance (10year lifetime) Comstunication Comiamloation Lyste0 A _ 10.000 500)000 160. the cost of the second equipment is equal to "a" times the slope.2) must be equal to the slope.000.) iU equal to "a" and.000 800.500.000.000.000 120. the xperiencecurveand the The slope of xponentb ar related by the formula % slope  ( 2 )b x WOO% equipwhich fllows loioally from the ObL . Of course.aC 3 8.000 900. comnicetimos systesq Oost Cntegories R&D Zqu.000.000 3 •0 000 000 14. the individual cost wonstituents should be checked to dettrmine how changes In them affect the total cost. k if it was assumed that the equipment would be operated for 100 hours per month. by definit.12.AMCP 70.1 General There are two main areas of usage in whioh costsensitivity analysir is First.500.000 6.000 2.12.'n. 3. For example. by 15 percent. The Implication here Is that the cost analyst should concentrate an refining the maintenancecost prediction.
a oostinvolsion my be possible. the standard errors are identical hormlorntally. or $10. beoaus of the existeone of standard errors.ialntenance are the two bigest oatagozies betwom them they aeamt for mre then 90 percent of the total system oogt. the standard eory.900. Now.. therefore.30001000 + where 1 *IA  qUOjint Acquisition OoS11 NA0ilat5U1Une Or5t SU total ovot for sysa I om be vrItetn as 30. the other octegeofLe blb so msa relatlvely (in terms of oey) tCut they are essentially constants.200. betwem system •o•ts Is $21. In other words.000.?O. so that D. Asinine tbtt if a oostLnvzerson exists. The differeno. and how great Is this Impatt? Are the results mesltIve to the asomption that the syste will be in operation for 10 years? Queetion 2s Answer to Smeoton 1 The oost totals for each system are: As $492.O0O. then..000 wer simultaneously added to the wottl east of B and Pobtracted from the totak cost of A.O00. is ost•nsibly more exp lve t•in B.000.000 A. aL Inversion would result. it is due either to A[qui•ltIon o' lnteamnce oost amms (or both). for eaah ostegory Is the ~ for but the oatlegorti will genemli hay*ve dIffcrent standard errors.000. is the more expensive systmn. In taot. However. 3quipment AoquIrItion end . but rot neoessarily vertlially.000 (% %) .800. Tieus if at least mehalt at $21. One oost.stlating relationship was developed for each oateSoMy stem A Sad B. j Qnestion Is In which oost category does oost unoerteinty have the greatest imaot on the oost omparlson. 3: $#70. with *me standard error of 4stSmate.AMCP 706191 The oost figures represent average (or expected) values. the total oost for system A oan be written as ~5A32.
000. thus 10 pertent o. thse values Thus if Z . MA. and K( (and the other costs as well) should have been firnis1h4.ty that system A costs more than P(*ost 3 > OA"5tA.000.000.ptioa that the sae regresslon equation was used. 4  2 10.%  Similarly.000. £.ed".20.700. Si1noe they have not.. a 'worst" case estimate is obtained as tollowa: Auvm that the pqrcentage errors In I and X do not exceed some nominal value.000 10.rooj were obtained by rererssion w.32.10. 3 .000.S003. 'A must eqAsI so that If~ and 3 are '0aterp.000) or 2 .000. m ystet% A is given by 30.' at .NB +I3) NE +P then the erpectea value of Z is given by 2 OB(+ AB) MA +~NO (320.0(0.'Jx it) * 16. and 10 percent of S.000 A 3 . the standlrd errors of estimate for EA.200.000.000 . then . from the asm.0  [(300. 0001 .000) 0.tthe random variable Z .8sm. If the** values are ocQindered to represent three standard errors.000.300.10 percmt. which alost guarantees that the error will be less thin 10 peraent.ooo1)] + (16o.000 +(JA A) + EA)] ) + NS)n + 1(.000 + 120.30.000 Ideally. sa.000. 10.000 and Howeve•r.191 The probabli.at the expe•t" values.AMCP 70C.000 + %%3 +3 N 32. sence the te'ulated vallwo of BAP %I MAI and . techniques.000.3)+(4.P [z > 1.
a4 Im emr.e.800. The $1. WO.rent Ir the atqul itioin arv mulntra.0 less than he eqimIsnt soquieltion and maintenance we'.000. 0 h.8oo ie neri(•20. The cure SZero n S$1. a Is the standard deviation yleld.. AppefrGix C.AMCP 70I191 2he protlam in abom graphically below. the equWpW•nt aoquisition "ai maltenanoe cost uf sy•t..A ' i.nt toot.9 or 'porwimat#10 P pereent.000 Lint • ' ! $ý(' 1. represents the distribution of equipment acquisition and maintenanae oosts..0oW . 'hyrqefo. and the si'aad erroa of this distribution is $16.000 line reprosents that point at which the total wystm costs for A and B will be equal. The zero line revresents that point at which the equipmnt acquisition and main oanae costs :or A and 9 are eqvul. if this proctss is rpoate ror art ostirst#4 3" .robe Iinto the sb.of 10 p•. the pv~ooebl.000O0.000. equwtlno 16 .s se cted" to be $O2. aorroopvMs to O.*.~ hre h Is the value of lIterelt on the norsal density tructl•n toI the mean of the tmnction. Sbstitatir the valea frim the sxlpe .00o which. o• system A.C". I.ity that system I ij r*ally mor* tx$'n*I"e than system A is 9 pr**nt.0.v . frro Table C1 In. * or &Aost iia.
the oaluaW~tions lead to the result t~at t.000. syltem 's yeirs.a.300X)ý10 Y A 346.000 $34~6.O0fl.a **A. *~ ~ A~ tQ' aesIo IfIse 2 Iror tthis exwpaa4. to be In opm~tlon for less IZn4'. very caretfu y tr ausewwon of directly prorvrtiona to time.0WO y whe2. a&mw that Mi~ntasnarae.* Vinebased weat 9. and Fac. the cost of system ". for exan~pie.002AWA 0.000 + 12. the cost of vsytee a will be low*? thfin t~l oost of system A.. . easily with. Tt".vaat.000 12. Then costs vwi3d be cakteg.0v0 & 1300.! tk' te true.5 yeart not *nalltive to 329W.340.. Is that uncert~inty In~ the prealetions o!' eGquIpmt oaquIsItIoin and saintenasa cost hosve the greatest iroct on the cost 3eawVWc.000. 16.ooo +~ 12'.COO Y. will be CostA Sixtilarly. to that t~he ress&its 'rv * tie aseotion that tho system will be o~rerte4 for 10 y*&rs . thet.!tdg. and if. It is aae~ad that these preeactions may be off by as amuch av ~100 Pno*ft. ~ tor4'*~p rcr' s. Tralx.l1ios a.an assme further that they tire ILaear with time (althot4h any fUnoV' i otwr than linear coulid also 'e hwnd.S00.&)0..* thftv Is st±11 GOUl a 33percent chance tk~it the ost af system B will be bore than the cest of s5jt~ A.3*40.rized as follovs: Fixed 00sts Anm~al Coarts (per Ye~.300.stm B is *anly mar. or uheon )a4.ter.000 Por 7 y~arm. cst. Wl.u.5h % (Note.) $329.0 fte answer to Questcon 2.) tnoai.0M0 y 346.Cf1r17 SyaStx. a graphical solution).80c.tVst . expensive * ?be ansues to q. tkkerwore. system~ A Is 33 4'eroent.340.3P.ooo 16. .. CoPTeS Thus~ CostA 5Ct 329.. pwohebility that sP.ýon 1. V:." ".209 of 100 perceant. then.
1. the timetofailure of a device.3ive Events. etc. S. Reproduced by permission of the U. Weather Bureau under Contract Cwb11349.1 Preliminary Definitions Some of the principal terms used in this discussion are defined as follows: Random Outcome.P(E) *Some of the material used in this chapter was developed by ARINC Research Corporation for the U. the various types of probability distributions.AMCP 706. Indepetdent Trials. A set of outcomes. Event. S#be jMutually Pzcl.1 INT•ODUCTION Basic mathematical and statistical concepts are reviewed in this chapter.191 USK MATHEATICAL M STATISTICAL CMUCWTS* 4. Trials of which the outcome of one has no effect on the outcome of others that follow. lifetesting a device). Trial. 4. The event has occurred if one of the outccmes of the set is observed on a trial. 4. it occurs if the number 2. An action or experiment that yields a random outcome (tossing a die. Sets of outcomes bastd on independent trials.). Weather Bureau. where 0 6 P(E) 5 1 P(!) = probability of event 'not E" = 1 . The value of an empirical observation that caanot be predicted (lack of deterministic zegularity) but has statistical regularity in that the value has a relative frequency of occurrence in a series of independent observations of the phenomenon (the result of tossing a die.1. or 6 is observed.2 Notation The 'ollowing prooability notation appl!es: P(E) = probability of event E. 4.) Independent Events. Two or more events that cantiot occur simultaneously (odd and even numbers on one toss of a die). Topics include algebraic principles and formulas. S. and procedures for statisticil estimation. (If the event is an even number on toss of a die. 41 .
2 KFIR•JTS OF PIlAWLTY 4.lity of drawing a Ving.AMCP 706191 P(E1 + 2) probability of avents or o1 12 *or both if they awe not mutually exclusive) P(ElE2)  probability of 'oth events E1 and 92 4. The following algebraic principles and formulas are useful for applying the clashical definition of probshility in thote cases In which it 4.2.0.2. eent B can occur 1n "b" ways. In the ratio P(E) .ome over another in a trial.2 Relat2 !vrqeny"Definition io "Equally likely" jan be described As the lack of any bias favorlig one out.r/n EmTIe: If a citrd is drewn at there are n . the probability of E. The estimated probability of failure before 20 hours Is therefore 15/100 .3 ALEBRAIC PRIM $ All FOSMSAS is valid. and if r of these outcomes corres.ples The two basic counting principles are as follows: (1) If event A can occur in "a" wAys. The Equation 1.15. (1) The classical definition of probability is one that involves an a priori evaluation and is useful only if all the possible outcomes can be enumrated and are equally likely and mutually exclusive. the ratio r/n can be used to estimate the probability.trials performed (n) as the number of trials a&proaches infinity.1 Two Basic Counting Princi. r .3.4 of these are the event probab'. it was obserivethat 15 failures occurred before 20 hours.: In the lifetesting of 100 devices. and both can occur together in "c" ways. then A or B or both can occir tn (a + bc) ways.1 Classical Deffnitq. and equally likely outof drawing a king. Examl.2 Reale~j •. . from random from a full deck. 4. • The relativefrequency definition is as follows: The probability of an event is the limiting ratio of the rumber of outcomes favorable to an event (r) to the number of. denctel by P(H). If n is large. is 4/52 . 4. The relativefrequency definition of probability requires a statiotical estimation involving valid experiments and sufficient data to yield an estinate that it fairly stable..52 mutually exclusive comes. equally likely and mutually exclusive outcomes. R.•Mo to event 9.on The ciassical definition of probability is aW follows: If an experiment can result in n different.1/13.
n)n(n1) (n2) Sn! . k2 (3) of which are alike.(n .13 156. Total number 4 of ways . 12' three of the five letters are to be sleected. 4.AMCP 70691 B *heart. total number of permutations of n different objects Is The P(n. SMllIA a13.12.I a if there are "a" ways of perfoiming the first operation and "b" ways of performing the second operation.2 Permutations b: Drawing t. 0. c .3. .I. b &.. A or B in 13 + . .eeae 60 permutations if  preim~t ilons. k 1 of which are alike. a Spade or heart in one draw: A * spade. there Is a total of a X b possible ways for both operations. Aor Bin 13+ 13 26 w*Z. I43 .3 x 4 .3. Examvle a: drawing an ace from L deck: a . Throwing an even number on a die and 4.4o 12.aC. given that the first operation has occurred. there are 5! Thor* ameper. 3x2x1 (2) Q ) The total number of permutations of n objectm taken k at a time is P(n.of cards: of possible deck 13 x 12= A permutation is a particular arrangement of a collection of objects. k of which are alike ~2~r ~ k 1 n I Is (Note: 0! is defined as eq':al to 1.) Mle a: For the letters ABCDE. k) .k)! The ttal number of permutations of n objects. 16 ways..it13. B. b13.stade. (2) IM1* N_ Spade or ace in one draw: A . Total number spades from a ways . b a 4.
(5)+ ( 5)4() ~.l occur is "!'(A S) ?(A) P(S) ?(0)( .3.3 Cbirmtintos A combination is the number of waj in which k out of n different Items can be selected without mgard to order.191 Axamle k one I ( Inthe word SUCCMS.C Prom Equation 4I. Addition Law Ir A and B are two mutually oxclusive events. two C.4 Basic Probability Laws 4.10 + 5 + 1 .3.iitites or P(A + B) In general. P(A 1 +%A2 It the two Ovoits and S e A A1 )PfAl)+P(A 2 ) " *+ (A) not mutually exclusive.AMCP '106. For a unit composed 1f f ive components. the probability that either of thenwil. nov mny ways can the unit be successful? From XQutition 5.+ u~r+ .2).1. there s one 17(V 1 (I_3 .. seven letters In the word MUCCew Is 4&...16 4. the probability that at least one of them wv.4. occur in a cinglo trial is the sum of their res'ectiwv probake. n! JMI@. the total number of possible permatatims of all. OM three S's (k4 3V 1.3. s)inbollted by (0) or C where (5) (n).21). at leaat thre muist be successful. . If ther p() P(Bj() are k iMtCally eMluaie events.
the probability of the compound event A ard B is equal to t1e product of their respectivp irababili les.i.P(A) P(BIA) . which reduces to P(A) P(B) If A and B are independent.4.AMCP 71M19 For three nonmutuelly exclusive events.P(Auc) (9) The most general tor* of the addition law event is the mum of Its autual17 exolusive B are not mutually exclusive but tiAt the and (B aid not A) are mutually exclusive. events A wd B are not independent.4.3.then cor4itlanl probabilities exist. ?(A. *IsIf Ilarly. :ire* events (A and 3). the probability of B given that A has occurred is denoted by P(BIA). +B+ C) o ?(A) + P(R) + P(C)  1'(AS)  P(A. the occurrence of one affects the o'eurronce of the other . P(AJB) P(SIA) F(CiAB) (13)  (1{k) U TP 4c .. then + * 4.e.C)  P(SC) 4.2 1(A + B) a ?(AB) + MultiplIcation Law v(Xi+ ) (:o) If events A and B are Independent. P(AB) .P(B) P(Ali). staus that the prebabIllty of an It It if assumed that A anr forms. 4. (A and not B). or PA)The extension to more than to P(A) P(D) C11) events follows directly.3 Conditional Probability If events A and B are not independent . The eon Sditional probability of A given that B has occurred Is denoted by P(AIB). For three events.3. (12) P(AC) r(A) Also.
14 ard 15 lead to a form of amsThogna I (AP(A) l'(xln  . gIven that a part by C wa sealued'. by C '. 2T 3 30 3 12 20 75 25 100 50 The following proLablltieo P(2) l°'T av beased en the classic defition zvent•X Io•.mu l m ul WA0 A CO TOWtL nummor or pOssibld ourcamie and on the probability laws discumWed above.a U0 Totals 240 1d. Cste 1: (a) Por a random electlin rrm the box." 0.~ meftfactured.he robability of: From qmuation 1.I tsarctun Drwing a bad part mauufactured by C. e ets A and not A.rwtn4 a bad part? (a) Drewin~g a VW.tdch io E. acturer C Quality a TotaLl@ Oood.Oiposod asJ fOlls: Ma . . Drawing a part manutactured by A? F (A)(b) D.. e•A) inia•+ P(LIA) •'tx) nl (6 TY this applioation. terims(DjA) end ?(MIX)... whst le %.E'o bad? P(Cm ¶4) 12. has occurred In sow as reflected by the P(A) and P(l) an usully a jor•l• probabilities of the It is necessar7 to modify P(A) ani the baais that event 3 ezperlment whose outoom Is known to be influenced by A. Assie that a boz of 100 outwardly indistlnguishable lot is .! Oe .AMCP 7Ml91 Equation.
oews bad parts will be (1c ) * Stumilarir. 60 Case 2t If o01 part Is drOm rAMnly.0.AMCP 706191 ( ) Counting Indioate C part. and In 12 that there o an a totml of 20 possible eleoted.  W for seeting a fpom Rq•atio 1. The nuhber of . P(AIA 2 ) . from Nquatlon 11.50 + 25  (• Cuo 3t It two dr. P(Alk) . henoce.  + *  .F(A) + F(3) 0. .100. P(A + Z) . indepowlent event*? ossibl nmmber or"tem.8  1?(c)  1  0. P(A + U) .65 10 = 65. from iquatias ii4.8 From Equation 8.P(Al) P(S) . 1/1x 1/2 *a 1 (b) DVomint 4tout ropluIsoent. dep*M~at *wentat or. for the following: Drawing with replacment. frou RquatIon 72.65 an *ad*.0.P(A) + P(T) .P(A) Counting Indicats that the nuaWr (A or possible outcomes . what is the probablity tha~t bot•h ItIOLJ "looted (a) are mianufactued bw A.two tvoItem cNrew 4 sc A2)[• Totau 10 100 or. Equation 6 Yields ÷ +  P(A + B) . I(Al) ?(AgA1 ) x I' 1 .
325 (b) Vitbaut mropiomumt: ?(A1U%) .AMCP 7MSItO tif.1 (A dam) or A1'.) IF. (A mi IF 4a the tint dim)...t ObMsIM &part UintacturedbyAUP) IAI thut Of 'wO"6f& pert 0emtaatm4 bY s*tA 12 fMl ..f.i.1(A 1 ) ?('%JAI) d 0 a tint SIM" A. (A m Mst drw) *=elate of the evate 410.0O.)  1(A 1 ) F(9j) . A MK G ?otla 50 outactaxtud by A It it Is ftm to be good? ThO A~j" Vbabi1lt7 .IA. SIM*s VW Prm p to 19wudin1 aboo.3 TXS .. barn an Identical uS ime panIsrt (IOpataos 16).T)nar! 40 ..3253 (%IIG)+P(l91 NJII two Ias Ca~s ibm humm iutissie b~nse a folloust Ams tbat thu parts an dis*tributud in Fbmt~tnwA a TOWa probability that the part 10 jbi Wr. Is ?(AIO) * r j~ fjy*. thus P *lg 0.t ag pa"t pnieita %I hbt Is the probability a of atatuusr A an the tint dm~ wO abat it=s (1) on v* sem aw gM 41 (19 r(AITf. thu povb"!U1it that box A is chosmm glvm Umai a sei item Is ssel~t".'9 x IA  ..
x. t1] !9 dierste. A quantity. ths'puobaU4tlos thempelves we not conatents but aen functIw of tie. 4onioted by t.4. Imam.Y. .# faluive wIthIn the timd tim interval (0.. The rand variable "nmter ot MUCI . probaebl" ty that 2 IeIWIn anIntezv&L.M Y3%er±klf. then by the addition law (1quation 8).wy to reliability woru. msxe~oted ftem tin aaeen bc=. by tt mtltiplvatimo Imw (fquwtIon U1) and nIr the •• mption.533 an the beasi of 0.abi=tw at time t Ub equivalent to a probability of In ~min a ewaoeed In tn no failure betore t. vwraes. r % atmmatleal "w'tion. Tlh random vareablee "t1 any one of a nm4orumerable to ftallurem It continuous. for vhlchfor *very real number Cthere exists a. Rob (t) . ? rando vari trb able equal x. a •.1SI5T PN efin The followSI Iotim• awe pertinent to a discUSSIon of probability d1stributlorm or deAitiee: Uwad Va1bl*e. ~ A rar'am wariable that can tae anan vale vithin an Iaterval (iulwalent to twng ni Intti:y of walue). It there am two **dpwnts. a ad b.T~W~DbS ~b ~ r tya eIrno illtf tha AMCP 7061S1 par t a !m . mW if the systm Is succesefti at time t if either a or b or both are operable.6so (a. fte *w quatlon F ta < 6bJ fr(E)da. A* an=026e the rel. It we hbe two equpments. the O of a taw variable.. a and b..t by P w ohoeen J Spoterl the *•aowatlon a good par a S.that. the system rpllability StS() is %(t)  Rat) *a(t) Ra(t) 4. the probability that both perafte Ue. by Beam r•nm. Awlletlon of ftobobt11S7 laws to Relabtitty Ze mot of the aplelatlcm of preobbility th.3.?montiI.5 NOMA.naI_. ftrt. b). W4 above fouuls WoI oqua1I m)U whe ntotretod w rumetili 0 tim. "I t(x). ILe's the protability that f(s) Live# te which* for 41eretae rtnom Por contlmqsi ow vwAbles. probability that x Is less than wr eqval to C. A randt variable that can tak On olJ a or countable number of distinct vrlues. the re the itud fro tetn pIM~b211•r of 0.Ra(t) twuM Rntj) * R%(t) Is the rellablity at tim t of equipment 1.
the probab~lity thta 96. Ir I rveramW a glveu vale of X. then f(x) ham the eoa1ow1J2 VrqirtI*si (1) f (s) a 0fall1 t(x) * i (2) 4a dlcretwo (194. the owaltive dstUaVlbe nut~etIo. 2~swloral rather ftme poitat wi~st be em6e8166 for~th OctnOt thestea SP Uptia *Wvawos the probebilty that the ram' worlable x Ile lees than or OPel to swvalue as detevalued from the probebillty 6ems y tonottea... .?.AMCP 7W.~bability that x will take on1 a value in the interva~l 1 is (tIbj P~ jA bf* z S at x.t valUN owies wIII ftu at inUtR is derived to be am (e.. F(X).1.) f ~d w if x is cantimzu~im (as "twmpr.000 . rMu density taomtlon of z.. FM) f (x)dx (18) variable.*l to be ""Ia& to so . the for a 41scvato wuiws wazUIabl laver 11ldt to L. The probability that a ontlammrandoum Tarlable VIIl UMi Do a Sp. CA tVz) vaproMts the rvLWblItY It X wrpraeeats US. lpsrsantsa the sum over &~II if ossIb1O 41*ert'@ values of x. tal for 'A the limits __ tiD do 41p ttz) Ii ao~l.it x to *iserste 10eti~~a L.g. . boars oewd svro). 18 F(I) utoss (17) For a cntirman random vSwIb)e.
at tois les tbeW.25 2The Lx 7/ x 0. x pr4b)1lty o t.AMCP 70&191 i emm"tlUt 4stz11buxttcn fetims havs tto fol.h A and sta~i~d asI 2.ty that it equaRl 'ýo I :aey F(3)  F(f .x )3/14. Icalty in" Sker. f rce EquatI c 19&.2.e uteptean vhich.  r(x) . pre rbtcllity that x Is grt.4. i l.w cumlatwd 1(X) 1 for all I a V.5l£ dacctproiai1ty enit 1/2.yle A sho n ira nh The finctilo f(x). 0..t(2) + r(3 or Is equal to .1• ~4.r 1m 3 x Sketch 3 1004.  III . or equal to 3 011=10 trw Is less tha. b1 " 0. te lowr limit oa the range of x per limit of tth t.1 Rx:.c)05 0. vwhen plotted.0 for a&11 < L. yields function. or  probabil.ovir4 properAes: v(X) a 0 tor all x F(1) .shown In Skretch B.than oreOque to 315s. Otl It S 2 ' rnw of x dItibuto fnction b•e.2  ..(x4 r x 1 3 3 4 Sketch A The cumulative function Is 1/. 3 :. 1 2 x .
OF / The probability that x is between any two values in the range of x.2 Example B ThY fur6ction f(x).6)20. F(b) 0. and • Sketch 7 X 2xdx .191 4..2.5 i ablm. OS xS LO.6 is LO .  (.. say between a and b.' '3 Parameters and Moments "i 4.1 Definiionc A parameter is a constant that appears in the probability density function. 2x. as the mean or range.27 .5 x Sketch D  F(m). Tne cumulative distribution is F . whlch io nlotted in Sketch D.3) (0.4.3 < x 0.5 ""af(x)dx . is (from Equation 19b) 5. since x is r'I a continuous varl1 0.4.. ] Thus the probability that x will be between 1. 11 13 more generally defined as vcme measurable eka!oter•tio of the pooulation.3)2 (0.3.L LX) fx)dx 2xdx . 1<. and f(x) a 0 for all x..x2 2 1.3 ani 0. . othtrwise 1 "i• continuous probability density a O01 ____ f£unctton.6]  F (0. shown graphically in S xetch C and stated as S...AMCP 7GC.
the variance is the e7pec td or average value of the square ot deviations of all possible values from the mean.let t denote the random variatlo timetofailure anf f(t) the timetofailure probability 4I..namely. frQ contiswoma variables vs•2aNM sul3 b (22b) out IL Is csl.. for discret. 4. the more variability there 26in the dLitribution. Natheaticeally. for' continuous variables •.id th denotd usally"by a2 (ý'In the previous notation). it is a measure of dispersion about the iman. a descriptive propeety Y.*  A ddflned onoent. for discrete variables (23&) xP)fxdfor continuous variables The greater the variance.3. proMb.U4 aeAnsoty ftultion. is ly S) s follows: (1) rth moet About Zero% xrrf(). it i8 defined by the equation xf (x). variables (21a) (xa)rf(x)dx. it defined by xg2Vx 2•.AWCP 7W. the man ts the exp4ected or aver&V value in the population. the n of the distribution and ia a measure of central tendency. the timetoftllure density fumation and the reliability function . variables (24a) xf(x)d~. is Mathevatically.4•.13 .2 R ationshl of Parameters and Moments to ReliabIlity Theory (23b) To relate the above concepts to an important area of reliability . Th secod maleb. for discrete Ariables (20a) ILr AL S(x)dxfor continuous variables (20b) ii (2) rthmsomnt about point "&I: for discrete f(x)ro(r).b) The n about zero (M or 1&) . The square root of the variance is known as the standard deviatio.
< t. 4i2  (25) 414 L ______________ . S f tf(t)dt. t t1 fltldt F(t3) . by definition.probability that failure occurs after t (the reliability function) . denoted by R(t). or.0 for t < 0). t. (f(t) . from Equation 23b. The reliability over a t1w Lntemrl. which for most density functions is equivalent to  f R(t)dt The variance ls.F(t2 )  "R(t ) 1 The mean time to failure is. then M f(t) i~ . is.1 minus probability that failure occurs before t  1 minus I f() d" (t'ls simply a dwury variable of Intepgationi  ftf(f) dt° Since the derivative of the cumulative distribution function le the probability density function for continuous variates. (9 R(t) .AMCP 7W191 density function. P [t. from Equation 19b.  n(t 2 ) (24) from Equation 22b.he time interval t 1 to t 2 ia equal to the probability that it will fail before t2 minus the probability that it will fail before tl.dr1R t )ii4) The probability that an item will fail within t.
g. The Instantaneous failure rate. h) e. The term often used for the mean life of repaimble tems.50 reliability (e. the term is often used to signify the instantaneous failure rate ur hazard rate as defined below.We..g. It sometimes represents tne expected pxoportion of failures in an interval.. Ht + hl 1126) (Note: The tern "failure rate" can be coz. the following definitions are Important:  Man .AMCP 706191 For reliability problem. given survival at the begirmnig of the interval. defined as follows: a r lt) A (t.) Unrd Rate.especially in connection with the exponWntial diatzibutlion. but it is 0. ggg repairable items. The rate at which failures occur per unit time in the interval t to t + h. the sense of arithmetic mean) time that an item will *unction The term often used for the mean life of non(WW). 50 percent of items that have been lifetebted would be expected to fail before the median life and the other FTium 50 percent would be expected to fail after the median life). provided all failures are instently replaced .) The time Interval for which there Is a 0. ffean Time .o Iat d IOA RWt ILU (27) Note that R(t) can be shown to be equal to the ftllowing expression r• n(t) ee Jo z(t)dt (28) 415 . In addition.g Failgn (ET).5.t T. defined by A(t. The first moment of a timetofailure density function the average (in satisfactorily before failure. M 1fe. e. (Notet The reliability for a time period eqzal to the mean life varies with the type (#f failure distributimo. which is discussed in a subsequent section.37 for the exponential distribution. h) h. Faillre Rate.. in which case the divisor h in the above definition is omitted. the reliability at the Mw life of a normal failuretime distribution is 0. Sometimes the term is used to mean the conditional proba Uiity of fallurm during an interval. isinZ because it is used in various ways. ie.
e: tts to of 30 items each hate everienced distribu . It it expressed as folIAoM: The f (z) A ml X 0 r . 4.'s "C1ow or falur*.24. ".0.AMCP 7061914.(30) (0.qbltty]• tion.4. Tmh. mere than 2 defectives? and Exactly two defectives: Prom Iation 29. average portion defective of 20 peoront.4 Discrete 4. what iU the probability of (a) exactly 2 detective*?.1 rability Distributions of the hyperg•euetrio d atrlbu•ion are as foloMS 0 Mweraeoatric Distribution The requiremenat (1) (2) There are only two poesible outoms5 defeotive or not defeotive. Ip itmas are samled from a Us. * .hus.6. x failures and (nx) successes In the ample.80) .V(29) The cimlative distribution Is probab I~litie can be closely ap~rooim~ted byt the bi~nomlla1 pr.20) . (3) spling Is performed without replaoement (depoent trials). discussed below.4. i 5 (a) r(2) = 4 . or 6 defective.Nq failures (an integer). (b) 2 or feaer dd4eetiveef. There is a finite population size. frm of sthat a population OUmas Assume that a staple of n Umems is dram contains sp successes (an integer) and I(1p) .213 1416 .4. (30) (0.
0..•958 . the probability density function for obtas. la constant for al1 trialb. (31) and the probability of x or fewer failures is iven by the cumulat.1? [2 or lees doretiv•)s a l1(2) .2 The (1) (2) Bingmla• Distribution equiremente of the bliualal dimtribution are as follows: Thsze are only two possible outcoes.. 2.4. implin with replacement).ý'Xý' bution function • x• 0...Ve distri 4 wh~ere c ka k(kC.AMCP 7WS. (3)(2)(1 0eedI Ttw •mean number of falltrvo ise n~p.. The probabilitY of each outem saccess or failure.+A7 + 0..958 *ore than two deectivts: P [More i•hn 9 detectives) .2) . 1(2)  + + w 0.0.4. and the variant to rnp(1j). (3) the trials am Independent (eqLWaLent to s Po" n tr1als with constant probabilIty p for success and (lp) for failure. n :1. from 3qmation 30.nift x successes Is rc=) .213 L (C) .F(2)..298 + 0.I () (b) or fewer dofeativW81 fto P [2 or Us$ detectives] .042 4.. ..1.
I*A . the corltions (i) (2) The binUnII law applies. i1 large. what is the pr•bability that 2 or tower defectivs vwil be found? .0. end the probability of fallure. f im1Uatlotn 32.UMS~ •.95)21 4.Uie" . or volume. n.ne probability density frunction ts r(a) e pearmeter np r*•lr*e*nts (x a op p> > a o) (> the expected or &versae number of ..P (k2 0.3 The ?olso• lagon DIjPlstribirtiq. such as time. or 2) . yield ) percent detective. mzt . is emall.. ?he ample eise. For an approximation of rho binolal.y(0. A prectioal rule of thumb to p 6 0.812 (0.b.05)0 (0. Assume that Pt experw ms Indiestes that The following informatioa Is avallablet Cse~rieut: "Suoes * nandofeotiws part 'a.dmc ample of 30 prts (30 trials). Is 30 Nsnoe.95 e [k 21 . 0350 1  0. length.P(2) .10 and rip 4lO.0~'j. p. 1. In a . distrIbution can be used as an approimatIon of the hinomial distribution or es the distribution of number of Independent occurrene*s in a continlum.detective par ?rProbability ?robab~lltleo: Frob~bItlty of suc00ss a 4 of fillure a mpl*e size.pe"IO04 r acotat is production proms. n.05)2 (0.95)30 + ir(0.S~5)29 + . (0.sllutre In n trials.
ft liAsewm per hour it• w_h failure Is In'stantly aveepW. .o r(22 " 0.rse"nts the number or failures (occurrence).g. cwit be e.. or volus. or the number of nondofte t in a thest of' steel. Rce.Xt is the average nmber of falluwes for t hours./9 . *2)(. an Interval of time) is a crestent. ffx) * ~  .rioco an erplmd ur replaced. e.fotlv.2565 The bliamAl probability is t(2)  (0.tallwr" that ani itss will *xe. 2.luated.* litetestod for t ho•ri and failures aw r*paixrd or replaced w'th idntlc&l If ) Is the average number of failures for oa hour. .. (34) Both the sewa 6nd the variance are equal to m. (2) (3) If a Is the expectd uaber of occurrences per given sepsent of the continuum.ur sibsegient.. tie *stpletl From th Poptso o m f() to the blnomial. ~AMCP 7MI91 tAsesun' that it s~le of 25 itsuýl "]aciseted lot in whioL W percent of the items ane Mat 18the Probumb1ity of two sfeetives in a tpo m () ..0.g. The omber of occurrences produced In anr subsesnt Is independent of the nmnbr cf occiuae cas In my o•. 1. So wanlng ow be aesribed to the M of nonoccurr*nces. tr cofiitions are: 0 (1) The number of expected occurrencec (say rccesses) per given somment of tie cctntu•m (e.2(9 o0ourrwwao If the ?oIsO& is eOplozwG " the 4tstrIbuttion of the number of Independent in a oantlimu. such " time lonoth..o. the probability density function Is tjx) X. then a ..90)23 0. If x . It Is felwed to Rind the probability that Y tailuee will ecur it this t•e !.10)2 (0. the amber of telephnae calls not mso" durit a day.
If n Itemso pane Pawe o test.A1/. I3. rhich is equivalent to the statswnt that the hsawd rate of the exprenorltW Is a cornetant thL equwls the rec IIroaal of the seen lift# usum~kl.rmsl t to t. This. (35b) Thu epannMuW~a 4istributln Is ipriaaurW used ton a forwmal& for wting tm*. sad in independent of the mom of the preduct. W & faXU1.o6 4. t w 50.A MWr tlastOtuIUGM GWa~tt funatIMM. wd 10 Itew ss put O test. The reliabiUty ructIo~a Is a(e) ] t r(t)dt *Nt (~ . given survival to t.5 gMnt!uaoMP Distrlumtilpa The prebebility daiwity of thewtw Opastla Itstrioutlan is SiO" by A 1k. in turn.. !4. the length~ of the interval. tIW Viw Uatter ume Is a Giweet ecsquence of aassunz thiat the probabIllty of tallueIn the Int.AMCP ?W191. 10 (0.L O. I*s afunotlou cray of h. 1n iUbIdlity.. If )k . u"tii.T denoted by A.0. Or.5." not fa~lied &fter&m period atof it IA " good as now. t. the awerq asubw of faI~a's I Ua jajt. +h.l*a that if a 6uice t.001) (50) .0.001 per boa. asi a Yta probability at otmwsv~tugwo falluwe f(2)  si .
A sheet table of the expanantIal Is given Ini Appendx v. tie VtI lntertl.. pmaW mWG ?olssor. I (t) 10 uilts.6 .AMCP. VaiableIs tote r~mbor ofl%1. as a c" ofs Ztin gW^14 the lWbdon vClabl* Is the tima to thelf~a r*4 ~14tv. 5 0. Por V ira 1zn Poiasao d1 strlbutlon.5 2.0 t to units) MV UMRMU1 MUWM"i meK~m Thoe *portftal.0 2.5 3. ? to a tome Ua' to #fteomaso U010eue * t.ires ?Qr 41stributlam. tY* reiiw Y. the mean life cani be found trem 0 37 PIlguv 41 slow thwex as~p a#*We reliability tuactiou with tiaw given lz.2a 0 1.*rlablt Is V* tIw t tts #m ~taetel d1stritutlii.79. 0. the rvidc nth~ frauw.6 0. 41str~but1mA ar rlated.0 11.iitoie. Por thea gam. 0.1 91 At the wMes life *. ~aa~~os .the weliabllt7 Is Oives tie rellabilty ier a time Interval.
DUfferet deter. Por example. ?he use or ti type of 'falIur Isw for ooqiai Systmems in nesJy justifled boewe of the may formse tht om act upon the syst no pwoea. it will esin staf" to rise as these 'smo• insratlon" parts begin to . when a nmbsr c° rplaoseut c.'watlu dS0hSi"S. avd It fanls sharply When a nmb~er of replosets occur. f*Alure. te syt.I if' the true hear hours will glva ax4etefunction is as sa +•pqttion of a a reasonable spgr*Ast1xan. but this cyclic sovent d4siaishes in Ut . Noevr. dittst part :a3au . When a11 parts amw now.em had raW decreases. It ý'.AMCP ?0S.iod of t1ns.Itt The MWOURLON. U. aeims that a #rutm oeteim parts which hem 1ncressU4 hasard ratas. the exzpa tl•a. di4s1srutlm Is that the ezpcutla.tse:: . In the ciar's below Issaw~ tbat the ftro systan Is Sebiu4*po).ses zepetmwite lift. It will again Start to rise xs thes nseocad pmeratiowi parts begin to ope.22 .llty function is tmt ths hatard raft (or t1w conitIMAIuL pobtebilty 3ft& fa L at the beginning ot the Interval) is Im n GL sato&I. $Ilam S of a te• ma . system hazard rate osoilates. When a failed part IS replsed by a new one..1a Interval of tkno for vhlch the true hasard raft Is flarly constant.l it used as am enroxiasteun of saw oer density over a par•w •. Yoi state "Mre as re Vies.cur. oiUab. a Another Justiflcation for Mte epManmtlal In lcqtift o3lx z:stem to the sowull epptrouth to a stAy etate. sand aproach" a stble state wlita •o•stat hax*ar rate. Ttur!. As am examp. or the faiture patterm t result of tt* UJXIR t parts of atlif•rm•n *os wten failed elionts In the Syston a re place or repaired. the sybtem hasard rate deereases. e¶powntlal for ths period 0 to 250 0 100 2W 100 4• r00 ThwJ t 1 4. and varyleg Or•o. Md~rIYU4 the e~ons sirvri al.wte tu. over a perlod of t4a.niet ombssUws that produse fallur•e ruily In Ur seogdiz* to the expctla ftalul= I'a.rm tal condions ottem mswLt In stm•iet. mn4 It falls thb•pi. Hwevwr. G the parts o. the "stem hazard rate La lw. over a po. Thus. Sthird Justitication for eemlz. 0 U20in the haszud rawe IS *onStang riJ$l"Atml parts.
i.) Y IT~'~ . It Is also being ased to fescribe tfs±Zure patterns at the uni1t and equipimnt lovela. is wn increasin function of is> ~ 1.ohe.Th by Ithee argannts wtwIthstafIMj. It Is thgeotror obligatory on the part of the aialjot to vvaildae the wie or owq psrtleulw distribution fwmctlon. mid to. 6zeinii Ion oir the pest perfozwnse. roecaivira wide owl~cation as tr* failure patttrn of seuslcanfttor dovtoes and wchsic~al devices. wher avoilable.P va" an*a For anot an in. to validation: (1) Historical . (2) Statletical .AMCP 706491 MIiucrlAmLnato use of the erponential (or iM~. ard because of its fleibiblity. a 4*e essiza fwnctloia OtOA j5' tims The probability danslty* *f the g~am distributlon Is given ty t ea . Vohe axarO rate 13 comstant wten P*1.e.  (a.biswqm a dZKoLaocvrovaaramv tests). koedl7o spakin*. aI Reltabillty Amplications The VeibuU distribution to. th*e on tooa ppr.(0li.Ie. or th3 it*%. pv52~t densijty utofUA two parwater WeIWI distribution Is given . Or Iwow5 a~ ritO (.almi~e us of MR distribustion# for t~ht matter) can lead only to eonftsium =0 Uwarmtoass. mp=z r (+ ) (I Chrateitics Th5eapfld~lt ofhis devotj t o oe of Its deniftble chw~acteristies..e.
When & .. L.!ems In their various stages of development. Pint.4 Hol'•aJ.# changing b merely narrows or broadens t.'* cur"e). the hazard rate is constant. The cumulative function is not directly Integrable. b' is a scale parameter that determines the abscissa scale (I.. y.e. It increases with time when a Is greater than one and decreases with time when a it less than one . 'he second reasor is that the estimated mean life of the comeonly uae' exponential dist:ibutian has a ans d•en•ity.1..5.AMCP M•I91 Characteristics The critical parmeter is "a". vhIih controls the shape of th* curve. which can be used to make probability staterer. Distribution ! The probability density of .*s for estiasted "' tests of the mean life. 4. the original t variable to a new varlable. These tables can be used for any normal distribution by transferring _ .. The density funcion is a symmetrical bellshaped curve. ~Re~lirabil ity Aplicotttons The gmma distribution in Important in reliability for' two reasons.. the d•stribution reduc•s •o th•e e*i~stntia~l.4... consistent with the use of this letter for failure time. but tables of the normal cumulative distribution with a mean of zero and a variance of one (called the stedard or normalized form) are widely available. I .. ty the equation I *The letter t rill be generally used to denote the random varial.he noimal distribution is given by* whre Mean Variance Characterls t!ei a  a2 The normal is one of the most widely used ccntinuous densities. it is an extremely flexible distribution and can therefore be used to fit the failure patteri of .. Vnen a Is eoual to 1. 424~ which is .. as shown on the left.
:Assume of obtaInIng a value between 95 and 110 on a L.0. binomia. appropriztV and finding the probability that y a y' from the A condensed table of the std normal is oven in Appendix C.0.0. since the hazard rate of the normal distribution increases with time. Y2 2 Then p (95< t < 1101  p [ < y < 2)] (1) .nd the prbility sinle trial.AMCP 7064191 S) The variabla y Is normally d1stributed with a mean of sero and a variane. chekouts.818 Reliability Applications rkequently.s small enough to ignore) all negative times observed as zerohour failures are the reault of wearout during prodction testing. It is esird to f. c. it should not be used unless one of the following three conditions is met: (1) p. etc./o • 3 (this con~dition establishes that the probability of a negative failure time .977 .••2) . (2) 425 . LAt a1.100 and o5. one can us3 the tables by first letting 7 tables. the normal distribution applies to items in which the failure occurs as a result of some wearout phenomenon. Under coroltions the normal distribution can be used to approxomate the and Poisson probability jinn (see any stanaz'd statistical text). to fi the probability tat t is 1*ss than say. Since the normal distribution implies both negative and positive values.159 . of or*. installations. in a manner consistent with a wearout process. Tmhus.
. What is the probability that this item will operate at least 250 hours without faJi•iM? rR(250) 1F(250) 21 l/(00) 1( 1 i.0. 250 tranfoms to and R(tasO) .' (t fort.25 ..26 to I . f 3 : Assume that an iteu witti a normal timetofailure ii1trIbution has a mean life of 500 hours and a standard deviati= of 40 hours ( .%ACP 704. from . 25 .894 4. If y t00 40 40 the limit 1.25) f 1 ..106 .11 (3) A trunoated normal distribution is ap1o•d that 4stributes the probabllty are..to 0 over the positive r•pe 0 to.R(yol.y2 /2 dy 1 .A. 300 > 3a 120).50..0. distribution's density Is The r(t) " L_•• 1/2 ii 0. for t < 0 (•. fo t 0 <' (42) where A characteristic of the normal distribatlon Is that the mean life and median ý•.: are each equal to the time Interval for which the reliability is 0.
5 & 0. 0. (43) Mean Median + = e'Y W/2 . The probability den3ity function is positively skewed.1) Characteristics If the logarithu of a %arlable is normally distributed.5.14. a large variance being associ&ted with much skewness.5 / = increases with tiwe until the mode (kmost likely failure time) Is rea.ched 0.e +CD (m .5.4.5 LoeNormal Distribution AMCP 706191 () The probability density of CA lognormal distribution is given by f(t) * where W1 o1/2 > n.3 (the time corresponding tc the maximum ordinate of the density function).6 Other Distributions There are many other important probability distributions t. it is inaependent 4. Three lognormal distributions with identical means but different variances are plotted at the left.1 SRelability _Applications The hazard zate of the lognormal .e7.4. 0. Ths use of the lognormal distribution has been found to reflect adequately the failue pattern of many semiconductor devices and is also often approppiate for system or equipment timetorepair distributions.. Such distributions as the •2 (chi square) and the t are often used 427 . after w:tich it decreases. the variable has a lognormsl prooability distributlion.%t have not been discussed. log (median)= Variance . The median life is the more convenient and usual x measure of central tendency since unlike the mean of the variance.
Li•'metrio estimatee those which are based on a Rimown or asased distribution of the population cnaracteriatic of Interest. generally. that survived 50 hourq. is one for which there is a known degree of confidence (in a probability 428 . the estimate of R(. On the other hand: since no assumption about the popL'atlon dietribution is made for noparametric tests. Twenty sample Item am' surviwlvl tested until the.4 s:simz's to estimate the prooability that an item will survive for 50 hours.the nonr failure based on an exponential distribution of failure ties. since the formor require greater sample sizss to achleve tie sm precision as the latter.'C) is sIMply the propo. those which ae made Ofthout assumtion of day particular foru for the probability distribution. if e. 4.. erTors arising from Incorrect assumptions are not encountered.5 STATISIC* AUA'iWhI Of TIST IATA ITIIM1 This section reviews l vw.an estimate of an Interval that Is believed to contain the true value of the paramter or oharacteristic Distribution estimate of a characteristtc an estimate of the probability dta~ributlor (3) The most common type of point eetimate is the maxlnlikelihood estmaSte2 I. The purpoe of estimation is to describe pertinent characteristios about a population through analysis of d4&' o.. suppose it .AMC? 706191 for inferential puzposes.A saplese. the value that has the maximum probability of producing the observed sale results. R(50). of the sample parametric eatimate.ost comon type of interval estimate. The three comuon types of estimates are: (1) Point estimate teriatic  ( a singlev&lue estimate of a paramter or oherao (2) Interval estimate . . the . all fail. equation 'hat describe the probability distributiom are As an example of these tvo approaches. The two major appvroaohes to estImstion ane as tollows: NoU=araMtrI estimates.. Sme of the speoifio uses of these dfet Ibutiams in reliability and m4ntalnability analysis are dL9cuk4 in the followfr. nonparametric estimates ae not as efficient as •&metrio estimates.tnt statistical aspeots of the evaluation of eea abtmt a pc•utests conducted to make reolabillty and mantainabLity Infat lation of Items through estimatio procedures. The oomitants In the ncaled pawmeters. exponential distribution Is eastmedd R(50) can be where G is the e*Atlmbite of the mean time to obtained from the expression e0 . For the parametric estimate of tho 50ho probability. •*eoto.e. A nonfidenoeinterygl estIma~te.
a&sum that a 100hour MM' is desired..Omaee) AMCP 706191 that thu trs vahmo of the unimawn paxinter or oharacteristic lies within Whenever possible. for tben the degree of precision In tMe point "otisaft cam be asesed. In this case.1 and 14. The eneral approach for analyuing test data for estimation purposes consi ta of the following steps: "* State objectives for test data analysis "* Determine appropriate forms of statistical estimates to meet objeccives "* Perfom any necessary preliminary analyses such as enalysis of the dis SDeter•mine tributional form If parmetric or nc. the former may bo chosen. Two steps are generally Involvid In making a distribution estlmate: (1) hypothesistIg or determining tbrough data analysis the form of the distribution. Point estimate.5.2 swurarize various types of estimation procedures. data collectioti. raw data. describing test desipi. since It is aom eertain that Item A will be close to or exceed the requirement then it is that Item D will.par•mt•'i procedurea are to be used • Aply appropriate procedures or equations to obtvdn estimates •uiy new * Note nusual data results and set up test plan for confirming * Report on results omletely.*U) AltM=&h the point estimate for Item B ii above the l00hotr requirement. and data analysis 4.1 Norvarm etric IstlmaAtton A summar7 of various nonparametric estimates I. A429 . 4 ) Sections 4. a oeetiden1einterval estimate shculd be given &ang with tba point estimate. Sales of two different designs air tested and the results are a follows: a eemuted Interval. For example. the revcrse decision probably would be made.5. 9 95 hours (90125) 105 hous (140170) *90 Confidence Interval ( I. If only the point estimates were considered. and (2) making point estimates of appropriate paraneters that will caqoletely describe thl distribution.5. presented In th's 4ection. it Is seen that the precision of toe estimate a determined from the length of the cofidence Interval Is poor 1L ocparison with t"t of Item A.
as 1 ( a) %.a)% limit. (a % is o be iterpreted as the (1a) fractile or. equivalently. t Is the probability of oc"estila a speo5fld maintenane action by ti.5. Uipper (1 a) 1 Limit 1 + (. 6 f1 + F I72 2.. 4enoted by () iR(t). Thus If n ltmu ame put on tests aid f fa2lurso occur before time t. where a im.2 For a twosided (1 . the interva• Is In this appendix.(2 2.1.. Construction of a oonftdenoe interval about confidence liits Lower (I M(t)or (t) Mis based on the The equLtions for fact thae these estimates oorrespond to a binomial parmetor.2f) to the upper a1 point of the I distribution with Pf + 2.*seted in Appendix C.*1 Loint anw laterval Lstbwftes of Rellabiliti gE tMInaabIlit The simplest estimate o0' welisbilty for a tim Interval (t). end 2n . where r to the nmiber of such actions completed by tim t out of a total of n repair actions.2 d9pees of freedom. are as follows: a )% Li~it* P where I + . a decimal.em (oe•r•aship) durin the test. These equations ane for the asse of no withdraal of It. $tailarW.AMCP 701191 4j.. 2n  2f)] ~6 PL (2f + 2. A condensed set of 7 values Is p. 430 . 2n . is to caluWo a the proportion of Itmis that surive over that time interval.
for it . limij~ ()Prom lquatioi 147.. is *. 80)j Prom Table C4. 1/ + ~ Q5(22. 7 rev a a 30.ýfrm DC R011bl~Ity Notebook. 00e 34e + J O.l w t o ope~ ruclu A M CP 70 6j et ftssg MMM %h le.A axi pm"OIfte T t" t* to mz'9rowae the te WP "At U" g.1~~Jhov~gin "U"$iumdU axi M1b 0 . the go% t ozeYields a Value of lP1cxA~t4'.6814 i. 101 (22.. 01. mftx tlw pout ea u t. tarting at t ug. 0.4s. . Unit (Ur d'ti i or M.o 0 . 1 .80) 1_5~ L2 Vi~ur.8.80)] 0.Jj2 (2) pme 3iastimo~ iw. O"Ou01" c'm WAd then OMtdMWA~ lUnit. * (1) ftm Sqiaatift 4.o.0.10 (22. R(60) .
TM YlOoZ a to tiMS.S. stimation at ftixd poate in time. n > 30). where as or before the ordoeod is tho number of . nQ wItS &Me withdrewn for reons otlhr tm ftaIsre.2'. bare slmos *se@tifv tha emnoproe duree sam used for malatslnabllry. abilty cse Is 4s@ouSOd In •et&l.. oours at 20 hours.)..number of Item or4itrnlly oa test fj a riber of fitlures Ln tm• interval t 1(t )(2) < t 6 t nuber of failures occurrlnl on or before t tk sti~ation of R(t) at failure tIMS. a YOlatlUliMM oam be 6deeloped. t t .~d I.e fourth failure out of 14C obsorvation... 432 . 49 and 50 yield nearly identioal results.S.e. vhich Is the r1iablUty fwi ti.(t.•lao data rathert thau ftaluztl J&.R (say. Equ.)*.S.n For large **AWl.AMCP 7W191 tls an UNA lth tm eq•. aim Ow fi d4ta a blqU u LixItsf slat muatu. R~ellabtlltx 1u•t1Qo*U If point estimates at R(t) ae nods tfor VaioWu Yav" of t.0allure occurriJ failure time "k. No Cetumrhip Two methods ane possible (1) 'aItems nom MV oftWo. the taihuxv times *I* ordered to that t3 S ti I t 2 Thus it t. t.where .2 oeartlmi t.l. 7/11 20 . n .
'r.2.00 1 1 2 1 2 4 49 48 46 0. If torelnotod or m.98 0.5 0. wAn e~ensorship takes Placea fl2..e two funt ionft ar.8h3 325 4 5 6 7 a50 9 10 27 35 4j7 54 60 41 0.d elnee.92 1 3 2 5 6 10 45 4z 40 0.941 0. than * If 433 . 50.84 0.AMCP iw6491 AM~sI etof 50 1".96 0.863 0. 35 42 4T. 27.902 U.1 oterv'ationA occur.980 0. tuwtc at' (2) every 10hua Obt&Ui tho obso~ pefteo4u to 60 tmrlumtw (1) Ob~ewm rollabalty ftmcttonx at 10four Intwmr'el.80 Oberwed rmllablllty functions at each failurm timer nk41it!k 0 1 0 7 18 51 50 49 48 47 6 45 44 43 42 1. 1i f i w tl n*~t) et  I10 (2) 0 20 30 Aw0 50 60 0 0 5C 1. plo~ttd In Flium .804 T'.90 0.922 0.. 25*.60. 54.4 the IOUGM OUOW LQ~t7 18B.CO 0. failureft 04ounw4 .
ot ti).'.9o  Is 3: 0.9w 0.v t. 1j At.80 .etlan at t4mht•r hoAr.9r.w *goA Itm %s vlthevn Ivtry ten r"a. 1 whmre beooms n 3. . the ad ( )8_aUMSv (at)st .00oooa Zt obmt1ma m ermlaste W at tau=%.1 .60 (4 lquat lon (50) s 10 0 116 3 Tim.tj. 40 tO 6 !4D s6o 2 r 4 O'g7 o._ Iloo sme Items will be rm coneored lt. Vt() I 2 J 0 o SO 1 2 ) 1 48 •5. assaue ýhst :.amber ot . 0.uat•So 0. oeowwiS• Fýl 42 MMEu MiNKuWY K Por termInsted ow aeasoced Om4 oe•u•ring randomly within a time val betena tsallume.980 0.4 1 . aej" .9"6 0. 40 5 60 tim failure *a"" at a given tm.acM In the Interval (t. *or* ni• I lag the j the dher of items If a."46 5 6 !t 60 OO 01<86 34 .W 6 3o *1 a i 1 i  46 41 41 0. " 7 (53) w is the wmbor of w•lthdraals durnrn the a tim Int rvall SM2lt: Por thO 4a*a of the eoxalo ge Intervas. am estimate of tW velieblilty at t" tues of the I ta t) o0.959 0.979 2 3 2 10 30 0.  (4t) "* 41 I I . In "No Censorshlp.us at t31 Steartin jtM u  f tj u tWam b.AMCP ?1S191 wwre n3 is the amber of it f . ettha •am Interval. t P "t'1 " 'j1 (I 1.917 . CLIculAU the reliability The tollowi•gr In trva values am derived fro Xq&tln 1.t j mertow r I Is to nmber or trallare %t the 3th fali~ar t1m..
*7.97M 35 41 47 0.ý8J eamooein.ity reswl. 5.829 54 0.5 42 3a33 IT 6 ? * T 8 *t g 94s 35 s 1 441a 4 1 1 1 110 95soa54 9 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 41 40 39 37 41 40 36 1D 35I 38.9" 0.851 0. ti(tit.sesrwhi caso it r rAwber of m~aitaeiwm wim e etlt ruA oborve6 repairs tro I* ntomfa t. caIculat. wo ftuoftS Vsales an derivod fra squatlaft 531 31m d~sz t th fatlar t~mme lpv abo.d vntIl all maJztenianc act ions ame eampleft . the follOWIng is obtalned for the no.916 44..977 7 0.873 0.960 18 25 27 0.9%8 0. r orm~~t ref~tu at the rang"z tin". % monel'instrte OWUNat" of tho Pro'abi1Ity ttAt a maizitenceo 9nitim v*U be oc"Iste by tmes t an e xactly the complui t of the reliabi3.5 3? 36 34.97* r 973 0. thenmbe~r of completed UWA3M Vow w~t~~ aft" obowvalmo son Ist %%m. em~ewsl~. of cawp*teG ?..5 0.stimes 2.959 0. ts1~.976 0. ftrost~ima"~ u(t) at fiud points Li time til.r stlaa*.6 A1662 4 15 a 2 3 1 350 1 0 47 3 4f 1 0 42 49 47 0.90 0. vlw ktoth wtr f *W &tlns iýIs~donorWo'35rdro ..976 0.806 6o~ 0.7 . amd 56 boa".AMCP M46111 WI UMMV 66 Coosa vithitusla wre mado at U. at repar tins.972 50 0.'v in then 1 06 T 3 7. 25. irtf the numbe of talliares.6192". t t.97n 0. in rW~ndced by r.1 rarely pree.894 0..nts a problnm ally ýo cw" .
rits square root. the fV'l1owing is obtained: 1.70__ 1.6.91.lity case all sample icems s. 0.r.AMCP 706191 u foTost0. For the nonparameiric ca.44 0. If t. as a rough approximation.60 o.50 .4# 0.8.0 0.6 0. 1. the salandard daviation. is small campaed with n (sa" w/n < 0.10). 4.8 4 5 6 7 8 9 0. 0. 2 WO' 0. 0. then.e tested to failure. 0. and for the matntainability case all started repair actions are completed.# 0.. and the mTssure of diaparsicn is the v&aiance .that Is.4 0.36 .2 0. the samplesize value to be used is nw/2.4. the number of samplo items varies. from Equation 55. represents 3ither a failure t1ne or a repair time.80 0. and 48 can be used to olitain limits for the observed functions for caes of no censorship.5.0 Then. n The variance is estimated )y (n1) i3 (ti (57) 4. w. Equations 46.* not truncated or censored .2.2. • Measurcs of C:entral Tendency and DLsrersion The usual measure of cencral tendency is •he mean or average value.5 0.. for the reliab.20 0. If censorship takes place. 2 0. 0 0 Confidence Limits for Reliability and Maintainability Functions EstiDa.0 S.. the mean or average value is estimated by n n' 11 tl (56) where n iR the number of observed tim~s.e. 2.3 _A3&W2: Asswum that nine rWa•r aStions aMe observed 1.. these measures are valid only if the data a. If the total number cf censored items.'Ang reliability or maint&xnabil'ty at fixed poanto in time without censorship Lorresponds to estimating a bin•ial aramerter.2 2.1ý4 0. 4.
it on the estimated diatribution.50. is or P[~t 0 0 5 . Isthe a/2 percentag point of the t statistic with n1 degrec3 of freo. 29 '0' t. nls/v • i ( 9 ~ ( (5L~ 9) II L I E•••t'• n.Land a am the population mean ad vaeiance. this states that the quawtity the oentralllmLt theorea may ie used. the more usual type of centraltendency measure is tue median. s a40.50. 5 0 is obtained by constructing the reliability or maintainability function by the methods described and by plotting the distribution to find the vAlue of t for which R(t) or M(t) . and an approximate (1 .lS/r S.1 for the limit desired.4 Oor the nonp&ramotric case.0.70 14o AI 137. t (58) has approximately a norwAl distribution with mean 0 and variance 1 where .n. is the dIfference between two percentage points MedianPoint and Interval Estimntes The median is that value which divides the distribution in half. eLO. 05 A 1501. n. n1 by to. For the reliability case. T . a can Do used as an estimate for 0. is that value of t for which R(t) . S iis !U T  ~le: Assume that 30 failure times are observed and that FW. Por larlp n. to. 437 .S + td/2.a)% twosided confidence interval for • is obtained from the equation S't(*tm/2.0. respectively. hs values are tabulated In Table C2. median failure time. for dispersion. this pro cedure requires that testing continue until at least nalf of the Itemis fail."0 Thus the The estimate of t 0 . 9.AMCP 70191 "Forlarp n (wW gweater than 30). Then the lower 95% confidence limit for the rean failure time. A onesided lim~it obtained by replacing taA .
l1 jIl) Eple: From the data of the example given in Subsection 4.1.1.82% twosided interval of (0. 0 ~ are obtalnzed from the .5 0 <tn.2. For a onesided upper interval.AMCP 706191 Confidence intervals for t. . 0 W 0. 69 From Equation 60.4. P[ t 3 < e0 50 < t.. [t. (60) where tr and tnr+l are the rth and (nr+l)t observed ordered time In the semple. Note that the confidence levels that can be used are restricted to the values obtainable from the righthand side of 3quation 60. 7] 13 0 7) o8203 Tables of the binomial distribution can be used to evaluate the sum on the right to yield a 90. 4 38 .5.8).3.05% upper limit for t0 50 .r+l " l. the median repair time t 0 5 . 0. 0 (< t8 ]u 5 Z 10 0._ < t0.r .CO\iAV (62) ' n! (n"n.quatlan • ~n. or a 98. ~ 0 . from Equation 62.9805 T1~() +.5. r . Onesided limits are given as follows: n P tr < t0 5 0]  61 "< t ll io where nIO.
the 4atu='al lgwithm of the observed reliability functicn will plot as a straight line against t. in testLig for defects. while for maintainability It Is thel value of t for which K(t) . 439 . For example. the knowledge of the 'jqeriment that produced the data will dictate what the distribution should be. These procedures are called goodnessoffit tests.4.50 and the maximum value of P is [12 min A(t)].2 4.50 Is the number of hours over which the mtiddle 50%of the smple observations were recorded.t 0 .t 0 . i0. the 90parcent range T0. where R(t) .1.P. 150 .t/e. T. with truncated (nonfailed)items.7 5  to. For the data of Example 5. The validity of parametric estimrtes depends greatly on the validity of the assumed distributional form. a straight line will result if the distribution conforms.AMCP 706191 PPercenlt Nsrs: A Measure of Dispersion The 50" or Interquatile rang defined by 050 . For reliablitty t. In mome cases.1P.5. The characteristics of the distributions ccasidered here axe discussed in Section 4. For the reliability case. Thus if "ie observed reliability ceta conform to the exponential failure law. Graphical Procedures The graphical procedures for goodness of fit involve plotting the sample distribution and comparing it visually with the generic forms of known distribution functions. 0 5 . 9 5 . the number of defective items in a s:. In most cases.mple of n items is distributed binomially if e"ch ssam e item is randomly and independently selected from a lot and tested. it is noted that in :'(t) .90 .0 . Is the value of t for witich A(t) . Parametric Estimates Statistical estimation procedures asad on a known or assumed form of the probability distribution function are presented In this section.5.t/e. test for the expoiAential distribution. For example.0. the Ppercent range can be used If only the minimum value of fi(t) is less than 0. however. there is no indication of what the true population distribution is. and if the outcome is either good or defective. 2 5 (63) Is ofteu uWd to aasure aispermior in nonparsmetric estimation procedures. To aid in such types of analysis.o0.tO.2.1 Determining the Form of the Distribution Values of P other than " can be used.323. special graph papers have been constr•cted so that when the observed distribution is plotted. 4.675. Two fArly simple procedures for analyzing teot data to determine the dietributional fore are presented below.
the assumed iistributl.on is reeoted.bribution falls completely within the decision band.asumed distribution Is correct. Results of Monte Carlo investigations have shown that the following adjustmente to Table C5 can be made to yield approxlm. The procedure involves comparii the observed distribution with a completely apeoifled theoretical distribution and finding the maxUm dalation. the critical d valuen in Table C5 are too large ane w. These curves then make up a decision band. If the obaerved di4. In these cases. The KolmogorovSmArnov test is an analytical procedure for testing goodieas of fit. the chances of accepting the bypothesis if It Is false Is also increased. itkAt It.LJo .. Norma! distribution . distribution. If any point of the observed function falls outsaie the decision band.67 *See following discuAssion for the case in which parameters are estimated frcn 6ne data..th a critical value that is dependent on a preseleoted level of significance. for the selected significance level and observed number of failures. s that a% of the time the test will reject the hypothesis that the distribution conf(rms ti the one under test when in fact it conrdence level. the parameters can be estimated from the teqt data to obtain the theoretical cumulative function. However. Often this is stated as the 100 ( (4) Draw curves at a distanco of d above and below the specified theoretical distribution. values of each of the k parameters must be specfied. one is interested only in the form of the distribution and has no basis for parameter specification.* (2•) Obtain the observed reliability or maintainability function and plot on a graph. The steps are as follows: ()Completely specify the theoretical.AMCP 706191 Special types of graph paper for the noes lo&nozmi&.Ue data Multiply d values in Table C5 by %.f the observed d value Is greats. (5) (6) On the same graph. the .tely valued critical values for the normal and exponential distributions.. eu)% does. plot the observed distribution. If the distributior to be tested has k parameters in the Uerdty funct4on.s. there Is high assurance that the hypothesize4 population form Is incorrect. ad .estimate ýi & a from .ill lead to conservative results (lower significance level) zince . In many cases. the conclusion is thac.bution& can be used for goodnessoffit Xo6mogorovSm rnov Test est. although the easiest means for performing such a toot is raphioal. However. 44. Appendix C.±Flbull distr. (3) Find the critical value d from Table C5. A significance level of a me.than the critical d value. This deviation is then compared w•.
96.5. where 8 is the mean failure time. the following sdtimats can be used: Total Observed Life* "Number or Failures Total Time for Failed Items + Total Time for NonFailed Items Number of Failures or oa 962 + 650 " "15 .857 C.810 o. 80. 105.523 0.2.Aseo= that the followiLg failure times are observedlmen a total of 20 Items are tested: 18.AMCP 706. 108.285 441 . 83. 28. 48.428 0. 81. 39.762 0. 130 (5 item survived past 130 hours) (1) Obtain Theowrtical Distribution Suppose a test Is being made for an exponantial distribution. 60.3. 25.619 80 81 83 96 105 108 9 10 12 11 11 12 13 14 10 9 8 7 o0571 0. Calculate ObsorvedReliability Fnection Equation 49 provides the following calculation for the observed reliabillty function (plotted In Figure 43): nk+l __ k 1 nk+l 20 R(tk) 0.107. 15 6 D.5 hours Thon the estimated thenretioul reliability function Is R(t) wet°5 This function is also plotted in Figiur (2) 43.474 •. 40.952 8 10 18 19 4C 4•8 60 66 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 0.714 0. Since the reliability function for the exponential is R(t) .667 0.estimatv * from tho data Multiply d values in Table C5 by 080 ob alt.333 130 *See Subsection 4.191 Q xpoonential DIatribution . 66.380 0.et/8.905 o.
UAu t Justed ý r . These curves are also showr.0Unadjusted Upper Deeteilon Curve 0.Dc Deoiunon Curve 0 20 •40 80 60 2imet (Hours) FiSKE 44 100 120 1I40 KhLflhIMSfW EUfllTEST Fil ERPSKIITIIL iXTRNTIU (3) Obtain Critical d Value Prom Table C5.AMCP 706191 1.e adjusted curves are obtained by 0ddi3 0.8 0. Appendic C.24 3 to thi theoletoial curve. tAe unadjusted oriti~al d value for a sample size of 20 is 0. 442 .2143. in Pdurd lg.. level.2 F.3014 when testing Is being done at the 10% signficanc.tical value beco~mes 0.. and tk.304 to the theoretical curve. • use of the coorection ractor 0.80 (since e is estitiated from the data) th3 adjusted crl. (4) Plot Decision Curve "Uae ustdLuotse decision curves a conatructed by addin (d subtraCticg 0.
Is the number of ooourrene of an attribute in n indepen:ent trials *.en the attribute is Olassiftied by either of two mutually exclusive categories.Is t. the hyrpothesis or emqonontlallty onuot be rezsoted. 4.. (65) (65A) r (66) r a2 (r) rhe re r Ir ýhe number of observed occurrences In n trials . It Is likely that other distributions. nonfailure or satisfactory repair. suoh as the nozmal or VoibulI. the attribute of interest It normally a siooensful outcome. the deolsion ourves a" quite wide.2 Discrete Distributions The two mot ommon discrete distributions involved in reliability and maintainability testing are the binomisal nd Poisson distribution•.s= t Une e th oberd relt1blity function falls within the decisiLon curves. the mean anW variance are: Mean: where ý. also not be rejeoted. x. For the binomial distribution. that is. For reliability and maintainability. For this exmpole. The probability density function is expresseO as follows: P(x. n) . The rsndom variable. wil. n)  (64) probability of x occurrenoes in n trials when the constant occurrence probability on one trial is p. p. Par s=31 salple sizes.'! expected number of occurrences In n trials Variance: Y np(1 p) np Besmates of these values a&e as follows: r S.2.)nx where P(x: p.AMCP 70611  ~(5) •.5.(n)px(.
Jensity fmotion is axpr*ssed as fallowss mt P(x. limits? . 47. 0.r/n .83.46/50 . M. the number of failures in a fixed period of time is Foissondistributed if failures ara replaced as they occur. m.e X! (67) P(x.g. and 46 are used to obtain confider"s n a 30. obuer ob bility 4 limits an ..the mean number of occurrences per unit septent For the Pois3a. m. Apendlz C.41 observed occurrences in It unit segments To find (i . Appendix C. If an item exhibits a constant failure rate. mt The estimate ot the mean is ILLfollows: r where r Is the number . can be used.n distribution. x. t) where . t unit '68) 4•4 .97) Polsson Distributlon The random variable.a)% confldence limits on m. per unit time). 46 sucoesses were What is the point estimate of success probeand the associated 90%oonfldeno. Por i n a test of 50 Items. the 90%comfidenoe interval Is (0. given r occurrence. is the number of occurrences of an attribute per unit segment (e.AMCP 70WI91 3quations 46. sewments.0. Figure C1. the mean and variance ares Wqant mt Variance.probability of x occurrences In t segments if Poisson paraweto• is m m . The probability . and m. t) . must be solved for the followirg equationa: In.92 Prom Figure C1.
A total1 of 15 failuree occune~d. pr1iod Nwn for of hours./2 andi at2 in 3qua•tiea 69 and 70. solve for Xin th ]) W equato M 0 Then k.e. they are replaced hy new iteaa.. can be expected. ob&erw% in ten d e00hour Sane a 5 failures halo been . Tables of the Poisson ftunction are avariable for such oalculattcus. tty fail.5 fprlures per 10 cronidenqceton 69 hourL. te•. Obtain the estimato of a.* •zA~sume that ten costantfailur•ra•o items r anupper(I each for t. 1. interval rOr a 1i rimits •5l€•nfidence . &. use 1 . and obtain the 95 confidence lThte.$.. er forto . th. the mean ivimber of failures per 100hor Interval.r saal rdnanoe L6bora.AMCP 7W121 t For a lower (1 limt. repeotively. The estimath e of a is wUi.k low twoaided •Limits. OrdPr U.np"ih Hence.c.
bull. t. Is estimsted by P!net U1. t 4preZsets hours or oyclee. comonly called the failure or hasard rate Sin" A le equal te the realoroeia of the wen nu.orlon.al. Si .ber of hours before a fallure.st failures. In reiiability.19rn Descriptions of sind estimtion procedures for contnuous distributioma are presented In thIs section. 9.d1stributlon. s) Wwire * * et/ (7) S. svont. and hazard rate are. t can Lae aintonAe downting.A are the expoanntial. A) (7) whtre t a aud A Is the mean mober of failures por unit tine (per hur).5. vonant e I or Pro24Tre (75) tL. sad the ermt Is Item tailuzo. and the event Is "he oompVlttjo of a maintenance .3 ContJ~n•aos Dis•Irbut. The p:di i•a•stribuslon furnction Is expessed sa follomas r(t. Specilic distributions cmaide.AMCP M0611: 4.. In rlptalrabllltY. variAoe. normu. It Is amuel here that t "presents hours and the 4venta repre.m.2. Is the nsuber of nilt epep t& o4curIfLt betore an The rarda varisab. NtC) 1%&n failur a m. the following can be wrlteteis rft. log norma. the e.mean failure tim For ths exponent.. and Ve. 1/) .
ý Repkaee4: 7  ~ t.~gMm. then follcming vro'e.191 Z..t~'e i~avt) Failures Rpý2*ed: T  ?&jl..dervd EaJllur.I&cemnt Test (failures repaIrd or replaced) v ). .is Toot until r fa~ilu"' Iim L oceurt SSrP (76) To obtain T.dures tre used: Z~. Is the time of 1th..rqs vv.AUCP 706. i~th'AAIa Is Consoro4 ltome or ol nf.a1#1 P&.at t r time at which the rthfilure occurred ~Ib Nmu~lxepcment Teat r T ) t~ + (nr~tr(8 who ve t. re n Lbor of itemsa on '.
1/V .l/2 (73) (74) (75) h(t) . and the event id the completion of a m'i•ntenance action. log normal. It is assumed here that t represents hours and the events . In reliability.:present failures. and hazard rate are: e 117 V a. is estimated by Procedure I or Procedure IL. In maintainability.rocal oZ the mean number of hours before a failure. t can be m. t represents hours or cycles.AMCP 706191 4.2. where . and Welbull. and the event Is item failure.3 Continuous Distributiorn Descriptions of and estimation procedurea for continuous distributions are presented in this 3ection. 9 . W). et/e (72) e . 446 .5. the mean.Net where t a 0 and A is the mean number of failures per unit time (per hour). commonly called the failure or hazard rate (7) Since A is equal to the reci.aintenance downtime. is the number of unit tegments occurring before an event. Specific distributions considered are the exponential. The probability distribution function is expressed as follows: frt. the following can be written: e) r(t. a constant Mean failure time. normal. t.mean failure time For the exponential distribation. Exponential Distribution The random variable. variance. 6.X.
number of censored Items Failures Not Aeplaced: T  ti + tj + (nrc)tr r i (80) i1 Jal 447 .d censorship C ..number of items on test tr = time at which the rth failure occurred (77) Procedure Ib: Nonreplace:.dered failure Procedure T.ntr where n .t + (nr)tr (78) where is the time of itho.: Censored Items (withdrawal or iCLss of nonfailed items) Failures Replaced: T  Z c tj + (nc)tr (79) J1 where t  time of jthorder. rhe following procedures are used: T r (76) rocegdgre la: Replacement Test (failures repaired or replaced) T .44 AMCP 706191 Procedure I: Test until r failures occur: Total Life Observed Number o? Observed Failures To obtain T.ent Test r T = il .
with the 10th failure occurring after 80 hours.2 hours (3) Yrom Equations 76 and 30.AMCP 706191 Procedure II: Testing Terminated by Stopping Rule on Test Time: If the test plan is suc. the time at which testing is stopped. Then Equation 76 cannot be used. Calculate the estimated maan life of the items as based on (1) a replacement test. 1 at (1) From Equations 76 and 77. In general. rti r  + (nr)tr r 442 + 101100). Testing continues until 10 failures are observed. 46. r. is small (say r S 5). Example 1: Twinty items are placed on test. 31. a better estimate of e can be obtained by the equation .. 76 and 78. with failures occurring at 10. te. 17.. since it implies that the estimated e is infinite.144. 52.. 25. if the number of failures. 65r 79. it is possible that no failures have been observed. (3) the same nonreplacement test with 4 items censored: 2 at 30 hours. for Procedure !I testing. nT r  2  160 hours •r (2) Prcqn Equation. 50 hours. 11. have accumulated. and 100 hours.6(100) 1 ±21.2 hours 448I .that thob test terminates after a E'ecified number of test hours. where T is = (8+) calculated as in Procedure I except that tr is now replaced by t*. and 1 at 60 hours. (2) a nonreplazemenrt test. r c ti + z t r + (nrc)tr 442 + 170o+ .
d. x (p. d) where p and d are two conetants used to choose tt3 corect value from the table. .Zidence intervals: one in which the test is run until a preassigned number of failures (r*) occur. r* 2T 2(2 Time t* 2T OneSided S(X (Lower Limit) (a )X2(a2 . the limits are only approximate.2r)X ~ )TR(83) ~x~ (43. The general notation used is A shoet table of X' values Js given in Appendix C. known as the degrees of freedom. Determire (1) the mean life of the items. Two situations have to be considered for estimating co. and one in which the test Is stopped after a preassigned number of test hours (t*) are accumulated. respectively. only onesided intervals are possible when r . m.a) percent confidence intervals. (2) a nonreplacement test. The tenth failure occurs at 80 hours. Use 2n degrees of freedom for the lower limit if all n items on test fail. The quantity p is a function of th. These confidence limits on mean life are as follows: Confidence Fixed Number of Fixed Truncationý Interval Failures. Equations 82 and 83 are fir oreaided and twosided IGO (1 .4 AMCP 706191 :xamp2: items are plased on test and the test is Twenty terminifter 100 hours. e (2)  n " 250 hours Calculations are the same as for Example 1(2).. 449 I= . t For nonreplacement tests. with 8 items failing before 100 hours. TestlnTcotinues until ten failures are observed. and (2) the onesided and twosided 95% confidence intervals.+ 2) (82) TwoSided Limits 2T 2T2 2T K~e(~.0. For nonreplacement tests with a fixed truncation time. (I) From Equations 76 and 77. ) + . Calculate the estimated mean life of the items based on (1) a replacement teat.2r)+2)" x 2(1 r. The formula for the confidence interval employs the X2 (chi square) distribution. is a function of the rumber of failures.confidence coefficient. Example i: Twenty items undergo a replacement test. with failures occurring as in Example 1(2). ConfidenceInterval Estimates on 9.
65) EX&MDIe 2: Twenty items undergo a nonreplacement test. 459.0. which• interminated at observed are 10. 20)  (101. 160 hours (so that T 16oo hours) \.   .591) . and (2) the twoKided approximate From Equation 82. 2? (c T_020 ) 3R (114.7(oo5. .191 (i) lFr'm Equations 76 And 77.2oM.r) X2(1I 2T . (2 (X7. 3200 _200 2r)F(34. ( 2T ti + (207) (100)) _ _ _ X (.(128.6.7 9.65. (2) From ENuation 83.8o2 (2) From Equation 82. rt = (.AMCP 706.6). 46.21 + 2) ( '1 . ) (3) From Equation 83. confidence interval (1) 90%ccnfidence limits: (a .lO).83. 25.(93. 16) .17. Failure Ames 31. 333.29. and 65 Calculate (1) the onesided approximate 90% hours.88. "450 . . 100 hours. 1.
Appendix. extraeted from the RAWD Reliability Notebook. is tabulated in Table C1.20)2 If 0' 100 hours. Reliability Estimates. that is P(It1jA number of failures.ved total life T gives a confidence limit about &.a)% confident that 6 is within 6% of the true mean. the approximate total test time required can be estimated by the equation T* n r*9e.645 and for 90percent confidence. "t1. it is possible to calculate the required number of failures to ensure .100 hours? From Equation 84 1. where Zi the standardized normal deviate corresponding to the a% point of the Is normal distribution. Appendix C. 1(t).67 (0.r*81 . Since the length of the cornldence interval depends on the number of failures.700 hours Table 08. To estimate the probability of survival for a time t.6452 . presents values of r* for selected confidence and precision levels. Z. at six confidence lIrvels of each. Multiplying the appropriate factor Dy the obse. then T* .esided xnd twosided c.C. Z Z .mfiden^e limits. estimate of 9 is within a specified percentage of the true mean time to failure.H_ w mawy £aili.* (84) 6. where o' is an initial estimate of 0. SampleSize Conzideration.es are required to give 9upercent confirencethat the estimate d is within 20percent of the true value? What will be the total test time if 9 .with a specified confidence . the required r. if a normal approximation to the X2 distribution is used in order to be (1 . is s 6 1 .that tf. the estimates of 9 (Equetion 276) can bn used In the eration F(t) . Once r* is determined.67(100)  6. SIi. presents the factor P/X2(p. Apperaix C. d) for or.AMCP 7061d9 Table C7. 6. r*. etA (85) 451 .
el0 /I 60 . R(t)]  1  (88) o For a mean life of 160 hours.7. Example: calculate the reliability estimate for a 1Ohour period (note that 9 .829 R(30) Confidence Limits on R(t). An unbiased estimate is R•(t) .535 rom Equation 87.0.Ia/2] .0.. R(30) Prom Equation 86. (1) what g is thiepiBibility of an item surviving 100 hours? (2) What are the twosided 95% confidence limits on this probability? (1) Prom Equation 85.a (87) For a onesided lower limit) P le'tA Lca. especially if r > 1.544.843 The confidence limits on 9 can be used to obtair confidence llr.3367).1. R(!oo) (2)  00 el / . 30/160)9 o.. (1t•r)r'I. 0. t < T (86) where r .its on R(t) by the equation .a/2& R(t)s . let/v.0.160 hour's) From Equation 85.s the number of obaerved failures in T total test hours If 10 fall res are observed in 1600 hours. U. 452 I . R(t) > 1/ .et/. thk twosided 95% oonridence lialts ar• 1e 00 100 TYM "e e.1).JAMCP 706191 This estimate is biased (peasiiauetically If r Is smarll.333.65 (0.  e30/160 .
is a reliability of Rthe estimate T. the eaajlqe estimates tend to h* norvialy distributed with Incraseing 453 .AMCP 706191 P. 2 r) ')T t* (2~LA I) An . The 100 (1 . from Equations 9 and 91.orma distribution Is one of the most widely used contintous densities because (1' It approxi•atoe the distribution of mny rndom variables and (1) anele else. Is for which there  a In(89) since the** limits The confidence limits on TR define a tolerance intervaL.2r + 2) 2T in 7 2r)X rr..a) percent corfidence limits on TR ar given below: Confidence Fixed Number Fixed Trw'cation lagra OneSided (Lover Limit) TwoSided itsX(O ofFailresiIftTime X (a. are 2(i~oo (22.22314) a 35.60 hours. To esatiate the time period.and twosided confidence limits on TR? Since 8 •. The .mLaits en TR. anm 0 I. Equation 89 yields To. 160 (0.T Normal Dtistribution 9.a) percent confidence thar R percent or more of the items in tw population will Purvive TR or more tima unite.80? What are the 95percent one. .70 hours • The 95percent onesided and twosided confidence l. 2r + 2) X (14. permit the statement that there in 100 (1 .X2( a.591 . t.2 2 r.8 0 in T . wnat is the estimated time period for which the reliability is 0.73.2r) (a1) Exeample: For & mean life of 160 hours.rcentlle estImates.
its felluie thrtteroristle Is consieten. and hzaxrd 'ate are expr•ased as follows: Mean Varlarce Haz&  oi  Riate (increases with t) h(t) (93) rtT] where g(t) .LO. ei i . with a wearvut process. Case  All tested iteus fail: n n(nl) tI Is •meo4 tai•ure or the I itSm &. r(t) L1 ee ' The mean is estimated as showr In Cases I a&W II. x 92 '.AMCP 70?Igl If an Item Las a normal diatrlbution of failure times. The novual probability distrib'ution f'unction Is expressed ac foll1vws tow* r. variance. .5' . St e1 r )2 2 2 t_.dk) .." 1•/ 'e ( .t mean.
It*%& fall). " Z r r 421.) corresponds to I4t) ?hue. .9T1.0.84 (1) Obtain f(t Ith fallure ti"e.) Plot R(t) on normal probbillity pWer mul fit a straight line wieldLng the osttue.50 where tO.e) . ti.. oorreupwaiti to RI~t)# using Table C1. for (t) . Z. 1 ) by an appr•iate omrarmstric eqation t•rs ti is the (2) Por each failure tim. using the most appropriate of the *quatlori (. Then 5 to v4.0.0.1. for R(t1 ) o0. .ar* ame two setods for setiaatig the san the rivphical attod wA~ th* rdr. i . 1(t.50. f~id the roisal deviate Z.AMCP 706191 c .of r. o0.lu of t Co whxich Pv(t) . Then g bb re Where r n* br r 1 C'T (99) of falure* r •* t.value of t for which i(t) .iknarted Iat (.9.•armstrIc r1llab~llty tunotlon. (49 to 53).alotn method: (1) Calculite the ro.d nomal reliability function N(t).
Appendix C. This Interval is only approximnte for truncated tests.. Values of t are given In Table C2. t1 Number of Completed Observations. 456 . Th' twosided 100 (1 .8 ./2. Table CI.50 .a) percent confidence interval on p is t .:eedom. Appendix C.11 Zki 4 4 3 39 Grlghical Method The graphical method is shown in Figure 44: S0o. Assume that failure data am gererated an thown Is: I.50 0 Rearession Method 4000 .n Tafs~te TAKLE 41 IISUINATIOIS OF TIME TI FAILURE A1 CiESSRtI TIME FOLLSWNI$ AFAILUE IN SAMPLE IF $I ITEMS A Hours to Failure. Z.to. + t/2r1 (100) itian with r1 degrees where t.AMCP 706 .3 . r1 is +hp a/2 percentage point of tne t distri of f. of the standardized normal deviate. can be used.1260 The calc 'ations for P and 3 using Equations 98 and 99 are shown in Table 42.91 Ex 4.40002740 . rj Number of Censored Observa~tions at t tOa w 1300 1692 2243 2278 2832 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 14 3 3 3 4 4 2862 2931 3212 1 1 1 3256 3410 3651 Total 1 1 1 ZrI . For t > 30.
45 C 1n . C. cq 8 tm0 n% o 8 8 00008 8 or 0 CU4A o 00000.AMCP 706191 0 %0 t.
91 0.653 0. tQ0.arctnt Interval iL . 3972 + 2.27.&) 0.06 Zt .06 0.0.23 • (3161.34 1.667 1 1X.958 0.77 0. and a . rnom the data ror the preceding example. 10" 2.29.o Fle_ _.726 0. I n1. 4783) 1458 .0 Thanfr•• lquAutin 100 (3972  ._Function.61 •zE b4co . Ixample.910 0.23 the 55.39 0. 2:.607 I2 d .73 1.883 0.778 0..19 1.05 0. t_ 1300 Observed Reolab. oalculate 25 Por r .819 0.935 0. UNM .980 .Zti I .xti .062.AMCP 706191 TAKi 42 C•UMaITi vuNul in EITIII MTIIUW T KVIAlTINM Of AIIntII mIX UI ll STM I iDA W.853 0. ONII Hoare .29.522 Z? 1.1 c .23 2.8 'u I.05.51 1.11.ity _(t_._ 15 77 r1  3972 be the 95pezrent confidetne Ilntcrvl fur 9.43 2278 Z832 2862 2931 3212 3256 3410 3651 0. Normal Devlate Co__epondIn to R(t) 2.
6 1 o 0.5 lIARASITUIC UI TIEKTICAL NINAL ISIABILITV FllCTmS 459 .  Observed Function (NonParametric) Theoretical Ncrmal Function Based on • and a Estimated from a Censored Sample Hours 0 02 0.(2000) 20005972 F(1.0 • _ .rZ Jz Wier* t z i27 2/ l27 Values for cumulative normal distribution F(Z) are given in Table 01. given Exaple: The reliability. 3000 t. in Hours 4000 5000 flIaf 4.2 a .191 and a.63) 0.072. to obtain r. For example.4 03972 . R'o2000) 1P(1. function ^or the failure data WiTibNle 41 s presented in Figure 45.11 Failures 1000 2000 Time to Failure. the reliability function is obtained from the equation Given &L R(t) _ I e/2 e dy .8" Bar Denotes 95% Confidence Interval Around Mesn > 0.928 0 0.63) 0.1208 Hours r . Appendix C.AMCP 706.
follows: and hazard rate for the Weibuli distribution are as + !. Q_• e(. variance. is quite flexibJ.60. h(t)  tA. where to ~equal r(i. t 'Y Ojo '.> 0 l2 where a  scale parameter 15.1 (108) h(t) decreases with t it h(t) Is constant if h(t) increases witn t if 13 1 I 1 p > 1 4. because of its three parameterv.. analysis If p . The mean. Note. . and the density is then f(t)Ma etp/a ta o.shape parameter y location parameter The location parameter y represents tne minimum failure or repair time.. a. may proceed exactly an for the exponentiel except that all times ti are replaced by the values t~s.1 Distribution Many random variables of failures and repairs can be described by the Weibull distribution. Often it is set equal to zero. The Welbull probability distribution function is expressed as follows ( Sr~~~~(t). the Welbull reduces to the exponential.I AMCP 706191 WeIb4./ 1/0 1ean r(l/p + 1) (104) I + 1) is the gamma functior.1. p> 0 (103) If p is known.e. which.) . which for integer values of (1/p (l/A) 1) 1 is Variance o a a/ [r(2/p ) + 1) r(/ (lJ5) Hazard Rate.
is to be the plot of F(tik) versus (tik) Is best fitted by a straight line.0 on the upper scale.'e or repair data. line for which X . and bottom scale. are for Two sets of scales are used. A relatively simple graphical procedure is usually used to obtain estimates from Welbull probability paper.' 461 . Lloyd amu M.0 0. If F(ti) plots Estimate y. The procedure is described below for the case in which r failures are observed out of a sample of n. X. before a reasonably linear plot of points is obtained. plotting the raw filu. Lipow. and the upper scala. * pre. The right scale. t. or Several values of k may have to be tried the t intercept of the curve. A sample of such paper is shown in Figure 46. The left scale. Y.• (3) .) versus t on Weibull probability paper and fit a smooth curve through the points ~. k.0 on the right scale. The initial value of k can be either the first failure time. a constant value. and yS) but they involve fairly complex interative procedures. It can be obtained directly from che equation where Yo is the intercept with the principal ordinate (Yo < 0) and X0 In the intercept w. Prentice Hall. If F(ti) plots as a straight line. subtracted from t. 0. pp. The estimate of A is the slope of the fitted curve. The estimate of y is then the value of k that.AMCP 706191 Estimates of 1 0. are called tne principal ordinate and principal abscissa scales and are uzed The principal abscissa is that horizontal for obtaining the a and p estimates. such that as a curve. ti. estimating the a. ReWiabilit: Mmaement Methods and Mathematics. 1962. Analytical procedures are available for parameters of the Weibuli distr~bution from test data*. and the principal ordinate is that vertical line for which Y . D. 177161. and a.produces a linear fit.ah the principal abscissa. (1) Compute tne failure probability function by the equation F(ti) where t is tne time of the ith failure (107) n is the number of items originally on test (2) Plot F(t. F(t). (4) Estimate p.
191 ~ C.: 1 iI 462 ..2 lit I It:.AMCP 706.
2. one ror each lines.628. Is io the Intercept (which is ordinate is equal to in a. if negative).191 (5) The intercept of the fitted line with the principal Estimate a. Y2Y1 be estimated by pickilg any 'Nwo points on X.. or both. e. The estimate for a ia obtained by the equation a lu. The slope is independent of the scale. For this case. and finding *. say X1 and Then (110) 2 1 a Is then estimated by the equation aePXo (ill) (2) H (3) X0 outside the graph Since A does not depend on X and p can be obtained by Equation 110. Hence. 101.AN'CP 706. 101. eo a can also be obtained from the er4oru ln the value of t for which F(t) = 0. (109) where t* is X. and 463 .he corresponding Y's. Y1 and Y2. Y (1) or X. etc. may lie outside the graph: Yo outside the grapn 0 can still in An t.. Xo and Yo outside the plot Multiply the t scale ty an appropriate power of 10. e. 5. (112) where J is the scale factor and V" is the graphical estimate of a when the data are plotted on the basis of the t x 10J scale.. estimted as before.. an" therefore p is l0. Another possibility Is that the Veibnll plot appears as two intersecting estimates are made. this aase presents no difficulties. two sets of a.g.g.
eL(1) F(tj) is calculated as shown in Table 43. Since the :=.AMCP 706191 linear portion..7 52. 27/75 27/75 2217 33. F..7 36.!z . S./75 35/75 6OOO 7000 3 1 39/75 42.L.3 uRUlMON PWIl TIASI$TNS:ATUU1IET1Y• ptlUl1 FAIkW VS. 1000 hours Failures were noted mvery 250 hours for the first and every 1000 hours thereafter.7 46.3 34.7 Pigure 47 shows t"e plot f tw *at&a an Velbull probability paper. Taut 4.0 3000 o40o 5000 5 3 4 32. t axis ip rultiplied by 10 3 t1 recco line fit$ t.0 36. . SELECTIA TH3 MIEWIVALS (hors Falue_ .za Lz large.75 4/T5 42.0 560 ý8. Example: Table 43 presents fallure data (grouped) for Saventyfive transistors were germaif power transistors.* data well. T7he estimated density is then  NO 1 1I for t > t* i w 2 for t > t* et'Y)Yoi(113) and t* is the time at which the two lines intersect. the formula for F(t) can be slightly modified by using n in the denominator of Equation 107 rather than n + 1.ut on test for 7000 hours and 44 failures were observed. Tho A atraiflpt dato the failure time. ailure& Size ofT Ailuaulatpve allur ecn Accumulative eepc 250 500 750 1000 2000 1T 8 1 1 0 LT/75 25/75 26 1. .
ICI_ jAMCPP SPNf A*~ Almmw * 00 7W06910 0.3 The iJntev*et of the fitted 'Ain* with the pr=Incpa Orina~t* ig qipioxlst*lY 0.)*1. is ihe The intoraept of the fitted 11z.85.1. . Th"s frcm Zquatioi 108. ti PIM.I~ 2.A the princIW~ ordinate intercePti.u U~~liSS Sine* the poin~tsarue fitted by a Straw4.2. line.wit. end tro unseal*d astisate Is.85. Y' 0. is epprOmiseppa~ojtejy mattly 0. from lquittion 1. Nance.00 Lo~ ho (O UUassa wau Itw mu . S39 0. 3(0 30) (. &. from squ"Iati 109.. azbucissm. x 0 . To. 8 5.
and y in 3Squtlon 104.33) 9.the data i •*1 l4. the probaZility othat a rpair is completed I. ft t1=. From Nquation 114  16. t (hou&rs) 6300 46 .r 3 U shmn In 4000 Tin.AMCP 706II Zsla~te of the ean . C000 0 . and . IL 1. Rstlate of the Reliability 0. •.5 ..53) (2.000 dour. z : Fra the data of the Weo.( ( 1 _.6 S0.900) (9.4eft example. (11.) The  1 s X a 2 U presented in Table C9. uta frI . reliability "Ta *8.55) r(1.35) (1.900 r (4.7 b0..or t hour Is So.9 = 0. xr(x) amn bt .cu) then (5.216' * 157.8AWt 0.sed for X > P. + + A short tabie of r(x) r iationaw p r(x + 1) 14 r(l/ + 1) Appegj 0. 15.0 (16.e(t (115) or i•aitainability. Then . 7rM Ithi estimates of s . The mean can be estimate4 15y replacing the estimatea for a.A3) rt.216.
tht ei. lower ooofidezbe 2!xt on R(t) for unknown a and 'nbservod. when r failures out of n are r t Is the tias period of interest 1i6t ith tel lure time the a ad b.oil Libel"M 0 *An ]elect iA&Mtotica~ly Str1v1&nt Cantl~wft" Soagn for Rellabilitp In the Cowe of lte VibOW11 Diatritb. Aftwý 0.. obtained by enteoring the table with the calc4latsd M 150frcs * 3qUatlon 107.AMCP 7W6191 Point anW Lfwe: Confidence Limit on R(t)O. T~cWW1*tr1zs.timmted hasardrate fwa Aic* is 50 Itzggl The hazardrekto twuet tor of 2 '  ~''4000 SOW0 for the data Table 43 is shown in 0 ?000 ~ Un6 MZA4*te tU(hours) U eW.und or.tlon. (2Y The estinated reliability is 3 A 50 1 (3) give th Table I of Mumn aleo and Lieberman* the (1a)g% loner c~top~nce b'. 467 .* Tible 11. are constants givon by John~s #Md Llebermais.Y. &r" obtained an followss The point eetimte and ~. R(t).
1)2 (An tu)2 L2 t> 0 (121) The mean.l ee/ e. The simplest procedure for estimating the reliability or maintainability function for r data points out or a sample of n is to employ lognormal probability paper. =.AMCP 706191 Lognormal Distribution A random variable whose logarithm Is normally distributed Is said to have a lognormal distribution. variance.5ois 9or w. Estimates. tie foilowing ertimates are obtained: iAnto.50 (12r) 0.84 is the time for which R(t) 0.tributions. The lognornual probability distribution function Is expressed as follows: f(t. Variance: 0 e' w2 (ewl (124) Hazard Rate: The hazard rate of the lognormal increases until the mode (e'W 2 ) is reached. the time for which F(t) or M(t) = 0. By fitting a straight line through the nonparametric functioa (Equations 49 tnrough 53).50 In8 t 0 5 0 An i e fo 8 r 4 ( t) . and hazard rate of the lognormal distribution are: Mean: eA + w2 /2 (122) (123) "Median: m = el The median is often used ýs a centraltendency measure for the lognormal since it is indepexdent of w.84 or 14(t) =0. median. This distribution frequently describes repairtime dis . 0 (125) m where t 0 . and then It decreases. (127) 'ihere t0.16 468 .
50. along with the nonpararetric maintainability function. AMCP 706191 (128) ar Gmew (e .579 = 1.95 = t.16 126. _Examle: Foitysix maintenanceactior times on an airborne communications receiver are shown in Table 4. /. normal probability paper in Figure 410. D= n = 0 668 m . = (131) The value 1.668 + 0. 5 0 is seen that a straight line fits the data points fairly well./2UJ •Q/2) e where L and U are lower and uppei. This function is potted on log. Then for tte median.56. from the equation Confidence limits on vt t/ 2 6 V . m t 0 5 0 . This represents a confidence interval on the logarithm '. From Equations 125.' linmts on u.217 465 .n6 1 = 0.The . 50 = 0.1 (129) can be obtained Confidence Limits on Median. to.fthe time for which reliability or maintainability is 0. anJ the value of tC. It Cf t 0 . and 127.95. t.0n5 0 o t .6 V + 'C/ r1 =1 a (130) where ta/2. ri is the (a/2)% point of the t statistic with (rl) degrees of freedom (Table '?.50 = 1. Appendix C).a)% confidence interval (e L. respectively. for a (I .4.
965 1.851 0. from Equations 128 and 129.96 308 VU 975 .766 0.383 5.787 1.3 1.5 0.191 Then.668 .5 4.234 0.808 0.979 47o I . S.6 0.1.5 6 2 (el.043 4 2 3 2 0.745 3.894 2.362 0.723 0.0 10.1 4 1 0.532 0.277 4. (1.0 1 1 2 0.0 % MI l 1 1 tl 3.95)2 el.872 o.021 0. o25 0.0 2. 2.2 "0.4 1 1 1 1 0.7 L3.596 0.247 668 + i.957 0.o rl 2 2 M(ti) 0.3 i 1 0.5 1 1 0. VL.128 0.1.3 4.936 Z.170 0. COMPUTATIONS FIRl AINTAINA~iLITY FUNCTION Parametric DataFunction Praetic Oberved Observed Da:ta Parametric Function tl 0.5 7.8 1 0.7 5.915 0.35.404 0.3 0. 2.562 68.681 0.830 0.489 7.5 8.553 9.25 1) (1.06 From Equation 130.2 2 1 0.638 2210 24.AMCP 706.95 e°' 7 8 1 4 4.80) 44 TAKEt by Equation 131.5 1 4 0.028 and the 95percent confidence interval on m is.574 0.0 1.1.0 1 1 ± 1.0 5.7 C.
AMC P 70619 1 EI ti ff ji Ol.I WI Vi sa 47 .
' Shc.tem receives a favorable "best" system. position is compurison under the weighted analysis.'rd to a judgvental If the "beast" 8s. usually designated x. "tspbystep procedure for performing a mathematical operation in a finite number of stepL. ADMINISTRATIVE TIME: The portion of the down time not included under active rerair time and logistic time. and other symbols. Addresses are also a part of an instruction woxd along with commands. The horizontal distance fror ABSCISSA: of a graph. for a register or location in storage. ADDRESS: An identification. be performed in to the various activities a. contrast to obligations and disbursements. ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING: The recording and reporting of expenses This method. or by the average outgoing quality limit.. official of a department making funds available within a prescribed amount to an operating agency fzr the purpose of making allotments. "•evroruced hy persasvion of *he U.19 j . its strengthened. ACCLUMULATOR: The register and associated equipment in the arithmetic unit of the computer in which aritimetical and logical operations are performed. Army n~ge. failt location time. nmde to favor An analysis delibeitely A FORTIORI ANALYSIS. fault corructIon time. S. tags.APPEN1X A AMCP 706. The 1040 form is an algorithm for computing personal income tax. label or number. The distribution of available rciources (1) ALLOCATION: which mu3. and final check out time for the systum. ALGORITHM: An orderly. Allocation is necessary when there are limitations on either the amount of resources available or on the way in which they can be expended such that each separate activity cannot bi performed in the most effective way (2) A authorization by L desiynated conceivable.ch a way that total eflectiveness will be optimized. provides a realistic measurement of resources consumed in doing the work. in as the operating transactions occur. represented by a name. the vertical axis Inspection of :amplfss of Incoming lots ACCEPTANCE SAMPLINGs It is to determine acceptance or rejection of the lot. an alternative system when comp. This time includes preparation time. . characterized by the stmple size n and thN acceptance number c. ACTIVE REPAIR TIMEL The portion of the down time during which one or more technicians are working on: the system to effect a repair.
to protect perform the same specific function. each of which cen be attributed to a specific source or cause of variation.g.rued. involving differential equations. They need not be obvious substitutes for one another or Thus.191 A6LOTMENT: An authorization granted by an operating agency to another office to incur obligations within a specified amount pursuant to an appropriation or other statutory provision and subject to specific procedue. expenditures to be acc. The amountu so apportioned limit the obligations to be incurred or. and retaliatory striking rower are all altirnatives. or in a mathematical function. activities. than digital computers. "shooting" defenses. shelters. projectm. 1 . but they are more readily adaptable to changes in the data and structure of They are especially well suited to problems problem. when so specified. The basic idea of WNWVA is ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA): to express a measure of the total variability of a set of data as a sum of terms. ALTERNATIVES: The means by which objectives can be attained. civilians against air attack. or combinations thereof. APPRAISAL: Impartial analysis of information conducted at each responsible management and control level to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the total process and determine preventive/corrective action.AMCP 706. and reporting requirements. •. functions. generally voltages Analog computers are less accurate ana resistances. ADPORTIONMENT: A distribution made by the Bureau of tha Budget of amounts available for obligation or expenditure in an appropiation or fund account into amounts available for specified time periods. .. bookkeeping. objects.a table. e. A2 I I • . in an operation on one or more variables. the number or any of the ntutbers which identifies the location of the desired value. the variable which when a certain valuc ii iLatituted for At the An operand (2) value of thv functio'n is determined. ARGUMENWT: (1) An independent variable. ANALOG COMPUTER: An electronic device that perfoms mathematical operations on numbers whih are expressed as directly measurable quantities. in looking up a quantity it.
and results from stitistically A3 . and produces as output the same number of instruction. the study of techniques for more effective use of digital computers by improving programming techniques. outcome on each trial with knowr rence. In a more restricted sense. MUMBLER: * input data to produce from such data machine instructions translation M&* by carrying out sti.h functions as: aymbolic operation codetn into computer operating instruc A scomuter program which operates in symbolic tionsions in stcrage or successive instructionsa or computation of absolute addresses from symbolic addresses. and logiutic time. whsre the total includes operating time. AMAILABILITY: The probability that the systAm is operating satisfactrily at any point in tiwe when used under time considered stated conditions. which were defined in the input symbolic codes. or constant. AVMAGE OUTGOIUG QUALIMf LIKMIT: The average maximum fraction dofective leaving a• acceptance sampling olan. administrative time. _ctive repair time. sub&equently revised (posterior distribution) to incorporate new data by means )f Bayes equation: P(A 1 1 P(8 P IAQ P(A. he now is begiruning to use artificial intelligence to incr'ease his mental powers. BAYESIAN STATISTICS: Estimates of (prior) probability distributions.somic transactions of a country during a given period which involve a tanser ofcurrency between the country's residents arn the residents of the rest of the world.AMCP 706191 ARTIFIC'LAL INTELLIGENCEs: The study of computer and related "techniques to supplement the intellectual capabilities of mann As man has inventeA and used tools to increase his physical powers. BALANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS: A systematic record of the eco.) P(BIA 1 ) P UM) + P(SiA2 P(A 2) bilKNOULLI MOCESSi A random process that yields an eitheror probability or occurincependent trials. An assembler generally translates input symbolic codes into machine instructions item for item.
AMCP 706. BOOLEAN ALGEBRA: A procest of reasoning. or onoff ci'cuit elements. e. It employs symbols to represent operators such as AND. The evtimate is not timephased and does not provide for varlations such as in the manning of tha unit or :oSt_ruantity relationships. tivei become equally ecoromical by altering the valuq of one of the varkables in a situation.EXCEPT. the terms *transfer of contrc4i BREAXEVEN POINTrr In engineeringeconomic stuaies. planning Purposs. property. BUILDING BLOC" COST: Ode kinj of a rou4h.. .14 the binary BIONICS: of.ation is judged solely by observation of its inputs and outputs.. instru*!. number system using 2 as its base and using only the digits zero M0) and one (1). BRANCH: The selection of one of two or more possible paths The in the flow of control based on some criterion..THEN.. or a deductive system of theorems using a syaibolic logic.ons which mechanize this concept are sometimes called branch instructions. BINOMIAL DISTRIB'JTION: The distribution of irny twovalued processes suech as heads and tails. The application of knowledge qaind from the analysis BIT: BLACK BOX: An unknown and often unknowable mechanism or system whose opei. BUDGET: A proposed plan by a. ORNOT. or acceptable anJ unacceptatle units.g. estimate of the cost . the point at which two alte. or condition in which BINARY: there are but two possible alternatives. etc.f an Alternaive o.. 14 :ing system3 to the creation of hardware that will perform functions in a manner analogous to the more sophieticated functions ot the living system. and "jump* are more widely used. however. organization for a given period of time reflecting anticipated resoerces and their extimated ec~penditure in the pursuit of obirctives. A characteristic.191 BIAS: An unbalanced range of error such that the average error is not zero. # x 1x P (1P) Prob(x heads in n tosses). IF. and dealing with classes.r. propositions. to purmit mathemAtical calculation. A unit of information capacity of a storage device.
g. The program which results from ompilinq is e translated and expanded version of tLe original. arplying prescribed pr3cess~s to the infao.. r. Furtherwore. CRI MQUM TXiTI specifically being analyzed remain constant A statistical test for relatedness of two discrete variables. this. and produces as output the sama number of instruction~s or constants which were put into it. e. For example$ mchine quns and rifles are commenurable either in dollar cost or in effectiveness.mtio.AMCP 706191 CXTM ULIIT ThlOII If the samplc mise to large (n230). CLEARs To erase the contents of a storage device by replacing ti's contents with blanks. The state of absolute confidence in which outcomes are sure and predestined. In addltxon to its translating fmuction which is generally the same process as that uised in an a&sembler. usually called subroutines. CONISIUAT'IOIS Number of possible arrangementa of n elem•nts taken c at . eni casualties. or zeroj. taM ARI~t The aesmption that all conditions other !S os or unched. the sampling distribution of the means.time if sequwnce is ignored. machine guns and friendly casualties are not conmensurable in terus of dollars.. this theorem also applies when n4 30 provided that the distr~bution ol Uts population from which ths samples are taken ran be %pproxitated closely with a normal curve..9UJLXYs The capability of two quallties or values to be measured by a meaningful relivant common inde.. a compiler wlfl do more that. (n)= (nc) 'c! COs XUN. However. CONPIJX*t A co•uter program more powerful than an assembler. and suppiying the results of thee processes. can be approximated closely with a normal distribution. say height and weight of officers. Thxs. it is able to replace certain items of inpit viuA saries of instructions. COMPt'KRs A device capable of acreptinq information. . * C•ITAXNTT. where an asseabier trinalates item for it.
in fact. or type of conflict.AMCP 706191 CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY: The probabilitythat A Will occur. the value of a specific factor (variable) lite within a specified interval 951 of the time. correot errors. and timeandcost schedules for engineering development and prodaction of a military end item. ma) be speciýic (e. CONFIDENC3: The degree of trust or assurance placed in a given result.g. CONTRACT DEFINITION PHASE (CD)?): The specificationl. CONSTAI*? DOLLARS: A statiutical series is said to be expressed in *constant dollars* when the eifact of changes in the purchasing power of the dollar has been removed. CONFIDENCE INTERVALS: A measure of effectiveness in testing. A measure of the periodto period fluctuations iL.market basket of goods and services s'lected as representativo of a specific level of living.. CONSTMIdNTs k resource limitation. total availaLla funds).g. and manually revise the contents of storage. in cowpeting contracting studios. the prices of a quantitatively constant . Repetition of an analysis with different CO)NTINGENCY AN. it can be thought of as the cost of maintaining a fixed scale of 13iing. whict... CONFIDXxCZ LZV3L The probability that the true value ofa paranoter lies within a stated interval. given that 8 has occurred: P(AI 2).LYSIM qualitativm assumptions such as theater. 4eqisters. the supply of skilled minpojer or a particular metal. 'unsatistactiry. determine A portion of the computer Which may be used to the status of machine circuits. COtNSUNIR XtSx 1he probability of accepting an item which is. to determinc their effects o~a the results of thie initial analysis. control the machine manually.. costs.aratoriatics. A#6 .g.. Usually the data are expressed in taers of some selected year or set of years. CONSOLE. of dotdiled tuchnical performance c'. CONSL??4Z PRICE MINX. and counters# determine the contents of storage. or gemneral (e.. expressed in quantitative tormst e. Nence.
(1) Ovrative. is not designed to provide the precise measurements required for vudqgetary purposes. The analytical process includes UradeofIs rAonq alternatives. They exclude costs that appear ii the Military Perreen•It Operation and •aintoname. organizations.titvss. COST •I TNCI•Z85 ANALYSIS. CO3UL 1XON CORFFICIcr . orgcniuati4m. etc. Those program costs necessary to jpo~rate and wala taif he capability. These costs include Military Personnel and 0&M appropriation costs.arch and development efforts.. to procure initial. COST ANAYSISS The systematic examination of cost (total resource implications) of interrelated activities and equigment to determine the relative costs of alternative Cost analysis asystems. They exclude IDTTA and Military Construction appropriation costa. CoST. They include Procurement appropriation costs and all 4ilitary o stzuction appropriation costs except those associated with R&D. Goods or services used or consumed.e exam±•ation aims at fjlljq answers to a question and not at justifying a cowlusion. and the measursmsnt of the eftcttveoress and cost of the alte~a. The quantitative examination of alternative prospective systems for the purpose of identA fying a preferred system and its associated equip mant. (2) Investment. or replacement equipent for ope'ational forces or to provide for major modifications of an existing capability. A number that attempts to measure the interdepenrency of variables.AMCP 706. Including funds for obtaininv repleniahment spares from stock funds. Those groqram costs prime •8•trh. Miiitary Personnel. and force structures. and OSM appropriation costs. including the develoreent of a now or improved capability to the point of oplration. i'.. Thoseprograncosts required beyond the do" opment phase to introduce into operational use Snew capability. ar. desi. Pr (1) marily associated with rw.n of additional al'aerrnatlves.191 CORtUMAXOth In a general sense in statistics. correlation denotes the 'sorelation or covariation between two variables. additional. . These costs include equipownt costs funded under the RDTI•3 appropriations and related Military Construction appropriation costs. and Prourent appropriations. They exclude RX"62. CO•T CATRGOJOSs Three major pVoqram cost categrries are: *t.
The Internal R9venue Service defines depreciation as the gradual. Its purpose is to asmist both industrV and government in planning and managing weapwn systems development and production activities. it comparqA the extent to which the objectives are attained with th•. resonrce or activity and a particular cost associated with itl e. COST ISFORMATION REPORTING (CIR): A uniform system for collecting and processing cost and r. COST SENSITIVITY: The degree to which costs (e.and and improve communicati:rn. The cnalysis and determinaticon of cost of interrelated activities and equipment ise. cost *f aircraft maintenance per flying hour. operational concepts. and force mix. deprec~iation is any formula for depreciation permitted by the IRP that provides for a more ranid writeoff cZ reproducible vssets than would be possible by using rates reflecting true economic depreciatl~n.. k COST ESTIMATING RELATION (CER): A numerical expression of the link betweon a physical characteristic. A collection of punchea cards.. COST 1iODEL: An ordered arrangement of data and equations that permits translation of physinal resources into costs.aryinV assumptions regarding future weapon syst.g.g. commonly a complete set of cards which have been punched fcr a defnite service or purpose.st analysix. de'ay or deoAine from natural Accelerated causes. costs or resoucee used. CRITERION: Test of preferredness needed to tell how to choose For each alter one alternative in preference to anothei.%i characteristics. and various forms of obsoleocence. CYBERNE?. exhaustion of proPert7 employed in the trade oL business .ICS: study af handling in order DECAk: The fiela of technology involved ia the comparative the control and intracommunication of information machines and nervous syitems of animals and man to underst. Accelerated depreciation provides economic incentives for investment in plant and equipment.rf a taxpayersuch exhaustion corrising wear rnd tear. total systems costs) change in response to %.AMCP 706191 COST ESTIMATE: Thi estimated coat of a component or 1ggrugation of components. DEZP&CIATIOKi neclin) in the value of capital assets over time as a result of business operation and/or technological innovAtion. A8 I• .lated data on major item of military aquipmsnt. logistic coiicepts. native.
an~d M4 is the angular meas." A9 .nque3tionable historical refarence record. Many deterministic models use an average as a constant value input.R to tht range.%bility that the system will successfulaccomplich ismissionriven. Documentation is necessary not so much to give maximum u. For any set of given values for R and M4 there is one and only one value for N. This falling off of e'ntra returns is a consequence of the fac~t that the new mdoses' of the varying resour. logistic time. DZTER£4INISTIC 14DEL: A model thit permits no uncertainty in from gunnery inW RMwhere 1000 W is the lateral distence at range R.tility as to give an u. ?W group of techniques n.:edefined Objective fActio~n.F AMCP 706191 DESIGN ADEQUACY: Prob. DXSBURSEI4ENTS: The amounit of expenditure checks issued and cash payments made. The method is based on Bellman's Principle of Optimality which states that: "An op'timal policy has the prcperty that whatever theinitial state and initial decision are. organization and communication of recorded specialized knowledge. Dow~n time can in turn be subdivideci into a number of categories such us active repair time. DIGITAL CI)MP WE R: An electronic device that performs mathematical opiarationab on num1herswhich are e~ressed As digits in some sort of numerical systemt. DOWN TIME: Total time during which the system it.es have less and less of the fixed resources to work with. net of refuands received. DYNAMIC PRO"~RAMMING: In a multistage decision proceiz.icessary for t~ie orderly priaentation.O increase. the remaining decisi~ons must constitute an optimal policy with regard toi the etate resulting from the fizat decision.tha the system i operating within design specifications. DimINisHirG RETURNS: An increase in some in~ats relative to ot~her fixed inputs will cause total outp'lt L. in order to maintain a complete record of reaeons for changes in variables. DCXU!MNTX.2re in mils of the arc aubLended by N at range R. and administrative time. no:t in acceptable operating condition. but after a point the extra oxitput resulting from the same additions of extra inputs is likely to become less and less.¶IOk3. a system~atic method for searching out that sequence of decisions (policy) which maximizes or minimizee some p.
that resultfrom increasing the size of the productive unit. EFFECTIVENESS: The dagree or amount of capability to accomplish Various criteria 4e4g.n vbLlues that lie beyond the range of known values in a series. ECONOMY: Us!. etc. One textile plant benefits from the existence of several textile plants in a vicinity. to explain economic phenomena. ECONOMIC GROWTH: The sustained increase in the total and *er capita output of a country as measured by its gross national product (in zonstant prices) orother output statistics. AI0 .(s)... if d is a random sample of size n drawn from a stable universe possessing a . EXTERNAL ECONOMIES: Those benefits accruinq from a grouping of industrial activities or from public facilities. especially designed to dealwith timeseries dpta. EMPIRICAL PROBABILITY: The observed relative frequencyl eog. . tonnage moved. stroyed. the empirical probability that an element drown randomly from that universe is estimated to be d/n.isually expressed as reduction in cost per unit of output.) migt be used to proviie a measure of this amoun¢ of capability. and to estimate values for The statistical'methods used are economic variables. ECONOMIC LOT SIZE: The co6tminimisingsise'oforder to buy or batch to make.iven trait. ECONOMIES OF SCALE: Efficiencies. EFFICIENCY: kttaining the •reatest possible output from a given amount of resources.AMCP 706191 ECONOMETRICS: The branch of economics thatuses mathematics and statistics to build and analyze economic models. ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ANALYSIS: A question 7pecifically designed to obtain data that will provide an anewer in a particular problem area.D targets desome objecti.ng the least amount of resources to attain a given output or fixed objective. or information required tr conduct an evaluation in a particular functional area. EXTRAPOLATE: Estimate by trend projection the unkno•. EXPECTED VALUE: The probability of an eventoccuring multiplied by the payoff associated with its occurrence.
etc. proless.. or material.88300000 x 102. A11 L . training.) in dollar terms of a given force structurv or change to it. FLOW CHARTP A graphic representation of the major step* of work in a process.AMCP 706191 1AW•UR3 RATEs The number of items replaced per unit time due to failure of that item. and in which the computer does not consider the location of the decimal point. organization. machines. or actions taken during th. FLOATING POINT ARITHMETIC: A method of ca4culation which automatically accounts for the location of the decimal point.raised to an integral exponentl e. This in accomplished by handling the number as a signed mantissa times the radi7. support. (2) also a study to determine the time at which it would be practicable or desirable to install such a system when determined to be advantagoousy (3) a study to determine whether a plan is capable of being accomplisbed successfully. FORCE STFUCTURE COSTING: The deteraination of the reaource implications (manpowcr. materieol.3 might be written as +0.g. FORCE STRUCTU2 AN•ALYSIS: The analysis of proposed forces to obtain * picture of resource implications for planning. FIZW EXPERIXe s A mode of research involving the response of personnel in a field a'tuation or environment to a test situation. The illustrative symbols may reprement documents. A field sxperimnt 'i conducted uider statistically controlled conditions to discover the capabilities and limitations of some military plan. (2) A type of arithmetic in which the operands and results of all aritbuatit operations must be properly scaled so as to have a mapitude between certain fixed values. FIXED COrsT Those elements of cost that do not varyj with volume of production. The area of concentration is on where or who does what rather than on how it is to be done. FZPZD POINT ARITHMgTICt (1) A method of calculation in which operations take place in an invariant manner. the decimal numker +89. rWISILITY STUDY: (1) A setdy of the applicability or desirability of any juanagemnt or procedural system from the standpoint of advantages versus disadvantaCes in any given oase.
azss nitional product is the boadest available measure of the rate of economic activity. May Include estimiating probabilities associated with each course of events... private new construction of both resilential und nonresidential buildings (including those acquire4 by cowner/occupants).tior. GAMING: A mathod of 4Ixaminin7 po1. FULL. Later improvements have added the ability to use i4oolean oxpressioni. GANTT CHART: A criart of activity plotted against time usually used to schedule or reserve resources for specific activies GRO3S NATIONAL PRODUCT (GKPi) Total value at market prices cf all goods and saivices produced by the nation's economy during a period of one calendar year. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION: An arrangement of statistical data that divides a series of items into classes and indicates the number of items falling into each class.hin each income class is stated. and tho net change of businesp investmex. all sharing a commn stoate" region if desired.Aentiation an6 up to three subscripts. Trie FOWMQR VompiJ*V is a routine for a given machine which accepts a program written in FORTRAN source lanquage and produces a machine language reoutine obluct program.AMCP 706191 FOWKASTTNG: Attempting to define possible courses ef future events. GROSS PRIVATZ DOMESTIC INVIOTHRAT: OAe of the major components of MIP. A12 .. allowing factoes (human and chance) to vary in the scenario. * flEE TIM: Tim during which operational use of the system is not required. ZMPWOYNNT: According to the President's Council of Economic Advisers. gross private domestic investment includes annual outlays for producers' durable goods (machinery and equipment#. FORTRA~a A proqramininglanonige designed for problem which can be . is the income distribution in which the number of persoIv' fallirg wit.'cies and strategies under the conditions of a particular scenario. and some capabilities for inserting symbolic machine language sequences wi thin a source program.zprespodi algebraic notation. depending con whether the system is in operable condi. the full employment level is reached when no mnore than four percent of the civilian labor force is unemployed. This may or may not be down time. As calculated quarterly by the Department of ýommrcrt~. allowing ior exo. FORTRAN 11 added considerably to the powaz of 'the orijinal language by giving it the ability to define. An exauph.t in inventories. and use almost unlimited hierarchies of subroutines.
requirements of those activities that supply thte project and those which purchase or use its output. and to the s9.. or intermediate. adding now machinery. or social systems and their relation to organizations. hence a steady state. I)GLIZD AND INDUCED OUTPUTt Implied output is that which can be estimated directly from the nature of the project including all activities without which the projoct could not fianctfon. cultural. HUMM FACTORS PNALYSIS: Individual.tribution channels. EUMAN FACTORS BNGINBBRZNG: The development and application of scientific methods and knowledge about human capabilities and limitations t4.AMCP 70J191 ) H .t of a system behind an increase or a decrease in the strength of a signal. procedures. Although they are sometimes interpreted to be the same as marginal cost. referring to cost of an added unit of output. HYSTERESIS: The lagging in the response of a unr. f HISTOGRAM: A graphical representation of a frequency distribution by means of rectangles whose widths represent the class intervaln and whore heights represent the corresponding frequencies. the latter has a such more limited meaning. the selection. INCREMIAL COST: The added costs of a change in the levAl or nature of activity. Cesign. and material. thus presenting an appearance of no chanede.lection and training of personnl. They can refer to any kind of chaange: adding a new product. INCOMNSURABILITY: The inability of two qualities or values to be measured by a miaaingful relevant common index. changing d•. Induced output covers the interirdustry. usually measured by using an Inputoutpuzt table. bence *Hollerith" cards is synonym3ia with punch cards. behavicral. . environment. It is a phenomonon demonstrated by materials which make their behavtor a function of the history of the environment to which they have been subjected. and material.13 L ___________ _______ _____ . HOLLURITH: A widely used system of encoding alphanumeric inzormation onto cards. EONOSTISIS: fs dynamic condition of a system wherein the input and output are balanced precisely.URISTIC: Pertaining to systematic trial and error methods o obtaining tolutions to prcblems. and control oi operations.
causes the computer to perform the operalion on the indicated quantities. tiornship between ln'its The basic tool of analysis is a square inputoutput table. etc. interaction model. INFRASTRUCTURE (SOCI. The INDIFFERENCE MAP: A twodimensional graph denoting an individual's preference system with respect to two econmic The body of the graph consists oi a family quantities.s and rrPnaxdri 60 Kzomnt. A set of character.ities in question. &s well as the value ot transIt has been actions within each activity itself.). transmitting and displaying information in support of specific functions. (Pure inflition is defined as a rise in the general level of prices unaccompanied by a rise in output. region's. procedures. forms. INFLATION: A rise in the general level of prices.AMCP 706121 INDIVIDUAL SYSTEM4 COSTING: The determination of the total resource implications of a syst6m forganization) without consideration of the interaction of the systm (origan.uber of invntories or levn. or community's economy (transportation anI cammunications systems. INPUTOUTPUT ANALYSIS: A quantitative study of the interdependence of a gyroup of activitiesbased on the relaand outputs of the activities. hospitals. power facilities. INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS: A philosy relating to similatioa a a syst nived as a nejtwk of flows and feedk lops intermwctinq to chng in its a u.AL OVERHEAD CAPITALW: The foundation underlying a nation's. for a given period that shows simultaneously for each activity the value of inputs and outputs. or a combination of the3efor recording. Each of nonintersecting lines convex to the origin. and which. ccmmunication facilit4es and equipment that provides an organized and interconnected meansautomated. A magnitude expressed as a percentage of the INDEX NUMBER: corresponding mignitude in some "base" period. applied to the economy and the "industrie's" into which the economy can be divided. base is usually designated as equal to 100.ly represents an equally desirable mixture of the quan. schools.) INFORMATION SYSTEM: A combination of personnel. or no address.zation) as part of a force structure. processing. A14 . formats. instructioas. collecting. as a urit. data. efforts. which defines an operation INSTRUCTION: together with one or more addresses. line of che fam. manual.
KNONY UNVE3R An idealized Abstraction from the real world. . £YVUT't1 COts The cost beyond the Research and Developmnt phase to introduce a now capability into operational Graphical.i to achieve a 3aisfactory confidence level. izriCntion. It A and a are independent. 1TWJtIVs Describing a procedure or ptocess which repeatedly execUtes a series of operations until some cotidition is satisfied. representation shovinq ail combinations I&OOTuse. I3rUCIns IMWOZLl ! "tersection of a line and un axis. Such a language may include instructiont which define and dirac• machine operations. An iterative jrocedure can be imlemented by a loop in a routine tach iteration or cycl. and information to be reco•rded by or acted upon by these machine operations.t of inputs that pr~duce equal outputs.ating satisfactorily at any point in time when used uander the stated conditions. JOINT PROSBAILITYr The probability that both event A and evert B will occur. flood control. it is the product of thir separate probabilities. JOINT COSTS: Costs that are shared by several departments or activities. in which the probabilities of every element in the population are known. or a dam providing power.e used data from the preceding cycle and supplies data to the following. ISCMSRPHICt Similar in pattern. Sastimate the intermediate value in a series of n•vers b7 using a formula that relates the unknown value to the pattern of known ralfts in the series. and recreation.AMCP 706191 IUTRACTIOPs The difference between a whole andthe s!iple sun of its parts. where the time onsidered is operating time and active repair time. IhRMNSIC PIVAAZLIt: The probability that the system is opo. LATIN S&UUS: Experimental designs to avoid compoun•ing the effects of inputs while teducing the number of obaervationt (and the cowt7 requx&. such as an airbase serving fi~rhter *quadrons and transport pianos.ANQUAWQt A sasten fox: representing and comumnicatinq infornation "hich is intelligible to a specific machine. A15 L .
to determ~re UX mathematical method uas LINEAR PGs the most effective illocation of limited resources beMathematical roquiremnts f. so called becaua6 the sm of the squared ftiatLons of the calculated from the observed Loast *quar"s also rtoer* to variable# Is & minimum. slop of such a curve show changes in the percentage As long increase or decrease of the original series.. ponsions. other assets acquired. awards. such a chart represents not the numbers in the series Changes in the but the logazithas of these numbers. Linear programming has been employed in areas such as the determination of the best roduet six and "'he selection of leastcost transportation routes. (1) both reappl1cability of lin. scribe the dvcreasm in tha cost of a unit as the number of nrits produced increases.AMCF 706191 LAIWG CURV3: The oostquantic? relationships for estLmatiaq Goner&lly used to ptodict or docoats of equipment. LOGISTIC TINE: That portion of down timeduring which repair is delayed solely e•cause of the necessity of mailing for a replacement part or other subdivision of the system. LIILITIRS8. A. When the vertical axis of a chart is laid off ii term of the logarithms of natural numbers the arrangement is known as a e4milog chart and the verA curve plotted on tical scale is called a loq scale. LOOPs A selfýontained series of Instructions in which the last insttuction can modify and repeat itsulf until a terminal condition is reached. yields this result. as there is no change in direction. ear programming are sources and activities that use them are nonnegative quantities.g. and other indebtedness act involving the furnishing of goods and services. A usthod of fitting a calmulated tre"d LIASfSgUA3SS N1670wD to statistical data. the oriteriou that. this includes amounts adainistratively approvedfor payments of grant*.zr treen competing demands. equal distances on the vertical scale correspond to the same perctntage change in the origigal series.%+bx). profit or coot) and the restrictions on its attainment are expressible as a system of linrar equalities or inequalities (y . LOGARITHM: The logarithm of a number is the exponent or paoer to hich the logarithmic base most be raised to equal that number. The awunts owed for goods and serviceso bwAwod.16 .LOGAR•ITIC SCALE. and performanoo accepted. when tollomeed. and (2) both the objective (e.
MATRIX: A rectangular array of terms called elements. MAGIAL UTITY: Sati. I. MASTER PLAMVMhG BUDGZE: The estimated cash receipts and disbursexents classified as to causes (contra accounts) and spread over the future periods in whirh they are predicted to occur. object. If "tility is to be r. labor. the tiatisfaction derived from the last dollar spent on each product or service should be the same.txiixoed. MARGINAL QTP(UT OR PR3DUCTs The output ta be derived from the use of an additional unit of a productive resource (1W . *It is used to facilitate the study of problems in which the relation between these elemaents is fundamental. napital. ~ ik&TAIM•AlT. in terms of mathematical symbols. ot materials). a firm has to extend production to . A1I . a failed system will be restored to operable corndition within a specified total down time. A matrix iw usually csable of heing subject to a mathematical operaticn by means Qf an operator or another matrix according to prescribed rules.IT': Probability that. M•WMIML COBTj 3•IVMU: Costs incurrAd or epcted to be incurred in the productton of an additional unit of output. Te nwaximize its profits. which enables the rilatively simple manipulation of variables ta be accoam Itsied in order to determine how the process.AMCP 706191 NMCINZ LANGUAG3I A system for expressing information which is intelligible to a spcific machine. MATHEMATICAL MODELt The ganeral characterization of a process. Marginal revoezue is revenue received or expetod to be received from the sale of an additional unit of output.Gfaction derived from the last or additicnal expenditure. and information to be recorded by or acted upon by these machine operations. or concept would behave in differeat situations. For comparability with other plans. adjusted for risk and diminishing utility. and ditcounted to its present value. or concept.hepoint where marginal revenue equal& marginal cort. Such a language my include instructions which define and direct machine operations. each estizat*4 cash flow is converted into an expected value. when maintenance actirm is initiated under stated conditions. object. Additional increments of exoenditire for a given pruduct tend to result in declining additions cf utility.
if to the conitancy of a type of change. with interrelationships so extrersly complex as to forestall straightforward analytical This method generally involves the use of handiing. and. The value a bet of values that occurs with the greatect frequency. given tbat it this at the beginning of the mission. then dropping the first itesThe . MONTE CARLO METHOD: Any procedure that involver statistical sampling techniques from a distribution of possible outcomes for cbtaining a probabilistic approximation to the solution of a mathematical or physical problem. MODE: in A omputer system of data representation. The means of representation may vary from a set of mAthematical equations or a computer program In to a p. cost/effectiveness 2nilysis (er any analysis of choice). omputing thc average. the mode for which _" was d designed for the duration af a mission. s intended to average out random mov6. The specific task or responsibility that a person MEDIAN: MISSION: or a body of persons is assigned to do or fulfill.. Halfway point between the two end Spints of an array. containing only those aspects of primary importance to the problem under study. revcal underlying trends... thcrecy. simulated data acquired by putting random numbers through transformations such that the data imitates significta. etc. a curve is rising (falling) throughout the range of interest we say it Js a monotonically increasing (decreasing) curve A series MOVING AVERAGE: reduce iiregular'fies cf averages freqiýently used to by selectinV in " time series set number of successive iterns in the series. the role of the model is to predict the costs that each alteznative would incur and the extent eo wich each would atta'n the objective. monotonicity refers MONOYTONICITY: For example. Mont• Carlo W.rGc..ess and aJding the next succeeding one. A118 . MODEL: A simplified representation of an operation.thods are often used when a great number of variables are present.rell verbal description of the situatio. MISSION RELIABILITY: Probability the system will operate in was operdting in that under stated condittons.t aspects of a situation. !n thp matnemacical sense.AMCP 70619' MEAN: The most common measure of central tnazuncy eqval to the bum of the observed quantities divided by the number of observed quantites divided by the number of observations.
as opposed to the cp•_ation code or symbol c.ateuaint of goals. .rnmut.inl NUUMJtC£L MMtLYSJISs Asful quantitative solutionk to mtem~atical problem. An operand way be an . although uveatinfactory operation is Jero somtetimas the reault of .rqunt. O WIS the common *securtiric techniques used in oueratiuns reopearch ati mathematical. stuAs. Mid aC¢ktCA liability The study of methods of obtai. and (2) indirect business t&. GH•J•AD: A quanity/ entering or &rising in an instruction.. 0OBWTIVX.OWS RESEARCH .LL! KXCLUSIVBt Describing any eveat the occurrene. inft:aAetion tory.~sum flow of goods and services in a community equal to the of corporate Of O0Wen44tiQ0 Of enploy002. and r•t~tI Is also equal essentially Of Persons. OPIMAT.mt4r. at any point bin tian. OPVeATING TDIEs in oa•t. .ol thte . . includinm stated allofable S~ warnin time.ent with a orae logical ornis for making sound predictions and decisioes. a parameter.. a result..AMCP 706191 MU~o. OrJBCTIVI MIC•TIO: A mathematical it. Objectives vary with the level of Subot'ixatiOn of he study. MATX0ML INCOS: . game theery. OPERATIONAL Ah MINrSS: The probability that. of the mainteucance man. ONWRATING COSTi The recurring cost required to opirit* and maintain an operationtal capability. or an indication of the location of the next inetruction. net Interest.The purpose to be achieved or the position to be obtained. monte carlo methods.for depreciation and other ¢•. in:G to =NP minus (1) allow~n=•. programing.aLW o~n w~ticjn. of *twh precludes the occurrence of all other events uner consideration. Time during which the system is operatsig r acceptable *o the operator. Profts The money measure of the overall annual and unlnorpo~ratod enterpri3es.The us* of an~alyt Ic methods 46opo~d from mathematics for solva ng operational probles.bor retdy to be placed in operation on and when ustd :Vunder rotated conditions.itself.•19 anc prkaily thaory. regardless of whether an analytic solation exists a i not. TA objectdve is to provide managm. te sytOm is either operating satisfactorily s. and the Ctu•j of the errors and bounds on errors in obtaining such solutions. usually profit U•axi•zation.4 to go.
• t& control of the central computer. subject to the constraints imposeS on the choice of solutions. equipment. .nf) ThnW n C A20 . The auxiliary machines which may be placed undr. OPPORTUNITY COST: The cost of foregone opportunitieal the sacrificed amount of money.  PAYOFF: events develops. or unita of produc. It ic generally a definable characteristic of an item. magnetic tape Leed3. i.. i. ORDINATE: ThM vertical distance on a graph. the distance from the horizontal axis. OQTtMIZATION: The attainment of the best possible retult.onstarpt or a variable in mathematics which remains co0taAt during some calculation... the maximization (minimization) of some desirable (undesirable) criterion measure. device. PARAMETER: A t... and a solution to the pzoblern is obtained for e'h set of assumed par~tmeter values.e. and highspeed printers. card punches. PEPMUTATIONS: The number of possible sequences of n items taken c at a time..R. Thegain to be derived if a part:cular conrse of ~n• DERIPHERAL E. Examples of this are card readers. or system.AMCP 706191 OPERATOR: A mathematical symbol which represents a mathematical process to be performed on an associated operand.. a' n . PARAMETRI 0 ANALYSIS: Parametric analysis assumes a ranje of values for each parameter which will bracket the 'qxpected values of that parameter.e.tion tkat could have been realized by a separate course of action (alternative) with the same time and effort expended.
when assigned to an event or occurence. in the distribution of demands on the inventory. there are times when the use of a deterministic model in a iirobabilisitc situatiLn does no harm. material. a deterministic model would most probably give answers that would lead to bad inventory policies. For example.Tables showing relativq frequencies of each subset into which the total population is divided.ourses of action through a systematic consideration of alternatives in order to attain organizational objectives. particularly in quantitative terms. (3) a bulget account classification. of .AMCP 706191 PLJWNING: "he selectior. PROBABILITY: A number between 0 and 1 that. (2) a segment or element of a complete plan. the model would be deterministic if it assumed that the rate of demand against the inventory is always the same (usually the estimated average demand). using an appropriate interest rate. PROBABILIThY DISTRIBUTION. with respect to manpower. in fact. thus a program provides a basis for budgeting. PROGRAM4: (1) A plan or scheme of action designed for the accomplishment of a definite objective that is specific as to the timephasing of the work tc be done and the meana proposed for its accomplishment. On the other hand. PRESENT VALUE: The estimated present worth of a stream of futuze benefits or costs arrived at by discounting the "futura values. a table showing the probability vi occurrence of each possible value. satisfactory. A2 1 . and facilities r6quirements. In this example. expresses the likelihood that the event will occur. PRODUCER'S RISK: The probability of rejecting an item which is. PDOSABTLISTIC MO1L: A model that makes allowances for randomness in one or more of the factors that determine the output& of the model. an inventory model that optimizes an inventory policy to avoid inventory shortages is probabilistic if ittakes explicit account of uncertainty over time. PLOTTER: A visual display or board controlled by a computer in which a dependent variable is graphed by an automatically controlled pen or pencil as a function 1' of one or more variables. However.
(2) determination of the capacity of communications capacity and of delays in the processing of messages. Examples (1) determination of a number of queuing problems areof checkout counters at a supermarket that minimixes the gum of *:odsts of customer dissatisfaction if they must wait in line and costs of providing additional chekers. R CHARTS: Charts of the range of small samples. from a population to be tested. useful. A22 . QUANTIFY: To qualify with respect to quantity. The costs are costs of waitirg and of providing the capacity to reduce th•e amount of waiting. to translate observed physical relationships into analogous mathematical relationships. In analysis. RANDOM NUMBERS: A sequence of digits in which each digit has an equal probability of occurring in eaeh position. wholly independent of which digits appear elsewhere in the sequence. and of identifying in relatively preis.k 91 PROGRAMMING: The process of translating plannedmilitary force requirements into specific tiuwphased. A special computir routine designed RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR. QUEUING THEORY: A theory that deals with the analysis of costs and effectiveness when items appear with some randomeoi for processing at a facility with a capacity for proessing simultaneously fewer items that may be waiting at a given time. RANDOM VARIABLE: A function defined on a sample space. RANDOM ACCESS: Pertaining to the proeess of obtaining information from or placinq tnformation into computer storage where the time required for such access is independent of the location of the information most recently obtained or placed in storage. according to RANDOM SAMPLE: A sample selected. in moritoring change in dispersion in the prcduct of a system. terms the resources required.AMCP 706. to produce a random number or serie5 of random numbers specified limitations. It is called discrete if it assumee anly a finite or denumerable nubeir of va&uws end contdnuous if it assumes a continuum of values. It is the bridge between planning and budgeting. in such a manner that every element in the population has an equal chance of being chosen for the sazple. scheduled actions.
expressed in specific quantities for specific time periods. REPROGRAMMING: The reapplication of funds between budget activities or line items within a single appropriation account. equipment.'n and of prototypes and processes. and cannot be modified for convenience in computer programming. REPAIRABILITY: The probability that a failed system will be restored to operable condition within a specified active repair time.AMCP 706. sales service. facilities. where all means must fail before there is an overall failure of the system. sales promotion. Applied research is the practical application of knowledge. and the desi. A23 . market esearch.. or by physical events outside the system. RELIABIITY¥ The probability that the system will perform satisfactorily for at least a g'ven period of time when used under stated condition#. RELATIVE FREQUENCY: The ratio of the number of observations (elements) in a class (subset) to the total number of observations constituting a population (universe or set'. and other nonteci nological activites or technical services. Basic research includes or ginal investigations for t1ea•dvancement of scientific knowledge that do not have specific practical objectives.hing a given task. Excludes S~development routine product testing. material and/or techniques toward a solution to an military or technological existent or anticipated requirement. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMWNT (R&D): Basic and applied research in the sciences and engineering. RLORDER LEJEL: The inventory balance at which a replacement ozdez is placed. REDUNDANCY: The exis ence of more than one means for accomplli.191 REAL TIME OPERATION: The use of the computer as a elemert of a processing system in which the times of occurrence of data transmission are controlled by other pcrtions of the system. other resources or services. REQUIREMENT: The need or demand for personnel.
A24 . SA1PLE SPACE: The range of ieasible solutions.g. For eiample. REVOLVING FUND: A fund eatatlished to finance a cycle of opetations to which reimbursements and collections are returned for reuse in a mannezf such as to maintain the principle of the fund. and a loss of $5 if it comes up tails. SAMPLING: The process of determining characteristics of a population by collecting and analyzing data from a representative segment of the population. SAMPLING ERROR: That part of the variatior in the data resulting from an experiment that is not explained by the variation in the factors controlled during the experimentation. SCENARIO: A word picture of a fixed sequence of events in a defined environment. RESEARCH AND DEVELWPMENW ir&D) COSTS: The cost of developing a new capability to the point where it is ready for procurement lor operational units.AMCP 706191 Developmert includes techniczl ac*'vities of a nonroute. nature coiicerned with translating research findings or other scientific knowledge into prcducts or processes. a situation is characterized as risk if it is possible to describe all possible outcomes and to ( assign meaningful objective numerical probability weights to each one. RISK: As used in costeffectiveness analysis and operations research. e.. stock fund. Development does not include routine technical services or other activities excluded from the above definition of research and development. Resource impacts cannot always be reduced to dollar terms. workingcapital fund. Another example. RESOURCE IMPACT: The cost oL adopting a course of action stated in measurable tems.. an action might lead to this risky outcome: a reward of $10 if a "fair" coin comes up heads. ROUTINE: A set of coded instructions arranged in proper sequence to direct the computer to perform a desired operation or sequence of operations. 50% of all missilee fred can be expected to land within one CEP of the target.
The model or computer representation is manipulated to imitate significant aspectL of a situation. then the results are said to be sensitive to that assumption or parameter. Mathematically. activity rates. (2) the true state is as yet unknown.25 . opportunity cost or its marginal product. SHADOW PRICE: The shadow price of a factor is a measure of its For example. it is the positive square root STANDARD ERROR: The standard deviation of a group of measures of the same characteristics (often termed a "statistic" or a "parameter"). but (3) it is possible at a cost to obtain additional information about the &tate.. of the variance. the opportunity cost of labor may be near zero. or if subjective methods are used in selecting sample data. results in a proportionately or greater change in the the results. STANDARD DEVIATION: A measure of the dispersion of observed data. aze more likely to be chosea than others. or other equipment. each obtained from a distinct sample drawn from a larger "universe" or "population". STATISTICAL DECISTON T!HORY: Theory dealing with logical analysis of choice among courses of action when (1) the consequence of any course of action will depend upon tie "state of the world". SIMULATION: The representation of physical systems and phenomena by computers. models. or R*D costs.. so that the shadow price of labor may be well below the prevailing wages of those workers who are actually employed.AMCP 706. SPURIOUS CORRELATION: Accidental correlation having no causative basis and without expectation of continuance. in order to determine their effects for the purposes of comparison with the resulto of the 1: 4 *m4di change in an assumption basic analysý. A. when unemployment is widespread.191 ) Repetition of an analysis with different SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: quantitative values for cost or operational assumptions or estimates such as hitkill probabilities. SETS: A collection of items (elements) chosen as pertinent. the results are considered biased. STATISTICAL BIAS: If some samples or observation dat.
g. one may optimize a choice of weapons for achieving certain objectives of a decision but within the given constraint of a certain maximum cost of a But one sliboptimizes on achievement of the division. an armored division. system is composed of equipment. a group of elemnts constitutirg part of a universe. assame that of tOe larger group is known. and personnel required solely for its operation. SYMBOLIC LOGIC: The study of formal logic and mathematics by means of a special written language which seeks to avoid the ambiguity and inadequacy of ordinary language. or if there are interdependencies between dec. Such a suboptimization will yield something inferior to an opt'ized expenditure on different kinds of armor if the total budget for armor given to the suboptimizer is really not optimal. SUBSET: A collection wholly contained within a larger collection. any given tank under the same circumstances will be deadlined for unscheduled maintenance on a specific day is described by a stochastic process. SUBROUTINE: The set of instructions necessary to direct the computez to carry out a well defined mathematical or logical opezation.26 . eauipment. division objective if ht is given discretion only over the amount and kind of armor and is given a maximum The objective he amount of money to spend on armor. maximizes directly may be only the mission of anmor in tUe division's objective. sc that the instrument of combat becomes a selfsuf~icient unit A. has on the average a certain number of tanks daadlined for The probability that unscheduled maintenance.AMCP 70619t STOCHASTIC PROCESS: The statistical concept underlying the prediction of the cosiditicn of an element of a larger group when the probable average condition For example. services. the composite of which focms an instrument The complete weapon system includes all of combat.sions on armor and decisions on other things that are outside the discretion of the p~rron suboptimizing on armor. under certain circumstances.available. skills and SYSTEM: W techniques. materials. The time during which the system is STORAGE TIME: presumed to be inoperable condition. SUBOPTINIZATION: Optimization refers to a selection of a set of actions that maximize the achievement of some objective of the real constraints that exist. but is being held for emergencyi e. subject to all For example. as a spare. related facilities.. The cost due to disrupted schedules or to STOCKOUT COST: inability to satisfy customers bwicause items ordinarily stocked are no.
for example a year. repreisnts obligations that can be incurred during that year and not necessarily expenditures. SYSTM the item oi The art of exwd ing the entire . and an attempt to formulatc additional alternatives if those examined are deficient. materials. SYSTEMS EFFECTIVENESS: The probability chat the system can successfully meet an operational demani within a given time when operated under specified conditions. Su~port :!Y:tem is a composite of equipment. SYSTEMS AMALY8IS (SA): A formal inquiry intended to advise a decision maker on the policy choices involved in a major decisions. TOTAL OBLIGATION AUTHORITY(?OA): The cost allocated to a given system or organization. A complete support system inclades all related facilities. or the determAnation of strategic objectives. I. services. and Operating Cost. In DoD a systems analysis may be concerned with such matters as weapon developm6nt. while not an instrument of combat. equipment. procure. TCHEBYCHEFF'S THEOREM: The proportion of the observations falling between ka and +ko is at least as large as l(l/kz) regardless of the distribution. force posture design. ThiL cost when related to a specific time period. To qualify as a system analysis a utudy must look at *n entire problem as a whole. skills.(for a specified number of years of operation) required to develop. and risks associated with the alternative policies or strategies f•r achieving each objective. The total obligation authority fnr a specific year to furrish a house is ýhe cost of what can be ordered during that year even if deliveries and payments are made in later years. and cperate the particular weapon system. so that it can be coAsidered a selfsufficient unit in its intended operational environment._tment.27 . and tchniques that. rharacttristically. T'IMEPHASED COSTS: A presentation of the cost results broken down by the time period in which the costs occur rather than a single total cost figure. and personnel zequired for operation of the system. is capible of performing a clearly defined function in support of a mission. it will involve a systematic investigation of the decisionmaker's objectives and of the relevant criteria. A.AMCP 706191 of striking power in its intended operational environment. effectiveness.aitext withhn which APPKWAH: interemt will function. a comparisonquantitative when possiblecof the costs. TOTAL SYSTEM COST: The total R&D.
which do not vary with output. and (2) the net change in inventr2s (both finished goods and workinprogress) (Value added between the beginning and end of the year. to evaluate current or proposed Joctrine and organizations. Material is considered in the conduct of troop tests only insofar as material affect* the doctrine or organization being evaluated. containers. with base rights is an uncertainty UTILITY: A personal subjective value of a tangible c: intangible commodity. supplies. no objective The belief that something false is A situation is uncertain if there i• UNCERTAINTY: basis for assigning numerical probability weihts to the different possible outcomes or ther3 is no way to describe For example.S.AMCP 706191 TMISOTOM: The derivation of a new body of data from a given one according to specific procedures. often leaving some feature invariant. of a foreign nation continuing to furnish the U. is equal to the unadjusted series plus: (1) value added by merchandising operations. and contract work from the value of shipments. which is more inclusive. TROOP TESTs A troop test is a test conductad in the field. using TOE units or units organized under proposed TOE. A mo3ure of dispersion of a frequency distributon VARIANCE computed by summing the squares of the difference between each observation and the arithmetic mean of the distribution and then dividing by the number af observations. purchased electric energI. is almost free statistically from the duplication of values existing in the value of snipments and approximates the net value of r. The adjusted series. TYPE I ERhOR: TYPE I ERROR: The belief that something true is ialse. That part of value given prcducts VALUE ADDED BY MANUFACTURE: shipped actually creaLed within a given industry.28 . auch as x or y which may take on many vallues or which nay have conditional fixei values as in x + 2x = 19. The unadjusted series is calculated by subtracting the cost of materials. VARIABLE CC5TS: Those costs that vary with the volume of outpvt as contrasted with fixed costs. true. the probability the possible outcomes. VARIABLES: General numbers.3nufacturera). A. fuei.
29 . data. conducted using rules. A29 I! A. of a military operation involving two or more ovpp6sng fore*.AMCP 706191 V t GAlS: A simulation. by whatever swans. and procedures designated to depict an actual or assumed real life situation.
V. Vi. COST ANALYSIS COST EFECTIVEMEC RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY SIMbqATION vii. SYSTDE AN'. XIV. XII. XI. IV. LAý• S XV.ORY IX . X. QUEJEMN SEQUENCING DINVE.I IAMCP 706191 APP(lilNJ I BIBLIOGRAPHY I. VIII. II. . XIV LINFAR PROGRMO4ING DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING GAM• THEORY INFORMATION THEORY i)ýLSIOK TlffCIrY OFFICIAL REFU.YS= SYSTEM EFF9CTIVWASS III.
Irwin. "Th. Division of Research. Herman and Mann.' Systems Analysis".. A. "Ten Comion Pitfal RAND Corporation. "The 7xonomics of Defense !Nuclear Age". 9. RM19037 (AD 13?)35) (July 1957) . Perk.a. 0.. James H. j. Irwin. "Systems Analysis".. RM3202ISA (April 4 .. RM4054PR (April 1964) Hayes. Ka.aa2yIs"... M. I. N.82911 (19)7) 8. J. 9602 . "'The Weapons Acquiitilon Process: An Economic Analysig". Report R344E 1960) Harvard University Press.. '"Tehtniques of Systens Analysis". Military Review (January 1963) 2. Mass. Cambridge. %itch. 'Systems Analysis and Supply Management". New R. M. P. 420 pp.t lor (AD . F. U. The Lin' e.erbrooke. Army Management School 13. Kahn. "Efficei'ency In Government Through Systems An. Management Ifiews ("9631964) Vol. in t. rC...ne (March 1~'%) Uniersity C. GrauLiat School of Eastness Administration. SeLect3d Speeches. J. "Some Facets o. Charles J. (AD 243098) 7.'ey & Sorts. John W. "Aa Appreciation of' Sistems Analysis". Farvaid Univergity. R. 11. Feeney.Weapons l&nning Program f')r General irp•• Forces: A Suggested Approach"... Inc . and rherer. McKe&n. The RAND Corporatioxi. C.AMCP 706191 3YSTEMS ANALYSIS 1. S. Herman and Mann. Part 2. and Sl. New York (1958) Morgensten. Journal of the Operations Re"earch Socie•y of America (Novev'er 195) H.c . Hitn. A... G. York Random House f1959) Murray. The RAND Co. Californih Press. and McKean. 12.Lpoxction. C. Research Memorandum iM1. 2nd.. Lob 4xgeles (1965) 3.148!7) 1962ý The RAND ' 10. Military Review 3. H. (April 1965) 4o Hitch. "Systems Analysis and DecI!ion Making". C 0. The RAND Corporation. "The Question of National Lefense". o. EnthoveL. "Decision Neking for Defense".
.r Miliary Decisions'. 2.lanning (March 1966) The RAND Corporation. No. pp.. J. Ed. Q~uade. 295315 (January 1)b3) IL B. Vol. E. E. AD 629 564 17. S. AND Cor Quade. RM3452•R (January 1963) Programming . •cehse•er. XV. The poration. R. "Military Systems Analysis". "Quantitative Analysia and National Security . "Systems Analysis Techniques for 2.3 .AMCP 708191 14... 16.Budgeting". 15.. S. *Analysis fo. World Politics. S. E.. RandMcNally Quade.
Balaban. Final Report of the WSEIAC Task Group IV (January 1965) AFSCIR654. ARINK Research Corporation. and Horne. Final Report of the WSEIAC Task Group IV (January 1965) AF•CTR654. L. 9 (July 1960) AFSCTR651 "Requirements Methodology". E. Maiatainability. 11.Measurement (Summary Conclus ions. B4 .. Jr. Monograph No. Volume I1. Irinclples of Model Construction)". S. 3wostElfectiveness Optimizatlon (Technico1 Supplement)V.• II. (October 1966) P. Conclusions. "Concepts Associated with System Effectiveness". Final (January 1965) Report of the WSEIAC Ta~k Group II 5. "Study Effectiveness Concepts and Analytical Techniques .. Volume III. "CostEffectiveness Optimization (Summary. S. 6. L. and Sontz. Final Report of the WSE]AC Task Group IV (Jenuary 1965) 9. and Recommendations)". Volume I. AFSCTR653. AF(33657)10594A ARINC Research Ccrporation. S. D. Seltzer.AMCP 706191 SYSTEM EFFECTIVMENSS 1. "Prediction . ¶Jo!um. ASD/AFSC Contract No. Maryland. Final Report of the WSEIAC Task Group $ (january 1965) AFS(TR652.. 4.. Fnal Report of the WSEIAC Task Group III (January 1965) AFSOTR654. and Systew Effectiveness" (3eptember 1965) Welker. AFOCTR652. 10. "Prsdiction .. and Costello. U.D. 7. Ph. 2. "CostEffectiveness Optimization and Analysis Methodology". Riley C. Final Report of the WSEIAC Task Grou' II (January S9O5) 8.Reasurement (Concepts Task Analysis. Department of Defense. and Recommendations)". Volume I.. Annapolis. Annapolis. ORSA 30 National Meeting "Gereral 3. Md.. "Data Collection and Management Reports". 267017419. Effectiveness Methodology. C. H. (January 1964) Giord•ao. "Survey of Studies and Computer Programming Efforts for Reliability. ARINC Research Publication No.
. Recommendations)".Summary. Final Report of WSEIAC Task Group V (January 1965) 13. "Chairmans Final Report'. Final Report of the WSEIAC Task Group V (January 1965) 14. Final Summary Report WSEIAC "Bureau of Naval Weapons System Effectiveness Management Course". Volume I1 "Management System (System Effectiveness Assurance . Volume II. . AFSCTR655.AMCP 706191 12. "Management Systems (Elements of Effectiveness Assurance Management)'. Policy Issues. AFSCTR655. 15.. Publication 357011579 I . . . AFSCTR655.
(November 1966) 4. Meltsner. Barro. McCullough. (August 1965) Fisher. Gr "Some Problems in Cost Analysis". Fisher. Rand Report BM4854PR. iM%366PR.. G. The RAI1. A.. RM3250AZDO. RM3071. A. H. RM 823. 64201 Dienemann. C. Philadelphia. G. J. The RAND Corporatin (September 1956) P511. "Derivation of Estimating Relationships An Illustrative Example". G.AMCP 706191 COST ANALYSIS 1. RM3(42PR. G.. S.. Logistics Research Agency. "Weapon Syster The RkND Corporation Cost Analysls". Santa Monica. "Prccedures for Estimating Electronic Equipment Costs". "Estimating Cost Uncertainty Using Monte Carlo Techniques". Abert. Institute for Defense Analyses (ae 2. and Proschan. Fisher.al.. 10. Army Cost Model Pieliminary Report. 13. The RAND Corporation (January 1966) Dienemann. J. The RAND Corporatiori (Noveriner 1962) 1i. M. H.. The RAND Corporation (May 1963) "Estimating Methods and Data Sources Used in Costing Military Systems". Army Electronics Command. 9. 6. Annex to USAFXOM Logistics Research Agency." B6 . "Military Systems Cost Ana 2975PR..i Corporation "Basic Techniques for the Development of Life Cycle Equipment Costs". U. The RAND Corporation (April ]. Study No. B.. 8. G. and Margolis. "Allocation Cf Indirect Ccsts". Paul F. The PRN•D Corporation Fisher. The RAND Corporation (October 1966) Early. et.. 7.. "Use of Cost Estimating Relationships in System and Force Plannirg"... A. Calif. 11. L. H. J. P.!s'". H.. M.. H. FSDTR65396 (December 1965) Farr. D.. System Development Corporation: AD612 723.  5.962) Fisher. S. FOUO. 3. *Quantitative Analysis of Computer Programming Cost Factors: A Progress Peport". Baker. c. L. "A Discussion of Uncertainty in Cost Analysis". L..
.. D. A.. tD 628101.. (August 1965) 18. Bedford. RM344ASDC. The RAIND Corporation (June 1963) Margolis. G. "DOD Programming System.Budgeting Cost . "Military Cost Analysis" RACA Paper. Wcrking Paper #49. "On Statistical Cost Analysis and Operations Research".. RM3589PR. and Proschan. H. Air Force Tnstitute of Technology.. ing . RResearch". The RAND Corporation (April 1966) McCullough. Chzrles H. "System Cost Analysis: A Management Tool for Decision Making". M. Lockheed Missiles & SpacCompany. The RAND 20. The RA•MN Mcgullough.. N. "Concepts and Procedures of Cost Analysis". Grosse. AD 623 394. J. 27. AD624893 (November 1965) 22. Rand Report... Hawkins. Rand Corpozation (No%ember 1966) Repot. N. Ohio (August 1965) Hoag. A. "An Outline of a Mefh& for Weapon System Cost Analysis".. The RAND Corporation (January 1963) 15..tion and Evaluation". Development. '. Kriebel. FOUO. Graziano. P. RM3608ASDV.N.. (August 1965) Large. Eugene E. Keeling.. Mass. OR Dept. and Proctian. P2688. Denver (july 1961) 23. The RAND Corpoioation (April 1956) "The Relevence of Costs in Operations Jones. Corporation 19. The RAND Corporation FOUO.)er 14m.. AD 622 023 (Septe'U. Cali'. 16. Aerospace Division. Carnegie Institute of Technology. (AD422 39?) (October 1963) Grosse..al. Pittsburge. and Information Processing Programs: An Annotated Bibliography"... 25. WrightPatterson AFB. R.Benefit Studlcs". "Cost Analysis for Plaiiing Progrni. . P820. J. Outline". 21. An Explana. Grosse. "Uses of Automated Force Cost Models". "What ia Resource Analysis?". D.. R. Sunnyvale. 17. RAuP6. M. J. "Cost Analysis: Concepts and Methods 24.iI I AMCP 706191 Fisher. The Mitre Corporation. 26. et. R. J.. W.. A. MartinMarietta Corp. The RANL Corporation. "Army Cost Model". A. "Cost Effectiveness: Estimating Systerrn Costs". Research Analysis Corp. "Cost Estimating for Research. Pa.
. A. R. RM3170PR. E. "Use of the Learning Curve". D.. and Pringle. RM3639ASDO. "Determination of Obsclescence Costs".. H. D.. J. 31. D. "The jost of Advanced Weaponr". Novick. M. D. "A Methoc of CosK Analysij and Control Thrcugh Simulation". 1963) 35. V. 38.. A.. and Smith.. RM3660ASDC. P267. AD 291 36. AD 40 623. 40. Meltsner. 39. 32.. RM2695. 605. The RAND Corporation (January 1956) "Sostem and Total Force Cost Analysis".. RM3067PR. MartIn. The RAND Corporation (May 1962) Noah. and Swaine.Quantity 34. RM3658. H. MartinMarietta Corp. J. P794. Novick. J. D. "Resource Analysis and LongRange Planning". R. J. R. Arthur.... J. The RAND Corporation (Juae "Costing Tomorrow's Weapon Systems". "Total Systen Cost Analysis". and Henry. The RAND Corporation Fetruschell. (July 1961) 41. The RAND Corporation 29. W. T... (May 1960) Springstsiad. "Cost Variance: A Proposed New Cost Prediction Method". 37. "Weapon Systems Cost Analysis".. The RAND Corporation (March 1966) Noah. Aerospace Division. The RAND Corporation (January 1962) 33.. Rioh. "Cost . J. R. 19201965"s AD 629 700. R. Calculator. Model". RM3C39PR. W. S. Linde Co. (November 1960) 42. Meltsner. The RAND Corporation (June 1962) Novick. "Identifying and Estimating R & D Costs".AMCP 706191 28. 30. T. . R.. "Navy Cost The RAND Corporation Milton. and Caulkins.. Inc. L. Denver. RM2786PR. and Chester. D.. The RAND Corporatlon (January 1Q63) Rattner. Vickers. The RAND Corporation (February 1962) Novick. Novick.. "Army Cost Model Data . OR Dept.. The RAND Corporation (November 1951) Novick. E. Working Paper #67. J.. D.. "Cost of Research Index. A. FUUO.
Ronald F.. and Mathias. "CosL Estimates as Predictors of Actual Weapon Costs: A Study of Major Hardware Articles". 45. Office of Assistant Secretary of Defens3 . Summers.. . The RAND Corporation "The Use of Classical Statistics in Deriving Rnd EvPuatJig CER's". "A Cot Model for Use in CostEffectivenes6 of Dissimilar Weapon Systems". A. "Cost Sensitivity Analysis". Robert. ballistics Research Laboratories 46. J.AMCP 706191 43.. Dean P. AD 612 723. The RAND Corporation (March 1965) 44.Systems Analysis (October 1966) Westerman. Tenzer. BRL #1602.
. 11.. W. Research Analysis Corporation. S. R. Virginia (June 1965) rishong. Navy Electronics Laboratory Report 144204 (January 1967) Dishong. "On the Cost Effectiveness Approach to M4ilitary R & D: A Critique". 4. AD 625 947. "Reliabilil y Cost Schedule Tradeoffs". W. General Electric Co. et. Martin Company (September 1963) Knorr.IAversity.. Klaus. 9. Albert..AMCP 706191 COST Eb?•ECTIVENESS 1. (October 960) 2. AD 622 112. S. Arlington. "Cost Effectiveness Ajualysis Lpplied to AF Communications Link". "Cost Ef"ectivene~z as a Method of Evaluating Design Changes". R. S. J. 3.. RL 43. Institute for Defense Analyses.926.. New Jersey (June 1966) Kornfeld. P. L. The RAND Corporation Blumstein. "Models in CostEffectiveness Analysis: An EFxample".. "An Introduction to rostEffectlveness Analysis". (January 1964) Grosse. A. Jr. M. AD 635 117. Boeing A'iD1ane Co. 5. 6.. W. A. 1963) Bell. N. AD 622..al. Virginia (October 1965) Bryk... "The Choice of Analytical Techniques in CostEffectiveness Analysis". 10. et. Navy Electronics Laboratory Repoe't 1323 (October 1965) Goldman. Princeton. A. U. McLean. Journal of the uperations Research Society of America (MarchApril. "Risk and Uncertainty in Cost Effectiveness Analyqis and Budgeting") TEMPO. Jr. and Brili. Chauncey F. "Cost Effectiveness Evaluation for Mixes of Naval Air Weapon Systems". 8. Research Analysis Corporation (November 1964) Hadley. Bernard S. Princeton j.A "Coct Effectiveness Analysis as A Management Tool".al.. 7.. R. Oliver. NTN58. II . U.
E. E.. "The Limitations of a CostEffectiveness Approach to Military DecisionMaking". "Cost Effectiveness Analysis: An Appreclatin".. !4. D. Monograph 12. Quade. S. ARINC Research Corporation. AD 623 105. The RAND Corporation (October 1965) rand Quade. E. B 'I . 16. The RAND Corporation (octouer 1965) 13. Jasper G. BRL Report R 1315 (March 12&•) 15...nalysis". S. D. S. "Cost Effectiveness: An Introduction Overview". AD 615 394 The RAND Corporation (March 1965) Quade. S. Md. AD 616 339.AMCP 706. AD422 374. E. "A Beginning to CostEffectlveness A. 19. "System Effectiveness: Basic Concepts and Framework for Analysis".191 12. et.al. The RAND Corporation Visco. P2798. O'Neoil.. Research Analysis Corp. Maltese. "CostEffect1"oeness Analysis". Annapolis. The RAND Corpciation (May 1965) Quade. "Corcepts of Costs for Use in Stuc es of Effectiveness". P1182... "Some Comments en CostEffectiveness". Eugene P. 18. (January 1967) Novick. 17..
G. Riley C. (July 1957) 3.W. AIRIC Research Corporation.. (_96i) Bishop. Ad..AMCP 706. and G3riffin. (January 1963) Carhart. APCRCTN58569. R.al. A1 30(60212376. No. "Electronic Reliability in Mliltaýy Applicati. Advisory Group on Reliability of Electronic Equipsent. •O. Rand Research Memo. (L90O) Friddell. 6. AD 80 637. Operational Effectiveness". 8.A.. D. 1 (Jaznary February 140) wMeasure of Dependabilitym . F 4912.. P. of Cper&tlons Refearch Society of . Md. "Reieoility Theory an. 4. Office of the Assist&it Secretary of Defenje (Research and Engineering). ":.191 RELIABILITY AND MAITAINABILITY I. Annapolis. 'A Survey of the Current 9tatug of the Electronic Reiabllity Probleme. RM1131. H. journal 8.  5.. Igor. Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on Reilability and Quality Control (January 1949) Gaveretal. General Report No. R. G. *Reliability of Military Electronic Rquipment (June 1957) ARINC Research Corporation. Walton B.. "Electrcnic Equipment Reliability'.Amerlca..tm of System Reliability* (February 1967) Hor:e. Inc. Vol. Bayovsky. . Bedford. 9. G. and Jacks. N.. Sylvania Electronic Systems Div. Jr. . AD )60 882. 1017131 (Decýemter Hosford. The RAND Corporation (August 1953) Drumer. Publicat'lon No. *Reliability and Maintainability Asa%. 5) Arxapoi3. Contract No. Transfer Functions in Mathematical Simulation for Reliability Prediction".. (November 1958) Bosinoff. PrenticeHall. John Wiley wid Sons.rance*.ams. 102 2. 7. Practice*. Publication No. J.5c. "Analysis of Operator Equpment Relatiornships". D. 2. Maza. H. Electronic Material Sciences Laboratory. II... hc. SyLvania Documen. t Statistical Estimation r a Prob... "Systex.
1ity Conference (April 1963) 14. Monograph No. A' 30(602)2057. anM Jervis. Howard. "Reliability: Management. Rome Air Development Center. Report. D 277199 (March 1962) "Maintainability Technique Study". AD "404898.. Long Island Quality Control at. Contract No. R. E. W. RADC Document No. RM1724. DDC No. EDLE35. 20.AMCP 706191 12. C. PrenticeHall. Md. RADCTDR6385 DDC No. Pasadena Lithographer (1960) Lloyd. J. 1. AF 30(602)2057 (February 1963) 21. 1960) Collection Phase II. Contract No.. B13 . DDC No. Leake. 16. Reliakl. M. 'Oinal Tech. RADC TN554. john B. Annapolis. "Electi. C. Fred.A Diecussion of Some Basic Theoreti 15.. RADCTDR62156 (Phase IV) RADC Con~tract No. R. I. D. (Maj 1955) Reliability . FADCTDR6385.. E.. Rome. . ARINC Research Corporation. "Maintainability Measurement and Prediction Methods for AF Ground Electronic Equipment". and McLean. Knight. DDC No. IRE Transactions on Reliability and Quality Control.nic cal Concepts and A Review of Progress Since Wjorld War II. New York. "Mathematical Models for System Reliability". Phase V.17. "Some Reliability Aspects of System DesignA. A'o 66 8C2. Inc... RADC Document No. Vol. FieLd Data DDC No. PORc8 tSeptember 1956) 22. RADC Document No. II. (September AD '47155. AD 228131 (August 1959) Moskowitz. SEDL Publication No. RADC Contract No. Methods and Mathematics". Kauz'man. 19. K. also. The RAND Corporation (Juno 1956) 13. Vol. AF 30(. AF 30(102)2057 18.C2)2057 "Maintainability Prediction Techniques".AD 109 936. Griffira Air Force Base. (December :1961) "Maintainability (February 1963) Wtneerirng. N. . AD 404899... Sylvania Electronic Defense Labor&o•ories. *Understanding Reliability". and Lipow. Rand Research Memo. "Some Physical Qualifications for Reliability Formulas". Phase V. "Weapon System Availability Models and the Estimation of f' ir Parameters"..
October 1959. Statistical Theory of Reliability. U. Also. (Xctober 1959) 26. May 1963 27. RADC Reliability Notebook. January 1963 25. 33. McCloskey and Coppinger. PB4618943. Johns Hopkins Press. 31. H. Military Handbock No. J. 34. Rev. "System Reliability Studies".. F. 2nd Edition. May 1953 Shwap.A?. "P 706. Zelen. "Semr conductor Reliability". University of Wisconsin Press. R. PB161894. American Society for quality Control. 217A "Reliabilitv Training Text". G. Washington. Rome Air Development Center. Rome. December 1961. Tr58111 OTS Nos. (1963) Shellard. "Confidenca Limits for the Reliability of Complex Systems". J. RADC Contract No. S." RADC TIh58III. AD 148 868. "Production aad Field Peltabillty". S. RADC TDR63146. Griffiss Air Force Bo:se. Vol. H. Gordon D. New Jersey (1961) "System Reliability Prediction by Function" RADC Document No. (Editors).. "System Reliability Engineering". and Sullivan. 35. 3. 28.. DDC No. Journal Operations Research Society of America. "Reliability Notebook. Inc. 3. Madison (1963) Sandler. RADC TR5924. New York. Federal Electric Corp. E. RADC No. (February 1959) Electronics Divi sion. Department of Commerce. "Reliability of RadioElectronic Equipment".. and Jutila. Electronics Division (February 1961) Reza. Rev. D. PrenticeHall. 29. AF 30(6C2)2687. PB161894 2. "Failure of Complex Equipment". Besic.. 2. C. Institute of Radio Engineers (March 1960) "Research and Development Reliability". AD 210 729 (December 1958) Rosenblatt. i. 30.. M. 32. Elizabeth.. No. American Society for Quallty Control 24. AD 404191. Engineering Publishers.191 23. B14 . Vol. Operations Research for Management. Office of Technical Services. 1956. J. edited by M. (1958) "Reliability Stress and Failure Rate Data for Electronic Equipment". II.
H.AMCP 706191 36. Inc. New Jersey (1964) B15 . W. 38. (Editor). Elizabeth. Product EngineerigP (May 1960) Von Alven. (1962) 37. H. W. PrenticeHall. J. (Editor). "Semiconductor Reliability". E. Tangerman. ARINC Research Corporation. Von Alven. "Rcliability Engineering". New Jersey. ErgineerIng Publishcrs. II. (EWitor). "A Manual of Reliabilitym. Englewood Cliffs.. Vol.
(no date). C.. A. "On the Construction of MultiStage MultiPerson Business Game. Bellman. Broadview Research Corp. Ordnance Corps. 1959. 10. Hughes Research and Development Labs. BlJitstein. on Aeronautical Electronics. R. Approach System. C.AMCP 706191 SIMULATION 1. A. Ohi. 1958.. J. presented at Natl.. Res. R." Opns. Report No." Operations Research. R. National Conf. 5. Carlisle.. Gale. 9. 3. Conf. Operations Research for Weapon System Analysis. Enke. North Carolina (1959). Inc... Carmonette: A Computer Combat Simulation. System Development Corporation. Calif." Operations Research quarterly. Brotman.. The RAND Corporation.. 1959. I. 5. No. and Fain. and Sebastian. 1 8. C." Opns. The RAND Corp. G. 5. Texas. Vol.16 . Model Techniques for Communication Systems. (1958). D. et al.. W... Dayton. 195)Drlggs.o. Vol. Use of a Simulatiun Laboratory to Study the Organo13h3.. Washington. 12. W. Biel.. Clapham. Melvin. Adams. C. R. E.. Res. ization and Effectiveness of Air Force Logistics. Burlingame. and Seid. 2.. 593. Dresher. 4.ce of Odnance Research. SPIb. 4 (August. S. L. C.. Dunre... Bradford." R216.Chance Vought Aircraft. Operations Research Basel on Simulations for Training. and Forrester. 7.. J. ii. K. 1958). W. S. (1957).. 9. Johns hopkins University. 148151 (1956). Offl. J. J. Digital Simulation of a Massed BomberManned Interceptor Encounter. 6. J.. (March. "A Monte Carlo Analysis of the Ground Controlled l. D. "A Monte Carlo Model of Lanchester's Square Law. B. Digital Simulation of Air Traffic Control Systems.. Calif. Dallas. A. Computer Played War Games. Santa Monica. 397405 (1957). and Moore. December 1. "A Monte Carlo Problem in Undergound Communita~ions. 1957). W. Durnam. 13. Bond.. No. Operations Research Office.. R. "Theory and Applications of Games of Strategy. B. of Aeronautical Electronics (1958).
and Analytical Methods for Studying Large Human Organizations. March 25.. H. 704712 (1957). Santa Monica. L. WashirgNBS Applied Mathematics Series. A.. Inc. Downey.. Opns.. A. M. Kahn. D. nM14ll. A Monte Carlo Computer Simulation for the Evaluation of AntiArmor Weapons Systems. 1. 16. 24.. Geisler. December 12. Aviation. ComFord. R. 3 (MayJune. System Engineering... J. Calif. H. Flannagen. 17. Goode. The RAND Corpovation. Monte Carlo Method. 0. "Brief Description of the SWAP Game" (confidential). 1955. D. Forsythe. 18. Introduction. (1959).. No. 263278 (1953). Res.1391.. Rufus. C. 26. Vol.. "Differential Games . (eds. 1957. H. Calif. S. 25. S. Isaacson. 20. and Mann. Geisler. Fulkerson. G." Opns. Res.. presented at 15th Annual Meeting of ORSA. Isaacs. New York: 19. The RAND Corp. ManMachine Simulation. of the Solution Process. 1. 1951. and Marshall.. 2 (Fehruary. 7. "The Use of Monte Carlo Models. W.." P1167. E. 1953). III. King. July 30. W./ Operations Research. Res. 21. R. Germand. RM2058. Herman.. "A Tactical Air Game. 1959. and PeLnel. J.. "War Gaming. "Methods of Reducing Sample Size in Monte Carlo Computations. RM1486.. 1958). 1959. P1780.. S. M. C. G. 15. R. The RAND Corporation. S." 5. H. No. and Householder. Government Printing Office. 478482 (1959). L. 6. M.. Goen.. A... 1957. The Basic Principles II. Jr." P1634. 23. f.I. "Simulation Techniques in Operations Fesearch A Review. R. The RAND Kahn. March 11. Corp. L. IV.)."t Opns. puter Terrain Simulation for LineofSight Calculations. H.. The Use of ManMachine Simulation in the Design of Control Systems. 1959. Vol. The RAiv Corporation. A S.: U. The Definition and Formulation.. "The Monte Carlo Method as a Natural Mode of Expression in Operations Research. E.. 1957. B17 . C." RM1399.. Cycling. Helmer." Operations Research Society of America. McGrawHill. and Johnaon. H. and Shapley. Harling. Monte Carlo Simulation of Missile Maintenance Am. 22. and Machol. Mai'7 Txar1Pq. 27. ton. No. Irwin..AMCP 706191 14.
. Texas (no eate).." Presentation at Seminar on Techniques of Industrial Operations Research. Pl174. Canaea (1959).A Research Aid as a Management "Demonstration Piec." P579. 1519 (1955). R. Morgenthaler. 1. 1959. I on ?2. and Rivlin. Inst.. 1954. McKown. Marbhall.. Law. W. 49/5. Rich. preliminary 4.c. Air Battle Simfulation Fyr%"!ience!! with th. 1957. "War Gaming as a Technique of Analysis. Inc.AMCP 706191 d. April 10. C. The RAND Corporation. 1958. Ill. G. P. 35.. A. Res. M." OMEGA. Vol. 30. H. R. 29.. C.tion and Monte Carlo. A. and Raiffa. October 19. (ed. 32. Durvan. Texas. McCracken.ance Vought Aircraft. York: John Wiley and Sons. A. Daills.. M." 1392. (3958). W.. Some Target Coverage Problems..... Reedy. D. H. draft.e. 41.. Chance Vought AircrAft. Howard. W. 1954. Denver. B18 . D. Technical Operations. "The Monte Carlo Meth~od. "Gaming as a Technique of Analysis. University of Chicago. D. of TechnologAy. A. Chicago. Departmint of (ar NationaL Derense.wv Charts. D. Orjxutt.'BM 734. Luc:e. The RAND Corporation. Ill. 9G96 (i9551. P. "Simulation As an Aid in Model Building.._t Statl Economy. SM585. 1957... John Wiley and lons. 33. The 38. 42... "A Guide to twe A'r Battle Model" (Vol. G.. flaming in the Canadian Army. Chicago. M.. CAOR" Memo No.. and Speht. D D. C. A. The RAND Corp. R. "a'if. Cases in Simulation . Survey of Methods for Finding Maximum Valuee Experimenttlly. OL. and Hesse' H. Games a!. T11.. 1958.. 3. and Poe.. II on Nvtations). September 3. Dallas. Ottawa. (1957). DecisionUnit Models and gimulation of the Uit•d. 3'.d Decisions. Greenberger.. A.. Sci. New 34. Colo. 36. Report 573. Santa Monica." Opns. Jew York. McKown. Symposium on Monte Carlo Methods. D. Experimentation by Simult. Inc. 37 Mood. Amer. Meyer. Morgenthaler.). J. Washington. Mood. Institute for Air Weapons Research. Robinson. A Conceptual Model for Studying Strategic Aerial Penetration. Martin Co. G. H.. 1958. 31. P. Ch. C.. 1956." P899.
. Office of Tech. of Commerce.. National ýureau of Standards. Res. and Lavin. 1953." paper presented to 8th National Meeting of ORSA.. J. WAPDTM125. 50. L.. Dept. IAWRSAC Penetration Campaign Model as Applied in March. Thomas..1•.AMCP 7%6. Series 12. "A Rationale for Operational Gaming. 4. M . 54. Spanier. Chicago (1957). Dept of Commerce. Vazsonyi. Ottawa. Carlo Method. C. H.. Schiller.. Thomas.. Wasnington. H. D. S. 1956. and Feurzeig. No. Spanier. January 10. A." Proc. 5. M. Vol. J. ORSA. Monte Carlo Methods and Their Application to Neutron Transport Problems. 1957.. 52.. N. "The Role of Operational Gaming in Operations Research. and Guilinger. 53. Baltimore." Orns. 1957. W. Conf. H. "The Determination of Reqalroments for Warehiouse Dock Facilities. D. Office of Technical Services. 51. J. N. presented to 2nd Annual West Coast Engineering Managemcnt Conf.." Opns.. Jr. "Development and Application of a Teina! Air Batt'le Model. 7b3796 (1959). L. Dept. The Physics and Mathematical Analysis for the Monte Carlo Code TUTT5. 48. C. 45. Spanier.. WAPDTMI86. Thomas. hes. 43. W. Washington. 6481." Opns.. Dept. 231242 (1956). Applied Math. C. Services. 49. 1957. 44. Strauss.. J. (1959). Institute for Air Weqpons Research. 46. Washington. (1959). Electronic Simulation of Business Operations (The Monte Carlo Method). C. n. Kuehn. M. Res... 18i186 (1953).. 1.. "A Comparidon of Stochastii' and Direct Methods for the Solution of Some Special Proolems." Operations Research. University of CThicago.. (1959). A TwoDimensional Monte Carlo Calculation of Capture Fractions on the IBM704. J. D. W.. Smith. Report 574. of Coomerce. and Deemer. Office of Technical Services. 47. WAPD195. D. Jr. of Commerce. 1 (1957). 7. B19 ..R. of thc First Inter. "The Genesis and Practice of Operational Gaming. Canada. Monte U. Taylor. C. J. L.
Weiss. 4959. Res. 0. J. A Simulation for ODtimal Scheduling of Maintenance of Aircraft. Herbert K. 59. Raleigh.. H.R. N. C. 1956. Weiner. September 1957. Oxford." Confon OR. Va.. 7. Coppinger. McG. Weiss. and Moshman. 60. 56. Zimmerman. Joseph F... Edited by The Johns Richard E. "A Monte Carlo Model for Military Operations Research for Management.S. McCloskey and John F.I. 180196 (1959). 1959. North Carolina State College. "LanchesterType Models of Warfare. 1959." P1773. Baltimore: Hopkins Press.. Woodall. Arlington. II. Inc." Opns. "Some Differential Games of Tactical Interest and the Value of a Supporting Weapon System. .. Webb. Thesis.. Herbert K. "An Introduction to War GameE.. C. The RAND Corporation.. 56.E.. M. K.. W. 57. M. Proc. August 17. of the First Inter. Vol. A Simulation Model for Determining Optimum Machine Assignment. B. Analysis.AMCP 706191 55.
Kendall. J." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. and Machol. Y.. G rge. 4. 4. "Resume of Jaeful Formulas in Queueirg Theory. I. 11. A. Res." Opns. Morse. 3.. Series B. and Arnoff. 2 (1951). Opns.. G. 1958. 1953. 255 (WI55)."Optimization of Traffic Delays at Toll 6. System Engineering. B11 . No. Morse. 5. No. Roy. Soc. Leslie C. 5." Opno. H. "On a Congestion Problem in an Aircraft Factory. "Stochastic Properties of Waiting Lines. A.. Ackoff. No. Saaty.. 10. 2 (1954). Res. Res. B 13. New York: "Some Problems in the Theory of Queues. Inventories. Vol. Stat. Vol 3. Booths." University of Michigan Engineering Research Inst Report No. R. G. M7201 R 39. H. J. "A Waiting Line Process of Markov Type. Brigham. 1957.he Solution of the SingleChannel Queueing Equations Characterized by a Time Dependent PotssonDistriTimts. No. IntroNew York: Johm Wiley and 4. 12.." Opns." Sic. 385 (June 3956). P M. °''. Vol. 3. 27. E. R. Res. No.. 2. G. 8. Sons. 9. No. Philip M. "The limeDependent Waiting Line Problem.&ss of HoldQ&6 Operations Research. XIII. Rea. duction to Operations Research..uchak.. W. W. Churchman. Clarke. Dairy.. 13. "Stochastic Processes Occurring in the Theo:xy of Queues. Kendall. Stat. Math. Queues." Onns. L." buted Arrivol Rate and a General Cl.. Vol... Am. "A Priority Queueing Problem. G. McGrawHill. W. Edie. 4 (1955). 2 (June 1956). No.. 6 11956). E. 2 (April 1957). Goode. C. 7. Vol. 2.. John Wiley & Sons.. B." J. and Maintenance. 1957. 2." Ann.AMCP 706191 QUEUEING 1.. Clarke. New York. B. Th'omas L.
R. Blake.. Quart.. 2. 2932J9• (295%).3i1mulation. K.. S.. Johnson. John Wiley and Sors. Conway.) Setup TImes Included. Plan S. M... Research: Methods and Proolems. 4. Dantzig. 1919). Res. R. Indust.. J. L. YcvDtn'... S. (April 1. and Arnoff. 11. L. Fulkerson. "Sequcncing in jcb Shops  9. W. D. B . John Wiley and Sons. Ackoff. G...6 (1959).. New York University. R. AEC Computing and Applied MathematLcs Center. Toward a Theory of 6e... Operations Saslenl. G. !68205 (1956). "Optimal Two and Three Stage Production Schedules (195.. Institute of Mathematical 3cience. L. "Sequencing in Jobs on ý'wo Machines with Arbitrsry Time Lags.." Mgmt. 1. "Some Froblems of Digital System.. L. H. and Stopakis.. Monica.. Research Dept. Log. W. Heller. bnited Aircraft Corp. Mitten. A... R. jothnson.. M. Some Theoretical Results on the Jcb Jhop Scheduling Problem. Sol. SU . C lit. East Hartford. Churchman. R.. 58. J. W. "Some Mathematical 'spects of Scheduling Theory. On the JobShop Schedul ng Froblm. 7.v. This includes results oa Mitten's IO. "A Schedull:g Problem. 1959). New York." Nay. New York (Feb.. M. also see these authors' later paper on "Linear Programming. 12." and App!. and Johnson. R. 73 (May 8. Combinatorial. Rowe.hedulirng.. Rfport SP61. 92110 1. Report NYO2540. New York. Res. B. Chapter 16. W. Ssnt. 8. 1957..." Opns.. Res. 7. of Ind. A. (July 1.. 10.9). Introduction to Operaticns Pesearch." Opns. and Friedman.. 131134 (1959). E. 2. L." Opns. 5." J. System Deelhpment Corp. Soc. S. 1... Statistical 6. 7. 1029 (!9. Chapter 9. 1919. L. Res. 3. SIsson. Report M14331. 6.. Math. "The ScheduleSequencing Problem. Bowman. "So(ution of a LargeScale Traveling Salcsman Pioblem.191 SEQUENCING 1. J. týmbinaorial Approach to the Traveling Salesmen Problem. 5.. and Maxwell. 393410 (1954). W. 13.. Aspects of an MWJ Scheduling Problem. Res. E. 1959)." Mgmt. 621624 (1959). 6168 with Manne. Probabilistic an. Engr. A Review." Opns. 7. 195r).. 4. C. "owleb Fou !ation Discussion Paper No. Bellmkr.AMCP 706. Conn. Sct.
.. 3.cs. Ncddor. N~ew York: Torn Wiley *. 1954) . "The Ir. J.. Yconometri. McGrawHill. 14. No. SLron.arschak..P'vvl ~ T. S. I 1{c5tcabe. Studies in the Ikattematical Theo!ry of Inventory end Proc'. X4... 187222. 19.*1 hianoge~mont 3cltrwe. Arrcit.Z 2.er _ty Pres~i. Kenzietli J. No.. 48. J. "A Mev`i . stanford. Whitin.. Samuel. 299312 (1956) . Ný .. "Boise Models of Inverntory and an Application. 1). Pri~notan ¶)niversIty P~rtss. 283C1. "Guides to Inventori. 1`.j Sons. ~1e2eyCcrtrm Restarc'i: A Survey. f~jr EC . Mar!ýh... T".entc~ry Protlem.. Si~anford Univ. . ¾ s 1' htIzn. Edited by C.. Solcoion. jsc. Leonard Arri." Harvard EZasiness Review. l95t. Vol.. Kstrlin.ciy )f i1ven'xlry Manaeam'rt.". 1"258. 3 (P'. Herbert A.xtfv~~ntrory . Ornizet. Kliaere. VJol." )(git.: xMagnvAent putlignin~g Corp. L.ý2). Koz'gee. 15." Econometrira&.1he Control. Nob.wist. J. ~C W~tnThoasaon 14. J.' Iatro. A. and 3 (Janz. 4. D)vo~eezski.. 264 (!:cember. Vol. T4Astuer.' C. 2. Vol. 5. Thc'msor K!. (July.nb~iFh.23. 1. Df inventoriez and Productlin Rates . i3. &no M'. irris.ILem. "i'7ie Inventory Pr. J. 8.r'U Conn.y Policy. Policy. 34. 13) . an"~ Scarf. F. 2 (April. Vol. Kenneth J. Production PlannIr4 and Inven'ory Cor~t:D. "Diventor. Charl es C. '~i 10. WŽ httin.r. Laderman. orvi '?*!!. Ua~ Churchivan.. 1958. Nos.cuert.jf . and May. Thawsa X w.C. No." Journal of the American St stical Aoseciatior..ary.very 7ze .m Oneri'l~ons Research.. New York. ". SCl. n. 20. T. 32. Naddor. John P. 4 cu~lUtng (ptita .2uction to Operations Research.tv'. Ackoff and Z.aticn. 14"). and Weisz. Lionetl.)t )14 aiiý! PtIe hoy . E. Arrow. i4ieter. 2. and HKt.el L. 9. "Optir~al Tnveato. Thouiaxn X. 2. "A Sclenitfic %etnoA.1:0.AMO:P 76 1. iiagee. "RItinentary Inventory Modeils.§3. T1heodore. 1951) 117.. 1. Vol. and Wolfineltz.A Sirvey.. 7*. 6. No.
.. Memo RM1833. 7. B. W. B. G." ligmt. 14. C. An Introduction to Linear Programming. (ed.. W.AMCP 706191 LINEAR PROGRAMMING Second Symposium. A. Cowles Commission Monograph No. A. Ferguson. "Maximization of a Linear Function of Variablej Subject to Linear Inequalities. 1958.A Mathematical Solution.. 1951. Edited by T. A. 10. Churchman. 3. Koopmans. 3.). Danczig. "The Simplex Method. P. 1953. D. 7." Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. W. B. Vol. 9. R. 12. Dec. "An Application of Linear Programming. 11. and OrchardHays. " Allocation of Aircraft to Routes . Sci. A.: National Bureau of Standards. Proceedings of the Conference on Operations Research in Production and Inventory Control. 1953." RAND Report P891.. 16070. 1957. C. G. C. R. G. R. and E. G. P.An Example of Linear Programming under Uncertain Also published as RAND Demand.. 1954. 2.. Washington. 1956a. B24 II . "Optimality and Degeneracy in in Linear Programming. 4573 (1956).. New York: John Wiley and Sons.. Eng. Jul' 9. Leonard. Henderson. M. Antosiewicz. 8. B. 1954.. Dantzig. John Wiley & Sons. A. John Wiley & Sons.." Econometrica. "The Generalized Simplex Method for Minimizing a Linear Form under Linear Inequality Restraints. 13. Review. and Wolfe. R. "Computational Algorithm of the Revised Simplex Method. 5155 (1955). "Alternate Algorithm for the Revised Simplex Method. Dantzig. L. Dorfmar. L." Aero. W. S.. McGrawHill Book Co. 1955.." RAND Memorandum RM1264. Samuelson. and Dantzig. B. H... E. R. 1956. New York." RAND Memorandum RM1268. 5. A. 13. Ackoff. Linear Programiing. New York." Arnoff. Orden. Charnes.. A. Cleveland: Case Institute of Technology. and A.. New York. Charnes. and Dantzig.. B. Dantzig. G." RAND Memorandum RM1266. Dantzig.. 1953.. Cooper.. 4.. Linear Programmin3 and Economic Analysis. "The Problem of Routing Aircraft . Introduction to Operations Research. Ferguson.. 1. G. B. Arnoff. and Solow. 20 (1052).
" Na7...•u"ey of Research on Mathematical Solutions of "Programming Problems. A. 5398. Orden. F. A. Jr. 22. * Rohde. 1957). S. 17. Satty. F. The Jo~has Hopkins Press." Management Science. Harrison.AMCP 706191 14." Harvard Business Review. Vol." 19. Aew York. C.. 5. 1952. Washington. Joseph 0. A. L. Symposium of Linear Inequalities and Programming.Part XII. Vol.. 1.. Henderson. 15. A... MayJune. 1 (Feb. Y. New York.. 1959a. OrchardHays. J. and Friedman. 1958. 1954b. and Tucker. 23. April. Edited by Joseph F. 18.. 1954. and Phys. 1959.. Hitchcock." Seminar Paper No. "Mathematical Programming. C. "The TravelingSalesman Problem. OrchardRays. 1953. 25. Copinger. "Background. Virginia. Math. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.f Solving the Linear Programming Log. 26. Quart. 391424.ai Method .: U.. Vera. R.. Nonlinear and Dynamic Programnning. A. "The Distribution of a Product from Several 20." Notes on Linear Programming . Operations Research: Methods and Problems. 28. Hoffman. 1954. Sources to Numerous Localities. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. 16." RAND Memo RM1433. Riley.. McCloskey and John F. "Theory of Linear Programming" in Kuhn and Tucker (1956). E. No. M. L. k1941). 24. and Gass.. "ie Problem. "A Composite Simplex Algorithm May 7.. Development and Extension of the Revised Simplex Method. S. Wiley. Lemke." J. 3647 (1954). M. 27." Operations Research. B25 .. "Linear Programming and Operations Research.. Sasieni. W. M. _. 224230 "F•w co SoLve a Linear Prograrming Problem... 1956. I. 2 in Informal Seminar in Operations Research. Yaspan. Alan J. Vol. Goldman. Air Force. 20. W. D. pp. Project SCOOP. pP. Thomas L. Baltimore." Operations Research for Management.. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research. 1 (1955) 17072.nd Associated Techniques: A Comprehensive Bibliography on Linea. "Bibliograpuy on Linear Programming.. McGrawHill. in Antosiewicz (1915/. Flood. Re. Linear Programming a.. II. and Schl&ifer. RAND Mero RM1275.  21. II. W. "S.
1956.: Journal of the Operations Research Society of America." Sympo. Vajda.. A. 5. B26 . U.1 29. S. F. Harvey M. 1958. 5555N62 (1957c). Wagner. 30. The Theory of Games and Linear Programming. ard Orden. "The Personnel Assignment Problem. New York. 1952.ium on Linear Inequalities and Programming. Wagner. 32. 31.. Res. D.Bibliography on Linear Programming...: Project SCOOP. Votaw.AMCP 7O6 4. 19099. Wiley." Opns. D.. "A Supplementar. pp. Air Force. Harvey M. "The Simplex Method for Beginners.. MarchApril. S. C. Washington.
.. J.. "On the Theory of Dynamic Programming Warehousing Problem. 1958. A Mgmt. Andrew. Rev. 111113 (1956). May 1959. Oct. Princeton University Press.. Ten Dyke. Bellman.. E. "Application of Dynamic Programming to the Airplane Minimum TimetoClimb Problem. H Howard. 8. Dreyfus. 3.: Bellman. Economtric Research Program. Sci. 1957. B27 k . 3.. 4. R. Technology Press and Wiley. R. Fifteenth National Meeting of the Operations Research Society. "On a Dynamic Programming Approach to the Caterer Problem. S. of SIAM. T. and Dreyfus. Scientific Programming in Business and Industry. R. R. "Computation of Rocket Step Weights to Minimize Initial Gross Weight." Aero.... 7477 (1957).. 6. J." Jet Propulsion. 2. 338340 (1958). 5.. Vazsonyi. 9.. 16. !960. Bellman.At1CP 706. John Wiley and Sons.I. Princeton University.. RN 3." J. Sci. J. Bellman. 7. Princeton. Dynamic Progra~nming and Markov Processes. Cartaino. 8. Dynamic Programming.. 1958. Econometric Analysis of the United States Manganese Problem. 2. N. R. "A Generalized Equipment Replacement Study. 3.191 i DYNAMIC PROGRAiuMI 1. Schlager. Sci." Mgmt.. P.. New York. '72275 (1956). S. Princetor. N." Mgmt. 11. R. "Dynamic Programming and the Smoothing Problem. 270278 (1957). Optimization of a Von Thuenen Model of the Firm by DynamiL Programminnn. 10. 425435 (196o).. 28. Engr.
L. ment.. Eliezer. 1957. 13. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1951. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. 3. "The Theorn of Games. von Neumann. Hill. 1954. 6. W. Chuxchman. 5. J. Edited by C. The Compleat Strate6yst.. J. Brown? George W. DLuncan. 1952. Statistical Decisions. "Game Theory. McKinsey. Princeton: Princeton University Press. L." Operations Research for MinageEdited by Jozeph F. 8. Games and Decisions. 9. The Theory of Games and Linear Programming. Trefethen. 1957." Introduction to Operations Research. Introduction to the Theory of Games. 1947.. R. and Girshick. D. 1954. Lute. Methuen. M. and Morgenstern. 1954. 0. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. C.AMCP 706191 GAME THEORY 1. A. Koopmans. Vol. 2.' Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. David. New York: John Wiley and Sons.. Ackoff. I. Williams. C. and New York: John WJley and Sons. London: 7. Blackwell. Theory of Games and New York: John Wiley and Sons. Blackwell. Edited by T. Ltd. New York: Johm Wiley and Sons. J. New York: McGrawHill. New York: McGraw B28 . S. 1956.. Naddor. "Iterative Solution of Games by Fictitious Play. R. VaJda. David. 4. and E. C. McCloskey and Florence N. Cowles Commission Monograph No.. and Raiffa.. Arnoff.. Howard.
1903. C. Inc. Fano. 6. 149.. Hartley. 4. Weaver (1949): "The Mathematical Theory of Communicatior. Powers. Inc. Statist. 196219. (1950): The Transmission of Information. 17.. E. H. London. Math." Dover Publications. I.INFORMATION THEORY AMCP 706191 3." John Wiley & Sons.. 7. Lab. New York. L. 535563. Tech. Inc. New York. R. Rept. E.. D. (1953): "'Information Theory and Its Engineering Applications. 15. Electron. Abramson. (1953): The Basic Theorems of information Theory. vol. R. Ill. Kbinchin. (1963): "Principles of the Statistical Theory of Communication. J. Inc. (1957): "Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory. New York. McMillan. W. 2. and W. 9. IRE Trans. Lab. Rept." John Wiley & Yeinstein. Res. A. 5. MIT "Transmission of Information. Shannon. A. Inc.. 16. 7. N. V. (1949): The Transmission of Information.. 12. Briilouin. Ann." McGrawHill Zvok Company. 24. (1959): "Information Theofy and Statistics. Shannon.. New York. Kullbock. Fano. Cherry. Harman.. W. (1961): "Information Theory in Psychology. K.. 65. New York. Quastler. vol. (1958): "Foundations of Information Theory." Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons. MIT Res. 11. Ltd.'' Academic Press Inc. II. H. pp. Tech. 10. Inc.." John Wiley & Sons. Rept. 8. New York. L. New York. R. B. I. S." McGraw Hill Book Company. PP. A. (1928): Transmission of Information. New York. Fano." MIT Res. (1961): Sons. Tech. Inc.. F. 13. 129 . (1956): "A Unified Theory of Information. Bell. Urbena." "An Introduction to Information Theory. A." The University oK Illinois Press. Information Theory and Coding. 3. M. C. (k956): The Zero Error Capacity of a Noisy Channel. McGrawHill. Lab. (19561: The Pree Press of Glencoe. (1956): "Science and Infornation Theory. New York. 14. 18. (1957): "On Human Communication. 311. Bell Sy3tem Tech. Electron." McGrawHill Book Company. New York. 1. Reza. February. Electron.
D. C. Dill. R..1.. and Moses." Journal of Experimental Psychology. (eds. New York. John Wiley and Soins. 3. 404437 (1951). A. "Docision Making in Weapone Development. 19. 127136 (1958). 8.. 7. xckoff... 11. 5.. 1959. of Opns. Ch. 10..AMCP 706. C. 1957. D.191 DECISIONi THEORY I. W. 9. 24. 2. E. Introduction to Operations Research..." Arrow. M. J. Quart. John Wiley and Sons. L.. Res. University of California Press. Arrow. E..." Behavioral Science. John Wiley and Sons. Adams. 1955. N." Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Syr•posium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. "Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in the RiskTaking Situations. G. John Wiley and Sons. 54. 1959. 6." Econometrica. 4 . 121127 (1959). R. "A Model of Riskless Choice. and March. L. "Problems of Value Measurement for a Theory of Induction and Decisions. L. 172187 (1954). "Rational Choice Functions and 0.. Sci. 110 (1959). E. W.. 5. 36. 5. W. Churchman of Value. "A Test of Statistical Learning Theory Model for TwoChoice Behavior with Double Stimulus Events.. K. and Ackoff. Measurement: DefinitJons and Theories..pns. Berkeley. "Operations Research and National Planning. J. New York. 457468 (1957). and Arnoff. K J Econcmica. 4. B30 . in Business Decision Making. Res.). "An Approximate Measure J. Elementary Decision Theory. and Fagot R. 12. C. Livingston." Harvard Business Review. Churchman. 305317 (1957). Games and Decisions: Introduction 1".. R... and Grant.derings. Chernoff." Administrative Expectations 3." 2. R. R. L. Churchman.. Ckuzchman. and Raiffa H. P. H. R. Anderson. and Ackoff. C'.. S.. New York. and Ratoosh. and Critical Survey. 105135. Luce. C W. 307340 (1958). J. 1947. L. H.. W. "The Rcle of Cyert.. New York.
D." Mgmt. 195)4 Salvesor. C. R. H. of Psychology. S. 18. Arthur W. L. Pepper." Amer.. A. The Sources of Value. E "An Analysis of Decisions. A.. Thrall. Psychology. end Davis. J.. New York. 4. Marschak.. B31 . Simon. 19. "Stability of Choices Among Uncertain Alternatives. New York." J. Siegel. "Present Accomplishmnts and Future Trends in ProblemSolving and Learning Theory.. H. Sci.. 22. 16. University of California Press. Coombs. 49. 15. Berkeley. "Decision Making Behavior in a Free ChoicA Uncertain C'tcome Situation.). 3742 (1959)." Amer. X. W. Simon.)ns. John'Wiley and Sons. Models of Man.. 601615 (1956). Sci. 17.AMCP 706191 14. 253283 (1959)." Mgmt. 11.. 1957. "Elevents for a Theory of Teams. "Theories of Decision Making in Economics and Behavioral Science. Nelson. 203217 (1958). A. 1. S. Decision Processes. H. and Goldstein.. C. of Exper imental Psychology. 1958.." American Economic Review.. W1l1i' H. John Wiley and r. 57. 278281 (1950). 20. McGlothin. 127137 (1953).. R. 21. (eds. 69. J..
AMCP 112 (June 1965) "Concept Formulation ./Support Sy temw Cost Categories and Elements". "Research and Development. "U.opment". Volhime I (January 9.opment 4. Principles and Philosophy".9 "Research and Development of Matriel. 3. Army Research and Deve. AMC 158 (August 1966) AR 3718 (July 1968) *. . 7045. 11.'•P 7051. 0966) "Research and Development of Materiel.ams.1 6. 5. Small Development Requiremen 4 s w•a Qualitative Materiel Development Oblectives". AR 7055 (October 1964) AMC 7028 (January 1968) 10. S.Prerequesites to Initiating Effort". 12. Army Material 2. 7. Volume I.AMCP 706191 OFFICIAL REGU1ATIONS ". 132 . 8..eapor. Phase I. Materiel Systems Analysis". AR 1118 (March 1968) DOD "Programming System". GuldB to Life Cycle of' U) S. "Arey Pror. AMC 7014 (July 1966) "Project Defilition". . AMC 7030 (May 1966) "Cost Analysis Handbook". Army Materiel Command Materiel Studies Review Committee". "Processing Qualitative Materiel Requirements. Army Materiel Command (January 1968) Engineering or Operational Systems Deve. ?lanning. Department of Defense Directive. "Cost Analysis Program". Department of Defense Directive 3200.
.red Table SC4 Table C5 C6 of F Values Table of Critical I Values Exponentlal Table Table of 2A 2 (p.s of ro 'required number of failures) Table j C C8 C9 Figure Ci of "I(X) Cinfidence Belts for Proportiorc C.AMCP 706191 J Table C1 C2 APPEIHII C STATISTICAL TAK.ES Title Standard Nomal Table Table of t Statistic C3 Chi Squi.d) Table of Valu.
3 1.4971 0.4662 0.0060 0."50 o.0w.13J 0.4(" 0.4661 0.4554 0.iup 0.4357 0.00 0.21ý7 O.4904 0.M2 0.496 0.467 0.05? 0.4069 Iol3 W 0.4". 3M6 ck.69" 0.0.4W 0.4641 0.I 0.461 O.81 0..1734 0.63P2 0..4406 0 "is8 0.8 1.365 10. "M1 0.6 O.431 ).. 0. *9N" 0.!0% 0.4949 2 0.45 0. . 0.14463 0. 0.4934 4 0.49" 0.4960 0..0" .4 0.4671 O.4306 C.14 0.. 0.tS99 OW 0.1.11 1..4113 V.j? 1 0.4.49t O..l4ft 0.3 0.7O 0. %.25 40.""7 fi O .430 o14I6 10. 0.am 0.4.1*f 0.4666 O.6%44 0.4 1.94"3 O. 4t.M .1 3.4936 0.43"4 0.49Th 0.o~~10 . r~ f411ObA037 Q :J9 1.490 0."16 33 .177 G.AOl 0. .29 j.""9 0.4719 0.4345 0."27 0.4469 0.49 0.0 3 Mob0 0....4iil :.7 1.466 0.466 r 0.221 o.AMCP 706191 1 0.5 0.5 1.1844 0..3" .4265 Q.g.3*9 0.3"s 0.""4 o.2369 0. "8 .649M 0.4 0.2 a..2331 1d~ c o.1950 09 2" o.4661 0. 9%0.6* 1)."6 ::.4901 0.0.4s99 0. . 945 1049 0.4 OAa76W 0.'."o 0.406.1094 100438 O.. 1.219 0^38i 6.2 0."W OW 0.120 0.W6i 0.3&56 0.4"3.. 4W7 0.3M1 0.39 oa.4"1 0.453 0.2357 0. 3.419 0.*62* 0251 0.AM 0.299 0.4170 j0.O 0..3m.6 0. 6o 0.1t6 0. 0.431S 1.49'" 10..4~ VA10).453 0.10O.."77 01.2666 O.42K1 1~ 0.soM 0..W6' 0.3159 0.4*1 Iow0~ 13 0% .4906 0.039 OAM7S 0.307o.1517 0.Ow 1 0.7 0 I00 .s"05 0.9 6r 0M 0.4764 .0 034130.05 0. 4m3 04147 0.4913 0. " 0.130 0.ýmt 0.kj49.1."4 0.6 1.4535 a.449 0.ft.". o74 a.429 0.4916 0'409 0a. 0.4730 0.6.4w6 0.6968 1 0.49 00.2 10."~' ." 0."32 0.4 1.2 0. a%? 0.Usk4 ""1 0.2806 O.4r' 0..awy *.2 1.O94 O.0636 6 0.1700 0.11VQ J."C 0.46A9 0.4* 0.4w6 0.9 0.4646 2. 0.4671 0.4913 0.S36r5 .1626 0.403 .494 0.4474 0.0110 0.9 0..4966 C.49 0..M$3 ."64 037 770Y v.4616 v.4162 0."M6 0. 0O. 0. .4963 0." 0.6% 0. 0.09 0 "I .3r12 0'""3 W0.20%4 0.411A04 0.Lý.1"46 0OMA' 0. 0.0 0.2"" 0.04W Oo j3410 49M6~ 3i *99" j .Y 0.e 0.~ oM 0 0.4664 0."6e o. "1105.MW 3.*M6 0.4726 0" .950.01 0~v.42W7 0.1m9 C.""995 *. .7S047162 *.394 260.m4 Ia 0.&929 0.473 0..4690 O. :.0b40 0. 4" ~0 wk7 2.""6 c" .3 2.1j 0..."@a 0.4m3 0.2.4 0.3079 0.4614 a.429 0.4117j 0.24a% 0.47$. 494 10.4131 0.v0.463 O QjnP IOA .4515 0."86 a" 4490 0.481T 0 46? ().01900190079 066 O 0.404 0.2 2..""7 o.43* 0.&Wk 0. r36 0.159 0:..94 A..o .4949 3.196 0.4931 0.37 Nn.69 j 244k 0.
50 1 1.75 1.7'27 0.54 2.98 1 36 .8 b.75 3.50 8 L..71.311 )(0.70o3 o.53 I 2.25 3.r 2.0ii* 2.6 3.71 2 08 ..6 2.47 ?.71 0.'1 1. f* 2.41 2.6 2.5a 1.94 1.98 .65 2t3 263 125 151 PW 0.72 .68 0681 I6 2.83 2..8: 1. 23 1 .82 2.6o 4.68 1.'14 1.68 1.76 175 1.82 2.161 Z * 500 lo O.67 2.17 3..90 2.05 0.44 '42 2.7a r 2.iT6 067 0. C2 OF t •Ps ______ of P abi bllty 0.73 ?.66 2.18 6.11 .674! O 0.6/.72 .3 57 2.88 111 15 16 17 18 0.35 4.13 2.57 2.661 1. 711 1.718 0.T9 o.92 2.09 2.06 2.92 o.30 3.52 2.76 2.816 2.' .13 2.13.20 ý 2.2( 22Zj 2.70 1.72 1.A 1.T72 1.07 2.39 ?6 2.673' 166I 1.697 1 0.687 1.636 o.66 1.96 .684 a.5 * 35 45 30 60 0.654 o.45 2.05 2.6 .51 2.36 4.00 3.695 1.80 2.000 0.141 2.73M i. 2.96 .46 2116 2. 'i 2.78 2.06 2.694 1.83 1. ?.90 2.6 TO 9D no o.66 2 5 o.7oo 0.j 2.688 2.07 2.47 2.06 13 2 o.7o6 0 711 2.741 6 2.03 2.01 k.02 2.92 2.683 o.691 o.7.683 1.09 .02' 31.84 21 22 23 o.48 2.96 .0577 067 1 6? 1.689 0.79 2.57 3.55 19 20 0.a6 .50 2.3." o.c .685 0.9 2.16 C.81 8) 8 1.a6 IM1~ 1.18 6 2..~ .o0 2.6Q2 2.6m o. 35 2.679 6 0. 1 2.64 i 1 1.74 0.68 .692 0..71 1.7 3.041 2.82 1 63.T7 1.95 2.10 2.113 1. L70 .70 1'.36 9 10 0.58 2.:14 3.69o 0.36 3.48 ?.4o 2.685 0.lo6.68" 0.686 24 25 V7 .765 3 S0. 1.M 2.76 2.68o 0.o 2 49 2.5 12.90 . .60 2.31 2.67 o. W . 3.46 26 29 30 0.602 40 1.38 2. L 2.12 2.AMCF 706191 TA" __TANX.00 2.
4 4 C' 4ý1 0 0%0* CJ C'i*4L CA '( t:(C6 Ci0 0..)1 lA o~~.I Ln4% M  r4 % u.t ~%l ~ 00Roo 4. o%CV'( I rA04 OIA.4.' v 4% W Cu.4%M0 FAI~~ "11 .%. (JD q NN (%.f .OD.CU Ign ri NMtA t MMM'g() am q\. o q000.4 " ..4u o i.CM H qý M'(.4~( CY 04 S0 c L J0 o H 04 J 4 l(4 4 C%14J %D ~4c CU . Cu C4 Mtn'4 AA4 * .iOrO t.*L i'O ý00.Ncu Mtt ý41 o 0 biti'0~o . Eo n r D M t.tC mt C(ilo 7%eJtl0% 4( Imii~~* NO%0%*C ("i tC% 8 tlrq fiO% 14 MU0% 4C%00%.2 Aw A~4~ib~C.~?A MA 0R' W%.4 N MO 0 a 04ACOO%'~ cli Ncu 0. 4.s 0.4 .4 u4Jm4 fN" M ~0%0 r! Er4 ' L N: C~lL.Cloc i uOIQA4 fl0% 0.r4(Ji N 40 AM 4.4Az U. *uc *CJA i Cwp i ~ m 0P 4. A % r I~.M 4 (4Ca cu.4 4 . Oýt 6r44 .4 .u.0.4 4 (V%(S(IQ b r4.I4.4( MC Eý4i~(L (hWd M0M 0C 'OMflM C~CA ..AMCP 706191 a 0 01 4 n a 4 IAC% u (%J" WC atJ M.
3160 5.4205 5.8951 3.4221 5.246 11.0738 8.5971 3.3589 6.881U 7.0665 2.9259 5.993C 2.0569 5.0 99.5M66 8.00o7 4.356 27.3511 4.7816 3.694 .0166 7.8616 4.6395 4.1399 4.5639 5.3359 4.1259 3.2635 4.4735 32910 3.3997 8.8861 4.5263 7.4661 10.2016 5.0567 I 6.5910 6.2167 5.4994 4.6315 4.5667 3.198 5 6 16.1027 4.522 6 5859.976 8 5981 6 99.4959 3.672 14.2854 S19 20 S21 22 23 ' ± I .456 8.9382 4.489 14..3389 3.3858 6.7726 5.3 99.4530 3.1850 8.0045 3.0179 4.503 34.1195 3.157 16.5644 3.5276 3.6990 3.7459 10.2884 3.:70o 4.3961 3.zý84 4.6191 4.289 8.0920 3.5911 3.5290 3.2922 5.0060 6.0449 4.5225 3.3629 3.0009 4.9386 3.9392 3.6204 4.8117 3.345 14.44i1o 4.7188 5.0129 5.07'40 4.0354 4.258 13.5056 3.3 99.2053 5.2560 3.5119 6.24T79 4.116 21.8948 3.9106 5.259 10.1776 5.3134 4.5113 2.0421 3.374 27.3904 5.0103 4.977 5 5763.6356 7.0740 14.7213 183 8.!774 4.5 99.7848 3.4210 3.3045 3.2057 6.4529 5.7254 3.299 28.i58 7.5680 5.7804 17 8.6667 3.817 18.8183 1.7131 4.7190 5.4796 3.6160 9.0289 5.3707 5.9928 6.6393 2.1911 4.uper 1 Peroent Polnts Deg of Pro" inal•tusrtor vL 1 .2558 3.1187 3.5594 8.8401 6.925 12.5310 7.5556 4.3581 3.6629 2.0960 8.8467 7.3458 3.3021 4.2001 6.1735 3.1982 3.6349 14.6363 7.6811 8. 10.1818 3.7394 5.7649 4.5625 7.2600 lo.3141 7.6129 5.6950 4.4604 6.672 8.6052 3.6318 6.8406 3.T795 11.6755 4.3126 4.1785 4.4558 41.1483 lo.9424 2" $ 11 2 1i3 114 15 16 9.0215 7.2419 28.388 27.5681 .1015 4. V Distributiou.9919 6.0173 2.5378 14.6683 5.710 15.9267 3.85A0 6.4137T4 4.9526 5.AMCP 706191 STABLz cQ4 .3875 4.o04 9.237 15.8166 4.8714 3.6822 3.1911 6.4567 3.6987 3.166 29.7583 3.7653 3.6690 5.1400 4.6 99.7054 3.7 99.lO16 9 6022.9774 14.=0 3 5W403.6366 4.7102 3.9943 7.4 25 26 27 28 29 30 40 60 120 6.8876 2.1121 6.5790 5.6136 5.2 98.4119 5.8020 2.1 2 1999.0643 4.1494 3.6491 8.207 7 5928.6637 5.3302 9.1238 2.7804 5.o6o 9.4170 5.2262 6.8229 7.000 30.8206 4.855P 3.9530 3.3882 3.911 15.4671 5.7539 3.2986 3.3183 4.7T45 4.0771 5.765 5.4.1056 4.56.9880 3.7T5 13.9761 7 8 9 10 12.0692 4.4568 3.5586 2.5138 3.6767 7.5976 7.955q 2.7698 7.0297 3. 4 5624.9493 3.1850 1.8018 5.4381 5.0919 4.7910 3.8189 5.7918 2.2172 3.27T4 10.6272 3.799 10.9266 6.7185 6.7010 6.4073 C5 .4995 3.4513 7.4057 3.3688 4.8932 1.332 27.0146 3.1415 4.659 2 3 4 4052.6396 3.2779 4.5 99.392 9.967 8.8233 3.0259 4.8896 4.8616 8.3192 3.9454 7.1726 2.5003 4.5580 3.8283 3.6305 3.5097 4.3302 3.2259 3.5523 7.3239 3.
3682 21 3.411 6313.8741 7 .5931 18 3.5742 2.3840 2.0743 5.3535 L.9595 2.3098 22 3.6359 2.148 99.00o45 30 V.5383 2.6591 2.0204 6.8049 16 3.6203 2.6192 3.7008 3.4559 3.4274 3.8801 5.6557 1.6668 5.436 99.6316 2.6495 4.8 2 99.1554 5.3793 7.9690 5.6017 2.9090 3.4946 2.6 6260.9500 1.8143 9 5.449 99.7805 2.eMK18 2.5660 2.5839 2.9603 3.9377 2.2940 3.7380 2.9394 15 3.8005 2..1848 2.2965 3.432 99.7017 2.501 26.8154 3.1553 3.0032 2.66W0 2.6530 2.AMCP 706191 TABIU• C4 (continued) P Distribution: U"per 1 Percent Points "1 Degrees of Freedom In Numeratw 10 12 15 20 24 30 40 60 120 1 6055.4699 2.4530 2.2107 2.229 27.0062 1.8447 2.8363 1.6597.0 2.3603 2.9921 5.8959 2.1808 3.2079 2.3143 5.6964 1.6025 3.3689 13.6202 2.546 5 10.0941 27 3.0316 2.9185 2.3608 3.0320 29 3.838 9.5522 2.3476 3.1313 3.7530 2.4035 2.0642 2.3055 2.3363 2.2559 2.1653 3.3209 2.5582 4.4665 7.7183 6.8685 2.0342 2.7488 2.8783 1.7785 2.5026 2.5223 2.7200 2.4961I 2.1209 1.6318 2.316 26.416 99.0835 2.85914 2.0209 3.8684 2.3719 3.5484 2.4923 2.000 C6 .1615 3.6662 3.9411 3.4 6366.374 9.0385 1.0031 2.3706 3.2141 3.2629 2.8887 2.3542 2.9965 3.933D0 2.7256 2.1694 2.8354 2.2695 9.4494 3.1007 3.9791 14.2034 13.552" 7.1315 2.4689 2.4831 4.7608 2.1533 3.2880 13.8326 5.6742 2.0990 3.2938 2.6507 2.2344 2.6oo6 1.745 9.399 99.1984 2.2469 3.7 6286.3523 2.9579 2.598 26.9460 4.395t 6.8883 7.2656 3.0819 3.0346 1.5527 3.7002 2.7459 2.5590 6.4691 5..8274 2.1118 6.1294 26 3.5355 2.221 26.3269 4.0740 3.0194 13.0471 2.7059 4.6993 2.0 99.3978 3.9256 2.1729' 3.8001 3.1107 4o0.8080 4.4253 3.5923 1.558 9.0771 3.3273 2.2576 23 3.6909 17 3.1432 5.652 92020 7.6557 3.5052 3.4054 4.8588 4.2961 13 4.4397 i.9172 13.3805 1.8011 2.0299 2.4089 3.0285 1.8442 2.9990 2.474 3 27.0 6339.1681 25 3.9311 2.6675 2.1981 4.8584 3.6947 2.3591 4.7761 3.4029 2.6W6 3.9931 2.5168 2.8 6106.2565 10 4.7528 2.9205 2.458 99.3099 2.2311 3.3127 6.5393 2 4.1654 30o04 2.7493 2. 2.8502 2.5831 2.5667 4.8600 1.8492 11 4.2912 7.5355 3.2992 2.3637 2.3253 2.1319 3.0618 28 3.3860 2.505 26.7572 4.3 6208.1670 2.5070 3.3413 3.0182 2.4170 2.7827 2.3117 3.872 26.39"'4 4.491 99.4951 2.0568 5.2548 3.0942 2.5222 3.7628 1.1154 2.1003 lk 3.125 14 4 14.9780 2.8796 2.4568 2.1142 13.3246 i.53.690 26.6648 60 2.2588 3.1378 1.7263 120 2.1114 4.7 6234.5868 3.2509 4.9621 4.1156 4.7290 4.4212 2.5848 2.3 6157.4730 1.7805 3.5082 19 3.3105 3.0o2 9.5487 2.1471 2.8348 2.9249 2.463 9.81431 14.5773 2.4338 20 3.1978 2.6486 4.2106 Z4 3.6904 3.929 9.2285 5.4893 2.7222 7.0880 3.198 9.2793 4.0965 2.9360 1.4721 2.2325 2.0316 4.2273 3.0096 3.8596 3.1915 2.5216 14.5151 4.8150 2.052 26.62o1 8 5.9084 5.7908 1.051 6 7.8047 2.
5415 6o0595 5.7198 5.4401 3 4083 3.2852 4.1212 3.540 A4.1548 3.3890 3.7633 2.8911 3.5289 2.04 10.3492 34.5286 4.50T5 4.4336 Upper 2.6238 2.3187 4.1918 12.7283 3.8800 2.0741 6.9047 6.6648 3.735 9.7313 2. 8587 3.8807 3.2093 10 6.0509 3=074 2.3425 3.1227 .4239 5.8043 3.5o6 3 174343 4 12.1821 4.7167 5.498 14.387 14.8188 3.8715 5.1151 1T 6.7790 3.7181 4.9•128 2..5764 3.6045 7.68614 5.627T4 2.7074 2.2598 6.3327 3.6513 2.2309 3.8232 4.7444 2.1287 3.7977 2.6686 2.AMCP 706191 ( TABLE C4 (continued) 7 DistrIbution: S1 2.4683 4.8021 2.5996 5.2T67 3.4742 4.9849 3.9876 5.1995 916 6.4o82 7 948.903? .2979 15 6.66 963.85 39. .0232 2.3828 4.2909 4.8077 2.7791 2.2361 4.6096 5.4754 3.8549 3.2994 2.5675 5.9034 3.2853 3.8531 5.6528 2.67T40 2'.5709 9 7.1261 3.8266 5.2151 3.6972 2.5154 2.0079 3. 799.5988 5.7531 2.610 2.'.6634 3.3879 6.4160 5.0420 18 19 7.9216 5.3120 3.9959 3.8994 4.0526 4.7572 6.7293 2.2559 5.6766 2.1987 3.2499 3.4143 14 6.026o 3.355 14.3948 2.8740 2.4358 3.1718 3.11 39.8197 5.6943 3.1464 5.0239 20 L 0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 40 60 120  2.6867 4.8240 2.6472 3.6189 4.34332 4.7211 3.6697 3.8131 7 8.7147 5.3572 4.1718 3.5919 2.9338 2.7586 3.3472 4.0781 4.7636 6.28 39.9563.4564 5.6072 3.4844 4.2093 3.9024 2.6810 5.1283 3.885 9.6264 5.3645 7.63o0 4.6083 3.4613 4.9685 2.8919 3.5597 4.4199 34.3880 3.9447 2.6586 5.0625 3.2863 3.007 6 8.5014 3.9949 4.2934 302 !.1524 5.0053 2.101 9.2006 4.5 Percoent Points 5 921.0959 4.22 39.5894 3.2501 3.439 9.7667 3.3794 3.79 2 38.655 4.9777 5.9228 2.9686 2.0265 2.7460 2.0727 8 7.9291 2.3530 3. 1556 3.50 39.8173 4.0895 3.7e58I 6 937.8365 2.102o 4.8840 2.2875 956.218 5 10.0510 3.4633 3.7863 2.2272 5.6517 4.331 14.6331 5.o•440 3.7505 3.3067 3.3427 3.5068 2.8898 5.9796 8.1528 4.2674 3.5234 4.8478 2.624 9.5587 3.7027 2.9027 2.0438 3.8256 4.1186 4.5879 3.6889 3.8738 2.2205 4.0828 2.07683 4.5538 13 6.2891 3.762e 2.5027 3.5147 3. 16 39.5665 Degpees of •reedom In Numerator v 3 864.7241 12 6.9792 7.7820 2.4519 2.9367 S11 6.2751 4.3197 4.0077 2.3799 3.6309 2..2217 2.2270 3.9563 2.3344 2.3289 3.89143 2.8567 4.7829 3.000 16.6065 3.9653 4.7863 5.9498 3.4•379 3.248 15.5226 5.165 15.14147 3.8392 2.0112 3.0488 2 M.9253 3.0546 3.i616i 34 899.649 8.5878 5.7650 4.473 8.1034 3.2421 34.9781 5.2857 5.58 39.9946 2.8667 2.6106 2.1835 3.1136 C7 .2417 34.34117 2.6955 4.9539 3.6638 3.4827 8 9 1 • /• 1 647.o721 3.6043 3.1971 3.8046 3.373 39.5116 3.5746 5.1973 6.
8478 2.5027 2.8940 3.51149 2.2695 2.3736 12 13 3.1423 3.9072 1.1819 2.1399 3.7874 2.14076 2.13141 2.9633 2.9493 2.6192 6 5.253 8.2544 3.7694 3.71 39.037 8.5112 1 2 3 40 60 120 t 2.0798 2.2389 2.3918 3.8326  20 993.2951 9 3.3861 2.581o 1.2$32 2.4.14984 2.41613 6.9862 17 2.1469 15 3.1422 2.52.6758 2.0035 !.63 39.5217 3.61141 1.AMCP 706191 I.6142 3.0018 1.5850 2.6158 2.6667 2.3654 3.9415 1.9429 1.3644 2.7006 2.3692 2.0477 2.1333 2.2702 2.382 2.90 39.5412 2. 12 9T6.5604 3.2716.01422 2.5731 2.7279 3.5699 2.1772 3.4.3675 2.992 8.1751 5.8664 1..498 1T. 6.9796 1.1214 8.81439 5 6.7318 22 2.2873 2.8817 1.5333 2.5286 30 2.10 39.5955 2.1107 2.7844 ýi.1735 2.3662 4.1562 2.dL 1 Distribution: Upper 2.7196 2.3811 2.3831 2.11460 2.6437 2.1816 2.0125 14.5 Pernt Points Degrees of Fr~eedom in Nlumemtor v.14247 2.3o89 3. 21 2.3299 3.  C8 .5257 3.1819 2.8527 1.2261 3.6252 2.0760.4 39.4484 2.o613 2.2422 2.9811 2.7230 2.44120 2.4.1359 2.8373 2.473 14.4613 7 4.31486 2.2773 31532 3.4186 3.1176 2.9472 3.14835 60 1009.5676 28 2.99 1.3438 2.1997 3.465 14.1225 4.8028 1.143714 2.415 14.3072 2.1989 14.C613 1.8828 2.6209 3.1183 2.9995 3.967 1.3882 2.5109 6.6742 2.4&5 2.72149 2.9353 1.3 39.0677 1.14150 3.3285 5.6702 3.5678 2.2759 2.1512 6.7875 2.14667 3. TA I C4 (continue.5089 2.7689 2.2032 2.398 14.167 8 5599 6.0032 1.0928 2.0069 1.14295 2.081 8.902 13.5598 2.0257 1.3329 3.50ý5 3.4665 2.0415 2.5678 .3937 2.5590 2.2324 2.3624 3.1952 2.6396 25 2.6371' 1.3092 8.4J48 141.8398 3.14611 2.1684 4.5085 2.0099 2.3883 1.4445 2.6590 2.42'1'7 5.1946 2.82911 1.1725 3.8752 1. 10 968.0501 2.0517 1.411 14.8664 19 2.9140l 1..2465 2.13314 2. 2.5660 40 1005.7867 1.4119 14 8.1565 2.0187 2.9055 1.0089 1. .2693 2.3082 2.3273 2.82149 2.8 39.93 3.82149 1.7737.4909 2.3567 2.6560.6368 2.8682 3.217/4 2.OO0 j 2.5021 2.32148 2.3329 2.7611 8 14.5246 5.1869' 2.14688 2.44171 2.6171 2.4111 6.947 8..0602 1 16 2.72112 1.0276 2.8621 2.9447 15 984.4296 3.4822 1.0739 1.1540 2.0527 2.7559 2.3005 2.0693 2.91441 L.7440 1.8861 1.0853 2.21497 14 3.9450 1.9633 2.6668 ..14872 2.2090 2.73214 2.2  30 1001.2533 2.8072 1.7888 2.6669 3.3315 2.5895 27 2.')5I 11.9063 2.7597 1.0728 2.81437 2.2989 2 2.1172 4.9591 1.8152 1.81491 4.2780 5.6 39.9639 10 3.6998 0 232 .2097 2. .1763 2.6017 2.2131 2.1570 2.7797 2.11523 2.8781 1.3163 2.2684 .3890 2.52142 2.6135 26 2.91477 2.6682 24 2.7085  24 997.6899 1.2573 6.9589 4.8173 20 2.0923 2.26t7 4.3110 3.3604 6.2269 5..0 1018.2558 2. .3953 2.54173 29 2.6142 2.25 39.4.214714 2.1121 2.3104 1.4110 2.14327 1.0483 .7168 cu 11 3.4.5519 2.0693 6.6658 ..8932 2.25514 3.889% 2.87 39.0652 14.1446 2.9545 2.9222 18 2.3153 2.456 14.1012 3.3214 2.0799 2.6808 2.481 13.337 8.72014 120 o101.640.22314 2.9299 1.01531 c.9o45 4.1984 3.
9988 5 6 7 8 S 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 6.98W3 3.2565 4.7014 2.6001 4.2252 4.2913 2.6049 2.7389 3.8661 2.8321 2.21817 3.7587 2.191 TABLE C4 (continued) I DistrlbaaJloa UmpsVr 5 ?eroerr Dog m * III Points of ft d u s I n r a or .01ko0 6 L0 3.6672 4.4590 4.4324 2.1968 3.4"90 5.11 3.0867 2.9406 6.18 3.7144 2.513 1 0.77 2.8443 4.7109 2.51135 2.4139 19 1.4591 2.1665 2.8123 5.7141 2.0946 2.16 19.2389 3.0012 2.2172 3.958J 1.6207 2.5277 2.7725 4.9e01 3. 2.3201 24 25 26 27 28 29 4.1750 2.368j 2.4928 3.2793 3. W85 3.3732 2.2592 5.1122 3.0.o41o 1 2 4 161.3258 3.221 22 23 4.1638 2.4381 3.1028 3.4515 18 4.5252 2.0986 2.5767 2.9957 4.7S05 2.L 4.330 8.4563 2.1122 2.4226 2.4434 3.7955 2.2662 2.9443 3 215.8486 2.1463 3.9961 4. 3.6613 2.3883 233.8187 2.74M 2.2501 2.49C4 2."1 18.150o 3.5102 9.1791 3.4741 2.715 3.9013 2.300.3053 2.0556 3.0088 2.0717 2.v 2.3852 33690 3.8477 2.6987 2.1 2 19.0164 1.2490 2.3881 3.3371 2.6283 2.6079 5.110e8 3.9023 2.7472 4.3248 11.6572 2.0254 2.7257 3.8759 4.7964 2.8868 6.266 6.8799 C9 .7413 2.37M 8.3177 5.3965 2.5140 2.7278 2.37A 3.7861 5.73714 4.4195 2.88 39.2417 4.6400 2.3359 2.3513 1 .1174 4.3928 2.0990 3.33143 2.000 9.2560 7 7 236.80 2.9674 5.353 8.2821 2.5431 4.2782 2.4105 3.6&3 3.9582 2.1205 2.1789.3)58 2.991i 2.3874 3.164 2.0718 3.5806 3.8962 2.36.1471 2.3277 3.9751 2.7083 3.7066 2.9153 2.9480 2.1960 4.41768 2.71 19.3009 4.934 1.9134 4.5521 6.71101 2.8183 4.8660 3.1802 2.9340 2.7763 2.2o66 3.02.3593 2.3.2900 2.9646 4.80•6 3.6987 2.6060 2.5451 2.5336 2.6.404T7 2.3163 2.1059 4.9.54 19385 8.5581 2.3883 2.4943 3.8853 5.25•0 2.3748 2.5005 3.2107 2.2927 3.5990 2.S419 2.0662 3.04 2.3*01 3.5082 2.128 7.1922 4ý5337 4.2555 2.58 19.35M6 3.6458 2.6337 3.8415 12.838T 2.5876 2.o r25 3.3551 2.5219 3.7669 2.0848 3.9467 2.4472 2.AMCP 706.1433 4.4095 4.4876 2.6767 3.4903 5.2839 3.7870 3.50 19.1203 M378 3.6613 2.0096 2.1599 31M4 3.5911 2.68CR 2.5874 3.6030 2.8524 2.2100 4.77 19.3803 2 4.9503 4.8100 2.3205 2.4780 3.5727 2.0135 6.0942 8 238. .0123 2.6848 2.1709 4.) 2.0981 3.5491 2.2874 3.9604 2.9647 3.7086 24.7642 2.2229 30 40 4.11227 2.296 9.3439 3.5914 5.6408 2.0191 3.4453 2. v .172 6.247 9.231T7 3.4205 2.2597 4.7729 2.:296 3.6143 71 4.5377 2.7571 4.5719 2.L.2141 2.0069 2.1830 3.3719 2.5914 4 6 230.3507 3.C970 2.9452 6.7581 2.5480 4.3661 2.8951 2.0503 4.1355 3.b8g6 2.1631 240.6331 3.2039 3.21 3.1240 2.8626 3.99 19.5868 2.5915 3.
6169 2.7831 1.9796 1.0264 1.32 19.5136 2.7918 1.8g20 1.3893 1.403'S 2.1834 2.0166 1.3472 3.25 254.8687 1.ýJ 241.8217 1.8259 2.6710 14 2.3807 2.5705 24 30 40 251.9276 2.9105 1.2776 2.8027 1.4105 3.7684 1.7T51 1.878 i.7398 3.0629 2.1479 2.17 1.790.2043 2.7uO 2.0391 2.41589 2.3392 2.8YF6 2.5747 3.3519 1.8432 1.3758 3..2756 2.2365! 2.1179 2.9190 1. 1.9245 1.3984 3.1757 2.4" 5.3180 2.9317 1.842 1.3082 2.1503 2.1506 2.85%3 1.2574 2.387Q 2.1242 2.2043 2.7173 2.2501 2.o1 1946 .6365 3.2664 2.9999 3.7872 2.6661 0 13 2.0558 2.0791 2.0275 2.6037 2.4901 2.8055 1.11•17 2.8117 1.857 4.8533 11.4259 60 25k.8128 1.0476 2:.2840 5.1•247 2. 4.3650 3.3779 20 2.1058 2.7T74 4.9005 2.803 1.067 2.4753 2.7534 5.3077 2.3803 2.97T 2.53t3 1.0921 2.20 19.5089 1.0096 2.90m0 1.5943 1.0000 I I .7111 1.6166 8.9842 1.51•94 5.75X3 1.39•01 1.n 26 2.74M8 1.6871 4.2524 2.5581 4.471 5.967T 2.1938 2.2878 2.4957 3.1646 2.23511 2.3487 2.5173 5.5766 1.2966 2.5601 2.4314 3.1111 2.9168 2.9380 1.1152 2.1141 2.9604 2.8409 1.221.0825 2.0283 2.9898 1.8657 1.1768 2.91.1 3.1323 2.5543 1.5720 %.6777 3.9130 2.8380 1.533 1.6090 2.0707 2.2258 2.9461 1.454 19.5437 16 *.88 J43.95 19.1778 2.919p 3 e.7186 2.55.146•3 1.9645 1.1282 2.6717 1.75.3043 3.8874 1.5705 2.11630 2.2539 1.34110 8.8895 1.7505 1.o76S 1.14 19.3I10 22 2.4045 2.9302 1.7331 i.8842 1.1(C7 2.87412 3.6587 1.9446 1.41499 18 2.2197 2.8780 1.2064 2.274T 24 25 IT 28 29 30 40 60 120  2.6223 1.8389 1.12022.8oM 3.62f'.9926 1.487 19.0050 1:9838 1.0658 2.6981 1.9365 2.479 5.6211 2.496 2 4 5 6 7 8 .2184 249.4638 3.1373 2.0889 2.4445 3.1906 21555 2.8307 2.9W46 1.9005 1.525 5.7372 2.9938 1.0107 1.9390 1.0035 1.86a7 2.1497 2.05 250.61146 2.0729 3.3404 3.3522 2.7047 3.6084 1.6600 8.6906 1.1649 2.6021 15 2. v I m 10 1 12 15 20 241.9543 1.7459 4.73(7 '.8115 3.6377 1.2468 2.6335 1.7689 1.9605 1.1040 2.o600 3.0712 2.W 4.6188 3.0540 2.8963 1.4480 2.8337 1.7855 P.7001 1.7480 1.8361 1.2301 2.0148 1.2036 2.5379 2.7570 1.9586 1.7146 8.4117 "19 2.5 4.77r43 3.5342 2.1307 2.7897 i.8450 2.5055 2.41 .0584 2.3080 2.9309 2.38W 10 2 253.7rM9 8.4591 1.91 245.1077 2.8361 1.7876 2.7351 4.4663 2.64191 1.2230 2.6688 3.9165 1.2967 23 2.8649 1.7067 2.96.5272 3.0428 2..9736 1.1935 17T 2.AMCP 706191 TABLE C4& (continued) F Dlstributlon: Uptpie Degrees oft dm in 5 Percent Points uM* toa.0772 1.1898 2.143 19.0075 1. 805.6385 8.7138 1.3421 2.2686 2.0960 2.3275 2.396 19.5331 2.7740 2.0111 2.7396 1.698 1.5944 8.65.462 5.2962 9 10 11 12 3.6609 2.4952 1.6866 2.9117 4.9669 2.0061 2.1507 2.0589 2.2341 2.2033 2..717) 4.2298 2.9e99 1.1 1.420C 1.51o0 3.0053 2.1601 2.0o5 19.6996 2.3179 21 2.1045 2.1900 2.9681 1.9381 3.9174 1.010M2 1.
340 4.2 5.3393 2.'IW 2.0481 2 3.9862 2."U 3.65 143 (38 2.4160 2.7929 1.5123 4.5M 7 3.4W0 56.3030 2.0918 2.0241 1.0605 1.1760 2.3491 5.0410 1.145 2.11 T 2.90T7 2.8194 1 1.AM 24Wa8 2.8129 2.172 2.1029 2.3T72 2."" 2.177 2.22 2.A31 2.72 .252 3.980 .0457 i.203 2 3.9345 1.%S 3.58 2.9205 2.0961 6 2.3960 2.0070 2.091 29.1 9 1.0246 2.8&479.3939 9.962 594 39 3.24 6 . 3.9486 97 .o91 9.L0 8 9.5 I 3.0063 2.2 2.5M8 2"7 2.614 5.2o09 2.7671 1. 2.9189 1.3947 10 Nrenat Points Y Degrees of 1iiam In We v .W 2.00" 1.4.6053 2.1583 2..1831 2.89397 2.9<091 1.'7t 48 '.7277 2.014 2.1931 14 2.324I6 3.2T35 .317 .2"90 2.3512 2.oMo 2.807T 1.6241 2..1149 2.0741 3."5" 3.012 12.8 2.315 2.2135 2.9155 :.9245 2.1075 2.36 5.7632 2.2662 3.964 1.7841 1.9707 2.86s2 959 1.8p5 1.892V 1.142 2. A84 i1.2•.0397 29 .2832 3 2.2831 2.6106 2.8743 2.8947 1.7 l.9801 2.07 3481 2 9.0732.1185 1.5916 2.7 32.02196 2.0065 2.7287 2.563 3.3473 2.056 39.7516 2.7380o 2.150 2 .8932 23 24 25 12 29 3 40 60 2.3932 2.3375 2 5.637 9.7760 3.3639.0492• 1 .OW6 2.149 2.9836 1.3898 2.41 9.W3101 2.2517 S.3M97 2.3970 2.2400 3.M 2.1494 9.440 2.1958 2.8193 2.3906 4.6597 2.8 2. tor 5 2 9.3' TO 2."87 1.165 4.07f1 1.3"75 2.03 2.3163 09577 2 2.2081 2.T257 2.26" 2.226 5.3 2.9531 1.080 2.75 2.1I741 9.91W8 1.765 3.5746 9.1220 3.3909 4.1 9 2.0098 3.6871 2.9263 I.0506 52.9M• 1.Zý61 2.0195 2.9925 .M383 2.7914 I .1783 2.0397 2.0.1689 2.230M 2. 2.71 2.5653 2.5106 2.2416 1 1.5603 53.2066 1 99 2 .5501 2.8918 1.0004 e.909 2.30 3.58ft 2.2426 2.r789 2.5613 2.1030 218 12 27 28 29 3.0693 2.996 1 . 9.6602 2.A3 I•1176 .06 3 ."8 3.391 29.W 3.2P50 .1571 2.58 2.5196 2.8W7 60 27 2.1 2.2.9P? 4.T2 .1391 1.9269 W.9515 1.6434 5.0913 1.8354 2.21189 2.159J9 9 9.3255 5.219 2.20 7 9.9959 2.3069 28.0" 2.0960 1.W 19A .8490 1.0914 ?.9668 1.•1.9171 1.6195 3779. 2.1638 2.301 2.9530 2.8939 2.0TW 1.2650 3.9357 59.1765 3.S06 2.1091 2.1931 55.5223 15 1 21 3."87 0 2.163 5.8807 2."236 3.013 9.AMCP 706191 ( F Dmu 314 2 3 4 5 3 6 5 1 16 9 10 18 19 8.926 2.6956 2.9327 2.C7149 1.•3714 2.151 2. 2•.3416 C.1.860€ 1.0379q2.14337 2.M•)) 1.94M 1.1906 TABLE C4 (oontiLsued) ution$ 1bistrb .0909 2.8271 2.98 3.3310 2.1953 2.0000 5.9019 1.273d 2.4.1092 2.9790 3. Vr6l 9. 6315 C11 .0582 10.1367 013 3.85) 1.2 2.9803 1S69I .
AMCP 706191
TAL
a0,4 (continued) r 10 MPm, town r in I mtae
7 Metylsticbutlal w
Degree of fre.4 10
1
12
60.705 9.4061 5.n156 3.8M5 3.2M 2.9047
2.6681
15
61.M2 9.4247 5.20m0
3 .866C
20
61.740 9.4413 5.1&5 3.8443 3.2067
2.8M6 2.5947
24
69.00e 9.4W6 5.1764 3.8310 3.1905
2.8183 2.5753 2.401
30
62.2"6 94579 5.121 3.8174 3.r#41
2.8000 2.5555
40
69ý 9.4663 5.3
2 3 4 5 6
7
6o.195 9.3916 5.23o4 3.9199 3.2974 2.9369
2.7015
60 61.794
9.4T46 5.15U•
110! 63.W6
9.4"9 .1,5
63.396
9.4913 5.W17
3.803
3.1573
*.?SIP
3.7"9
3.140
9.%W1
3.7753
3.222
P.7023
3.7607
3,1050 2.M2g
2.4706 2.2•6
2.1591
3.38O0 2.8712
2.6322
2.53"1
2.5142
2.49M
8 9
4m 10
LX.!3o 2.4163
2.322 2.2481 2.187 2,1376
2.5020 2.Y389
2.2641 2.2067 2.1474 .2.0966
2.462 2.3396
2.A35
2,4246 2.293
2.2007 2.1230 2.0597 2.0070
2.2768
2.1784 2.1000 2.0360 1.9W2
2.3630 2.2547
2.1554
2.3614 2.2320
2.117
9.3391 .2085
2.102 2.016. 1.959 1.9043
2.3162 2.1843
2.0618
2.0554
11
12 13
2.1671
2.1049 2.0532
2.0762
2.0115 1.9576
2.0516
1.9861 1.9315
1.9W9
1.9721
1. 9323 1"03 1.8401 1.875
5
16
17
2.0954 2.o593
2.o026
2.0009
2.037 2.o171
1."85
1.9577
29.0095 1.9722
1.9399
1.9117
1.9625
1.903 :.8913
I.8624
1.93M7 .89o
.8656
1.8362
1.9119
1.8726 1.8113M
1.8090
1.0852
1.8454 2.800
1.7605
1.8572
m.8168 ),7826
1.75W6
1.82,0 1.7867
1.7507
1.7191
1.7973
i.1•5i 1.718'
1.
I1 19
20 21 22
1.9770
1.9557
1.93!3 1.9117
1.88
. 1.8368
1.8142 1.7T939 1.776 1.759 1.7439 1.7302 1. 175 705 1. 1.695.1 1.6852 1.5759 '.6673 16052 1.5435 1.Oft1
1."105
1.7"7 146t7 %48 1431W 1.71.49
1.782
1.7r
I."29
17V
1.6W8 1.6768 i.669 1.6389 1.6M2
1.6073
1.6910
I.""5
1.
1.6W0 1.6074 i. 1.5W6 1.5090
1.532T
1.9367 1.9197 1.9043 1.2 3 1.S85 24 1. 251.86 1.855 26 1.8451 P7 1a.8359 26 1.8274 29 1.8195 30
j
1.86W 19449D x1.8w4 x.."2 1.8730 1.6111 1.8593 1.845LO 1.7?964 1.7831 1.8319 14.708 1!200 1450g 1.8090 1.7T49 1.7T989 1.739 1.7095 306 '1.7 1.7806 1.722 1.772 1.7146 1.6574 1.6012 i.ys" 1.6624 1.6034 1.54W0 1.4871
1.759 1.362 1•.,s 1.7021 1.6864 1.67O1 1.7019 1.65% .68 1.6466 1.6771 1.6356 1.666 1.656V~ 1.6952 1.6"65 1.6155 1.63T7 1.63065 1.5T41 1.5107
1.447
1.706S3 1.68* 1.6714 1.6554
1.6407
1.6272 1.6147 1.6039 2.59.d5 1.58W 1.5732
1.5934 1.580 1.5%W 1.!575 1."472 1.5"7 1.467 1.W5 1.3203 11.2W0
1.6433 1.66 1.6042 1.5871 1.5715 1.570 1.5437 1.5323
11.5196
215090 1.4989 1.4248 1.3476 1 2P6 1.16M6
1.5176 1.50" 1.4906 147M4 1.4670 !A4564 1.3769 1.2915 1.19fl6 1.0000
40 6o 1.2

1.7627 1.'70o 1.654 1.59ft
.
I1.42061

1.38V2
1
1.5056 1.54:4 1.4755 1."437 1.3676 1.4094 1.3419; 1.2951
Z12
i
AMCP 76191
TABLE C5 CORTI.CAL VALUnS du(n) 02 THE MAMUM ABSOLUTE
DIuE, Sample Size "(N) ENCE BE'IIM SANPI
SRELIABILITY
AND POPULATION
FUI TION3
_.__
Level of Significance (a)
0.20
0.15
0.525
0.!174 0.342 0.283 0.246 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17
0.10
0.564
0.474 0.368 0.304 0.264 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.16
0.05
0.01
3
4
5 l0 15 20 2c5 30 35 40 45
0.565
0.494
o.446 0.322 0.m66 0.231 0.21 0.19 o.18 0.17 o.16
0.597 1 o.642
0.708
0.624
0.565 0.410 0.338 0.294 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.:1 1 0.20
0.828
0.733
0.669 0.490 0,404 0.356 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.2
50
Over 50)1
I
0.15
1.07
o.&6
1.14
_
0.17
1.212 iw
0.19
.6 "
0.23
L1
I!
C 13
AMCP "19
TABLE C6
*t
haliability ExPonential Punctlon (3
0.001 00:2 0: UP0~
0.01. 0:997
0.005
0.010 0.01 0.A
o.9"012
0.41
0.055
.7
0.=
0.94765 .916 O6N.998 W 0939 0.938700 0.93706" 0.963 0: m 0.976 9%10 0.9316 0.83 0 :R 0.926816 0 0.92T7;30 o.923116
0 01 0 006. ~0.992080 o 0.O 06.010 0.061 0.906011 0.011 0.062 0.81127 0.012 o.o63 0.987064 0 01l 0.986219 0.040985 0:011 0.065 0.985112 0.019 0. 0.9601299o6 o.o16 0.791 0.07 0.021 0.;7 0.1 091190.069 0.070 o.98016 0. 5" 0.0)71 0.9T9219~ 0.025. 0.076 0 971. 0.026 0.9906 0. 6072 0.()25 0).020
0. m
0.97 6 097531n 0.970315
. 00 .7
0.0.974538 0.971412 0.029 0.69604 ).0310
0.11
0.:; 0.06109733f0:=O~ 0.08 1 0 .92~4W 008 0 .9d8511 0.509
~0.",96 ~ 0. ~
0.965T2? ;5w~
~e0 ~
01010g~l, .8
/
.2r? 0.9101 0:09120 0.90,937
0.91 464
03 0 0.975390.91393 0 u3.1
0.350
o060.964W9
0.0ON 0.0615 0096
0.9617512
00.4
0.089
.95gg0.9
0.955997~ 0  10.097
0.91018~
).Ott
AMCP 7W.1ge TABLE C6 (continued) raliabl.lt? Exponential ?riecion (R *'•It) (Cont.)
___ _it
0.1*
It
0.70
R
0.r
0.42T
o465 0. ro 7
o.85 0.150 o.8608 0. 2i&J1 40.A 0.160
Oi0
0.190
0M33665
0.: M..0
.?gjT5I
1
0.950.3W4
.
0. 33 0. 31663T 00119 0.274 0.ii57 0.2465WT
0.2231~ 0.286505
0.2 0.210 0. 2". 0. 0.2,0 0.250 0.2•60
0.86731 o.E•.•8 0.80
125
1.15 . 1.P0
o.T S. 0.7?88o3 0. 77052
0.7~8
1.30 1.35 1.4•0
1..%
0.310 .400 0.36a,
0~10
0o.T
I7 2.00 2.70 2.
0.1.o. o..122P 0o1108D.3, .
0. o.3 T6• 0. 6ro
2i .900.156
0. g 007o 0.o1 0.00 o. 1oo 0:,(
0. 0.4
o. 6%'75"
0003720 a 6m2.M.6
2.
23
2.8
o.o63C 2.r 3.0 ..
2. 9L, 3.50
0.C55o3
0.060815
0.06"24
00727
0.450
. "31 o•6376a3
0.431M
O.o,.
00.87, 0.ow,
0. 01526M 0.030"97
j
0. 90 0.511
6o653i
4. 50 4.75•
C.o109 0,. 00o.T9
0W
0.600496
0.25 0.618"

OýS G. y/'6Ws
3
1g
5.00
0. oo52
000673
0. OZ
.
0. V% 9
0.%0o
0. 01o.5
9.00 6.50 10.0!
07
0.000335b C.000136 o. •.3503 0.0004
0"710
M,
0
0. 000 a
o.O00O45F
0
;1k
OWO3
I ?&9
MCP
P.4to~. (ft L' W% I
\ 8 9.110
4
1
$lop.
4
2
E' IS 'o
OZ1
cv.m
... .
S.. . .
'A
Ul
0*0*0 ýo CNUI
0,k) 'I FC O
r0............
ýF
Vl,;O~
%00 8
~Ei
88 S
4
I
0%m
G
I
00,~
cooM
_
___
.
I
c1
i
AMCP 706191
TABLE c8
REQUmREt NurBER o0 FAILURES FOR VARIOUS VALITS 0F CONFIIENCE AND PRECISION
(Exponentlel Dikitribution)
Confidence Precision a
85%
90d
95% 1537
384
171
99%
2655 664!
295
5%
10%
15%
830
207
92
1082
271
120
20%
67 33
23 17
96 61
43 31
166 106
25%
30% 35%
43
3C 22
74
54
Example: 43 failures are required to be 90% confident that the estimated MTB? is within 25% of the true value.
C17
L
________
AMCP 7064191 TA=I C9
GAM 3IA
ValUea of
A
CTION
r(ra) n
0r(n) r
x 1 dx; r(n + 1) rI'(n) n 1.50 1.51
1.52
n
1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09
()
1.00000 0.99433
r(n)
0.88623
n 1.75 1.76
1.77 1.78 1/(9
r.NO
0.91906 0.92137 0.92376
0.92623
o.9888~4 0.98355
o.97844
1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.2S; 13C 1.31
1.32
0.9(t4,4
(0.90250 0.90072 j .89904
0.89747 0.8600 a.89464 0.89338 0.89222 0.89115 0.89018
0.90440
1.53 1.514
3.55 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.6o 1.61
0,88659 0.887014 0.88757
4,.8881 0.88887 o.8,3964 0.89049 0.89142 0.89243 0.89352 o.89468
0.92877
0.93138 0.93408 0.93685 0.93969 0.9A42hi1 0.914561 0.94869
0.97350 0.96874 o.96516 0K973 0.95546 0.95135 0.94739
i~eo
1.81 1.82 1.83 1.84 1.65 1.86
1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36
I1.12
1.10 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.16
0.914359
0.939932 0.93642
1.37
1.38 1.39
o.88031 0.88854
0.88785
1.62
1.63 1.64
0.89592
0~.89724 0.89864
1.87,
1.88 1.89 1.90 1.91
1.92
0.95184
0.95507 o.95838
I1,15
0.933024
0.92980
1.240
1.41
0.88726
o.88676 0.88636 0.88604
1.65
1.66 1.67 :..68
0.90012
0.go167 0.90330 0.90500 0.90678 0,90864 0.91057 0.91258 0.91466 0.91683
0,961177
0.96523 0.96878 0.97240 0.97610 0.97988 0.98374 0.98768 0.99171 0.99581 13.00000
0.92~570 .8 0 23173 1.19 0.32088 1.37
1.20
I1.4:2
1.43
1.93
1.44
1.45 1.46 1.147 1.48 1.49
__2_.00
0.86580
0.88565 0.6856o 0.88563 0.88575 0.8P595
1.69
1.70 1,71 1.72! 1.73 1.74
1.94
1.95 1.96 1.97 1.98 1.99
1
1.22
1.23 1.24
0.91FR17 .91558 01 0,91311 0.91075 0.90852
_
c18
AMCP 706191
0.9
o.8
o.4A
03
F0.0702
4'0.5
0.5I 0
03
04
05
.
.
I
.
.
.
02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
o.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Point Estimate, R
FiU ClA imlcm mIan re um u Confidence Coefficients: 0.80 for TvwoSided Estimatbon, 0.90 for OneSided Estimation
C19
9 1.8 0.9S5 for OneSided Estimateon C?m) .6 P 0.8  __0 GOF Q 0. 0.de3e COer ilients: 0.1 0. Confi.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 •'l i 0 0.0 Point Est:imate.90 ~or Two.5 0.AMCP 706191 0.Sided Estimatn.5 1I 0 0.3 0.4 0.
975 for oneSided Estimation C21 .5 o.89 ___ 0.2 0.0 o. 0.7 .9 1.4 0.3 0.6 0. 0.0 FMO~ C1c Confidence Coefficients: 0.1tA 0 01 02 03 04 0.6 Point Estimate.95 for TwoSided Estimation.7T 0.8 0.AMCP 706191 0.
)ded Estimation.099 fo nSided Estimation C 22 .3 0.8 E 000 0'40 07 0 0 . 0.1 Point Estimate P^ Confidence 0Oerricieflts: 0.99 ror Two~.AMCP 70619? 0.
66. McLean.ed m2d are contained In the nez chapter. Surmeter. The allocation Is deteimined by studying how to get the best use of the available resources.'n of his resources 4•tIQesttor 1. 4. H. 14. 37. CostEffectiveness Analysts and the Estimate of the Sittu•ion C'mteffectiveness analysis is a method for studying how to make the best of several choices. These questions.APP[UDIK D UKE IN EVIEMW STUIES CoAu AMCP 706191 COSTEWTEM IVESS ANALYSIS CHAPTER I GENERAL BACKGROUND To mist In the review of studies containing oosteectlvenems analyses. Heyuont. D1 . and 73. 46. No wne general list of qgwatimm on do hst Rather. 57. 22. a series of key questions with emplanatory note&bhas btvn prep. Questions that do not bear on military costeffectiveneso analyses are not included in the next chapter. and they are not necessarily of equai Importanco to those studies where they do apply. By coeteffectivenesa is meant the re fllon uf the resoureos required (cost) to achieve a certain ability to accomplish an objective (effectiveness). The term costeffectiveness as always used in relation to the eflectiveness of alternative systems. and are also listed separately for convenience in th" beck as "SM LECTED QUESTIONS. 23. will n*t neocmsarlly omor all aspects of all costpffectiveness aa~alyses. Bryk. 60. and J. !AInstone. organizations. 0. tke together. T. ft is used by a combat commander when he determines (estimate of the situation) the allocatl. 12. or activities. the questions are designed to focus tM attention of the reviewer on selected aspe•ts ro assist him in evaluating the anays•s. Authpred b. *Reproduceo by permission of t~he Research Analysis corporation. The reviewer must exercise his Jidgment on whether the questions are applicable and the *oree of applirability tu the study being reviewed. "* This document is Intended only as a guide and not as a fill and comprehensive treatment of all aspectsof costeffctlveness analysts. This *%me concept is embodied in Army decistoa processes. Vt. 31. Furthermor%. Costeffectiveness analysis is based on the economic concept that LU military dections Involve the allocation (best use) of limited resources among competing requirements. 13.. 44. Those questions that are considered partic"arly important and of widest application have been umderltued. no questions are addressed AU the questions are noe applitable to all studies to the subect of the intuitive judgment and other factors used in making decisions to which costeffeetiveness analyses contrlbute.
the strategiccoet tecbnoao~v. and askelec a course of actiOR based cc some critarlaoften calle the governing factors..1 pwpws *1 o nn astimate of the situation Is to arrive at a reoom 3 is usually a process to arrive at decisions to solve "tWya Problems today.e new opportunities that may require theft"s in organlzatleui and doctrire as well as bardware. The compWn comnmander loes tre dnvqh sa process in deciding bow to spend his compny fuwdx. (or diooliee to be overcome) and with each othe. The resources (force* and weapons) availAbe to the com=And are fEzed by what has been made available and there is soreal flexibiit Is hngiag their composition or basic organization. uncertais~es incluxie Puub UthMV as planotag factors. with problems. Time usually doss hot permit testing the range of the dependence of iLie proposed course of action frecomposition. A!! these. the enemy and his reactions. Advances in tee hrmogy crc&. Another sev'~re constraint on the estimate of thes situafion Is the time factor. often there is only muffticit time to analyse the mfastiom gathe staff Astinate. availabla t sfor~e a decision is required oftec does not permit filling In gapsevea it It wwo possible. Immediate ptrofztm the formu~iotI@ cc possible courses of action in an estimfte of the situation is severely limited. bfWorrnatlon is usually Incomplst and the time. they differ in sUeasapct. and all are lmArdp DL . it to also amully difficult to oltain additional resources frovu the raxt higher commander. and even the nuational objectives which cam be eapectad to chwWnge the future an alliances shift and new faorus in the world ds'zoy. " It does not coucena #mslf I&a realistic ems. chwaage.AMCP 706191 (o~rces) among the main and secondary e~brft and reserme in the 08M or between the fcrward and reserve forces in the defesse A 03 Wass the elemets of the command the mumto available supily Iat . The". and logistical and manpower Policy problems in Order UAnalytical techtuISe emPloyed to be prepared for wars atThe fuue in costeffectiveness analysis are required to sqplpmuint these emplcied in the estimate of the situation because. But all are varlibles. some to the menYe &Wd Others tO nobody' s control. or systems of the Mumue eve thaosh it is sometdms 94 clear where the Problem of tcdity ends and the problem of tomorrow aterts Because it deads with relatively. formulate a few poesible com ses of acto a&W qu~iky weigh these courses of action againstthe miiny capablitiO. =as:utalutass lead to a larg imuber of vartablas thal must be onsidered Rom at these variables are suh4ect to our control. In practice. Although costeffectiveness analysts and the estimate of the s~tutl are similar in conceipt. an we 'took Into the future. e operations. the number of uacertant les multiply.Ad by the higher headquarters.
sed from three to sft thee are over 1400 cases I11 do i hs in lwrafnml 01 inceta4Ie and AlexIblty In a"e and mnteOt bqeahtlly at reesom oseeple. dsftm or "m mad so varlatiam of a withdawa~l. Inofte wardm. rme o~oe~ OMW of. It assists in provdd15 Increased insight Isto the problewman as umw* rdeweas Infomaitm as possIble in order that the delIe meb eam CoametrAto on those are"s where jokowmt mwk be appliedt Inoiert st~ual of qunlltafive apcsand consistimcy ~ith plhr ehelo. levels of Warfare. ear be Weetr*9ed ana smal scale. ce MidrtisO Frc minmrk. abe wice to be paid for za alweather.D3 . Ln a hypothetical the su o a tow weapos systema fw as lIaurl platocssamumlig tML tte Isbst pht MM ble p e Is Owm fr"m w ft hugnder considersatLo The variables tha wMNl require Au would Mdadue soob puasmeters as alter=Iv wqinow symis dot am be awaflmbe in the tina bum nder sttady. melther the away nam fth rima*l forrcecan letobdec NOWwsn sy4tems BY MOr *bMAW tei f6m orgmaindatn or diotr toe la heUm plcovor by thoesatilmate at~h sitmation.191 Mwe wsrese in berew kinch of variables associated with sd preblems ad d Mm. khsde of wompcmw wit the total system. 60mSNOY cam aiak. d Wl I~ ortto Provide Information so the comumander can better exercise his ju0mint ts also bund is the estimate tiE the sittation process. the number of 'vkd weiPO w*is 36& mix of Weapons.capability staed in s~c~sWA &a aoccuacy to be wmefu for Pisainia . it khqb 0 Wsb atheoawltlAeqoW Isa mater aTw pn~eble &Thisv arlg of ee G"be better mae& when the costeffectivegess of each alterndUve is )mown. chnentonsl war elpites prmeters have a" hem Haed. For example. ýWUars. and lmrdWare) that costefctiwveno" salysix Is a ussW aid. I. yor eaea combat cc nd cLam better xppy hWs jawgmast to saeletion AMR Possible O 3oeeaction whSI he MSe dtaff tszWronteWW if Of only romovof the numer of cassiltmes he will nffz aad the tixe requiaree Dweva. f the numaber of candIdset passystems ts 1ares. in a hypathetic forc comositom n problm wher flmlbbil" in faore compositon is possIble. PWPractical ~PWOs~. expected alesI at warmsade eecoasid an aqiuteag warss farige.AMCP 706. the variables that a staf estamte avist ceaud with are reoaively ILIAied lbs &Wflet i PaIsaftiastofy4 there is only oat ameuiv n only OM ares and the opima Op" to the womy Ure relatiVely few.
division. lIke a costeffsotiveaoss analysis. A sWUf sk*d or a staff estimate.cseumers Research to "assit to getting the most for the resources to be expanded and nct as a so@4 ah for the cheapect regardless of oftectivames. A cotffectivenajs analysis ts designed to omins. All ideatilta~e assum~tl &W "n are preasedtc so that thoir validity can be questioned. However. trainizig. The oommade Kmeclsion maker) to given the full reasoning behind the recemmnwded cours* o: action which is freqenty presented to that t~~e only option op ts a 'fyos" or 'no" decision. quentity when. However. M~ frequently the result of the stud or estimate is not ieuted for sensitivity to suh hidden aaeflptions. ard this is a majir goal of a cost tefetvemes analysis. The tnrpact of factors such as moral*.Icacthre~aw analysis place great omphasis on use of numbers and caulcuart Ions In any effort to datermine qmanttative Sact'xa where posesible.systematically and relatc oosts. and risks of alternative ways of aomplishing an objective ad designing additional altwratives #woposed courses of action) if those . an implied amswr~tnpl is often introhiaced when several different cow~s of action are open and a fiecioion is made to Mwoeed in one direction. 7ths to the saame basis of the estimate of the situation which studies proposed couge toofa actions. te staW eatizaste and staff st*udy eally embody a singeS eommrz ation wi*the cier alternatives 0 either rarily mentioned or oat as fully discussed "s tse recommnended course of action. e In addition. the reasming process and the pertinent consldeatons pertinin to each significant alternatve are presented. 01 course. The staff estirmste and staff study do identify major assumptions. There to now no "id way of assigning a num~ber to morale.~ many 4pects as military acttrities that cannoit be reduced to a qunittat'vo factor. considers so=rce of action $mlternatives).AMCP 706191 Thbe basis of costeffectiveness analysis Is that there are alternAte ways of reuchlag an objective and each alternative requires cewtan resources and produces terbain results. the prsytiological effetw od a certai military oysratloss. the availabe facts. the stgniflcan alternatives.waametd are io Md wanting. esach of Wfslch requires certain resowrce (forces and su~pplies) and jrornee certain ezpecte resufts gime to take thw objective. A major mothodologlcal difference between coeteffectlvaness analyses and other wilitr stu~es to the manner in which the resulls are presetted. and all of the sy stem Implications. Coa. However. effectiveness. In a eoueffectiveness anslysir. it really is an asswuption.Lred to demroy a csruin type ot tarwst. in reality. There are zany reasons for such assungi* ons. 9 can be cowsidered a" a kind at *'. Much a decisaon Is Una accepuid as a byawn. a to an analysis at the cost Id efbtlAveaee of a systemt such aa a forward area A1r defause or an ai mobile. relwility of . theru~. ar a bcLt QfoZther isators. it ts cossible to calculate the nwwar of 145mm howitzer rciwds and sotal cost req%. the depewice of the results of the analyses on these assumitlons and data are tested. casnabtis* incurred).
Thorough ovanlzation of the functioWa need usislly !ring insigl* into the problem and leads to generating alternatives that may accomplish the desired gcal.AMCP 706191 allies cannot yet be u. By examining the problem fromr the fwanctonal bauis. This does not tuiply that product iznprovemerans are not needed but ratbhir that a full uwidr tanding of the true significknce f what is being prorbseed for purchase ts necessary. 2. envroriaent and resources (models). A set of mathematical or logical relationasfrp S. Ott~ objective shi~tld not be uneduly restricted by confupion with performance hazacteristirs such az speods. Alternatives (foasible ways of achieving #be desired military capability or accomplishing the fiuction). among the objectives. The determination of the objective ii often complex. the real objective may be a capability to destroy certain kinds of targits under certain conditions. weirbta. liiere are practical limits on tht~dteftnitxio of the objective. the problem mtst be analred to 'eatermine the real fasactional need uaaderlytog the requirements for certain organizations and hardware systems.mens of a costeffectiveness analysis are: 1. The examina. Ih o~rdir to dosip alternatives properly. the planner is better abe to understand the probleni. A criterion for choosing the preforrei alternative. Objectfie(s) (tunctions to be accomplished). muzzle velo~ttes. anu so forth.alcu~atpd and are now matters of intuitive judgment. This Wnight may lead to otler alternatives that should be studled. hitkill prvbab"Ites.1cn may show that the prposed new artillery system is only cat alternative wO accomplishing the objective and that another alternative may b. Close ew~r Ination of objectives state ý)nly Iin terms of specific organizations or systems often discloses that the not result to not a stigificantly new or improved capability but a relatively minnor product improvenunt. A costeffectiveness anaiyals seeks to qiiliftify what can be Ioooglc y calculated so that the decision maker knows the extent to which intuitive judgment imast be uased in making a decision. DI55 . ýstwa Elemeaus The eassiitila ele. Every miliitary activity is part of a iarger activity anc it is necessary to draw the lIna at some poill. However. 4. For example. ailternatives.ireferable. in stating&a requIrement fo'r an artillery system with a specified minimum range capability. Cost of repourcta required by each alternative. 3.
admittedly oversimplified. end money. but also the costs of traisting people to operate it.rfms of preconceived notions should be avoided in the design of alternatives. the costs must be accurate enough to permiE evaluatlig ihe inilitary worth (effectIveness) togeiher with the costs. maker a better undarstandins. He can~ then better Judge if the inve~strent is worth the payoff considering the uncertainties involved. including the capabilities of the Navy. Ali feasible and significant capabilities to accomplish th ojectve shud be considered. that the planning prow=m admittwody over simplifiedis to Cesign a new typ of division with certain caPitbilities.AMCP 706191 Alternatives ba military Planning tbo~re is rarely only onw exclusive way of acdeving a given objective. or perhaps more mortars and fewer riflemen? The alternatives are limited only by creative imagination and good military judgment. Assume. probatly is ir verý. These are~ repetitive analyses using different quantitative values to determine if th'ý resulls ire sensiti. Usually cost estimates are tes~ted by 2easittvity analysis. material. and so forth. for example. Each way has its own price tag of time. and otber vehicles) and less manpower.. Such costs are determined after du& allowancee for those resources aJlroady paid for regardless of whether thie alternative is adopted.. Modela Modebs are used in costeffectiveness analysis to cope with the host of D6 .to the cdlstance out ini the future.4ing the cost of each alteavative is based on incremental costs. replacemenit. of adopting a new radilo would ix'clude not only the cost of the radio and its development. facimelte.:ost estimate. aircraft. Air Force.For the same capability. 'e to the valuis assigned. In determining the cost of an alternatlvo all the resource imo~licetions are zoiasiderec'. this rule must be applied witi discretioua. and the Cost of the additional raillos required for maintenance float. In satisfyting these capabilltle8. t"party. Prejudices. Sucha~nalvaes give the decisior. Cost Determ. and Marines. whether it is an abgolute figure or a range. These are the net c03ts of adopting the alterrative. the total cost of maintaining the rad~ios. For example. In dealing with systems way out in the futite the accuracy of the . combat consumption. of how much uncertaInty is involved if th. Hiowever. or accomplishing more with the sgame resoincej. The alternative is treated in a syAen&context. Lie everything else. end would be available for use under the alternative if it were adopted. By exploriag alternative ways of using r esources it is Ofka possible to discover ways of achieving an ob!ective with fewer resources. Costs need not be atated in precise terms dcfwn to the last dollar or man. MM. is it better to have more mobilty (trucks. the TOE designer has nmaiW alternatives. the cost.~rrors in the cost estimates. c are significanit .ljne"I and othcr 'ý.
simpleN or ompl~ex. am to it limited exatnt. A nmxWe is simply certaJIn reIaticuzsb~ps mexjrlsd in some way tO simulat real Or eXPected xeted Ottconditionas In Order to foresee. Two aspects of model builAding are particularly troublesome.artables that have boom properly quantified. in idedifft hes~nfteg ompoms&a and interrelations. would be ignoring alithe outcomes with more than 98% probability of occurring. the form of a wargamne or field nanemwer Ihe estimate of the sittmtion and action againt enemy capabiities or expected difficulties and the comparison among the propoEed course& of action ?epresent uses of models to foresee the fteoutcome of an action. quantification and the treamet funcertainty. Uncertainties and the problem of tho' factors that cannot be quantified can be handled through various techniques such as Monte Carlo sampling. if there is uncertainty about 8 factors. It is wrong to assumne that the enemy tactics used during the Kcrean war will continue to be used in the future against new types of equipmnent and tactics that may be introduced. Mode~s that portray relations incorrectly also lead to false results. For example. a best guess might be made on each of them.AMCP 706191 K Variables tWa aM jnhwrm in problems of the fuiture. Such treatmeIat often results in the difftlciittoquantifY varia~blas being lost within all the other qualitative considerations that must be weighed when the time comes to recommend action on the basis of the Solutlcn from the mnod4. If there is a 60% probability that each beat guess is I right. contingency analysis.abstractions of the real world and their Validity depends on the proper selection of assumptions =nd the correctness of the relations portrayed. or the results are insensitive to themn. Relying on t ýst guesses. some models are based on the perbistence principle which states that what is~ happening or has happened will persist. (see Glossary) and even wargaming for certain purposes. Scme models depend on extrapolation which assumnes D7 . in this case. and whi'ch ~which variables are espiecially important foi'the* Vvarfabl cam be s~~irotbsed a this innner. Somevariables by ignoring fthm or by a qualitaftie modification A a solution derived from the treatment of other ý. affect all alternatives roughly the same. For example. The influence of the variable that =anot be quantified and all uncertainties must be specifically addressedA in the model unless it can be demonstrated by logic or analysis that they are trivial. Guessing may lead to disaster. iaUmdels. in determining decision at issue. then the probability that all guesses are right is less than 2%. For example. This type of modei ia dangerous except for very shortterm uses. the decision Process can be more poid ousdo m r*wihrqieajdv tdcso. and the pertinence of thle factors included in the model. thswe conw of a courzo of Action Models &8"sis n h4mplifYft~ the PrOb~con. ar.
it is possible to create an almost exact model of some specific plece of hardware or activity and subject it to tet. made up of uncertainties. a wargame using z cartain kill probability for an air defense system is a probabilistic model. However. The impact on effectiveness of intangibles such as morale and leadership can hardly be calculated and requires the applicltion of judgment. For example. Consequently. The difficulties arise in selection of criteria of effectiveness. However. However. it is more difficult to compare the effectiveness of general purpose force organizationc juch as two different kinds of divisions or even two equalstrength infantry battalions having the same general kinds of weapons but one havtng three rifle companies and the other having four. These are broadly stated as a definition of the problemnpinc4pal factors or constraints. by nature. of course. is impos4ible in peacetime. Bach models lend themselves readily to mathematical treatment but are often erroneous btamuse of failure to coviider what is called the Law of Diminishlna Returns. a machine gun can fire at a certain high rate. Consequently. rhe validity of conceptual or mathematical models cannot be verified in a costeffectiveness analysis by controlled experiments. The final product of the model will then cloaiy approxinrte the results from the actual hardware or activity. The construction of models to evualuste effectiveness is ofton difficult. Criteria The most widely used criteria in Army studies for selecting the preD8 . At the best. they can be tested by their workability. in comparison of a torved i05mm and a selfpropelled 105mm howitzer. verification and the decision processor application of criteria. March graphs used for planning administrative movements are examples of deterministic models. Questions 37 to 44 in the next chapter are designed to assist a review to test the workability of models used in costeffectiveness analyses. An exact model of warfare. for example. A good costeffectiveness analysis strikes a balance in the use of models between simplicity and retention of enough detail to ensure tLat the expected outcome of an expected action will be adequately portrayed. they may be difficult to understand. Most military problems are. this high rate cannot be maintained for very log (on) because the barrel woldd soon be burned out. they are considered as probabilistic when the uncertainty is identified by a probability factor. I is relatively easy to measure the comparative effectivenecs of two similar pieces of equipment designed to accomplish the same general objective as. Each study virtually requires a consideration of its own criteria of effectiveness. Models can be classified into two general typoseuact (deterministic) or probabilistic. Models used in costeffectiveness analysis sometimes tend to become mathematical and abstract. In any case all models have certain common elements.AMCP 706191 that trends will conttue wtinterrupted. For example.
known as incremental effectiveness at incremental cost. Statement of criterion used tu select preferred alternative. g. It is suggested that the points lioted below be checked specifically in the early stages of a review. The incremental effectivmus at Incremeutal cost nmthod relates the increase in effectiveness achieved to the associated increase in resources involved. The depth of a costeffectiveness analysis is tempered by the time and manpower available and the importance of the subject matter. e. is used in *pec•. D9 . It also shows the sensitivity of the results to the significant judgmens made. a. cases. Review of Studies There are probably almost as many different ways of reviewing a study containing costeffectiveness analysis as there are reviewers.o make clear the logic used. The goal of a costeffectiveness analysts is to keep all judgments in plain view and . and in analyzing and interpreting the results of the analysis. a specified and measurable military effectivaness (capability) is stated asid the analysis is to determine which alternative achieves this effectiveness at least cost.AMCP 706. which factors are relevant mid the interrelations among these factors. the time available for review is variable and studies lack a common format. b. Another method. Furthermore. deciding which alternativos (courses of action) to consider. Judgment is used in analyzing the objective.191 ferred alternative are usually based on either equal cost or equal effectiveneSs of the alternatives. In the equal effectiveness form. Statement of criteria used to Judge effectiveness. In the t ual cost form it is assumed that there is an arbitrary fixed budget or series of fixed budgets. when a capability based on a new technology is to be added to the force and this new capability cannot be approximated by any practicable combination of existing materiel and men. A costeffectiveness analysis requires resources and it must serve as an aid to the makin of decisions and iiot be a mere intellecJual exercise. which numerical values are to be used. Use of incremental costs. Role of Judgment Judgment is used throughout a costeffectiveness analysts in the same manner as in the making of an estimate of the situation or a staff estimate. Explanation of logic of models. and the analysis determines which alternative gives the greatest effectiveness for the same expenditures or resources. d. This method is normally used only as a bast resort when neither costs nor effectiveness of alternatives can be made equal.. c.
the above headings inevitably leads to some duplication of material. the study rilll probably be of poor quality. D10 . On that basts. Armyconducted studies containing costoffectiveness analysis usually do not have a uniform organizatind pattrn $xt many generally follow the Staff Study format.AMCP 706191 e. The annotated Bibliography has been designed for the reviewer who desires to read further into the methodology of coteffectiveness analysis. This duplication has been kept to a minimum but full coverage has been retained under each beading ai a convenience to rhe reviewer who wishes to rfer to a specific heading.  ) Without these elements being present. The Glossary ia designed to give a nontechnical definition of terms frec/uentiy used in costeffectiveness andyses. particularly on the use of analytical tools such as sensiltivty and contingency analysis. the key questions In the next chapter have been grouped under these beadings: Statement cf the Problem Assumptions Alternatives Documentation Cost Relationships (Models) Effectiveness Criteria Conclusions and Recommendations The grouping unde. Presence or lack of analysis of senst'ivtty of the results to significant data and assumptions.
a rifle is only one possible alternative. IS THE PROBLEM STATED THE REAL PROBLEM? An improper statement . either certain broader decisions musL be considered as made. the real problem might be providing the rifle squad with adequate firepower to accomplish certain functions (functional need). In such a case.at the rifle squad itself becomes only one alternative to solving a larger problem. A word of caution is in order.. There often is a practical limit on the depth of the statement of the functional need or the study may become unmanageable. DOES '1HE STUDY IDENTIFY IMPLIED SIGNIFICANT COMPONENTS OF THE PROBLEM THAT MUST BE FULLY TREATED IN THE STUDY? Like the mission statement in an estimate of the situation. 2. should be critically examined to ensure that the wrong problem is not being studied and that worthy alternatives are not automatically excluded from consideration.t the problem often results in either studying the wrong problem or precluding consideration of worthy alternatives. A statement of the problem in terms of requirements for kinds of forces.Chapte 1! KEY QUES. except if it is a followon to a previously approved study of a functional need. To avoid this difficulty. When the former approach is taken. based on his knowledge and judgment.TIONS* STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1. the problem to be treated in a costeffectiveness analysis must be analyzed to identify all functions that must be performed Some of these implied functions are *Those questions that are considered paitularly important and of widest application have been underlined.AMCP 706191 S. For example. or porformance characteristics. Theme defects are usually avoided by a statement oa the problem in terms of a functional needthe Job(r) to be donewithout implying how it is to be done. although the stated problem (no previous study of functional need) may be to select a rifle to meet certain chpabilities (requirement statement). .. the study is known ze a suboptimization. systems. or the broader study undertaken. thereby narrowing the scope of the study. For exar ple.. The reviewer. in the case cited the functional need could be conceivably so stated •. must determine if the suboptimization has so narrowed the scope of the problem that the real problem has been missed or worthwhile alternatives excluded.
D12 . The reviewer should watch for implied signiftKant component parts of the problem that are neither identified nor treated fully in the study. The reviewer should also watch for other problems that are opened up or revealed by the study that should be fo~rther investi sated.AMCP 706191 often not apparent at first.
Locale of operations. As a result. b.. Assumptions covering the subjects listed below often unduly restrict the scope of the study and lead to questionable conclusions and recommendations. It is necessary to assess the impact of the limitatioes and the validity of the judgments contained in all the assumptions.AMCP 706191 ASS0U1M$ON 3. in order to evaluate the tudy properly. in measurlz the effectivenes of a division. e.. and reactions to our decisions. An example of ommrn assumption that Is often not identified Is that a given unit operates by itself. Another frequently hidden assumptlod is that the enemy' a doctrine and tactics are rigid although ours are flexible. the assumptions should be examined to determine whether they unduly restrict the study by eliminating possible significant alternatives or by narrowing the scope of consideration to the point that the conclusions and recommendatlons may be in error. a. This examination may be required throughout the 'eview of dh Andy and not only during the review of the stated assumptions. D13 . ARE ALL ABSUMPTIWE IDENTIFIEED? The revifwar should watch for assumptioms that are not identified as such because asunloms Imply a limitation or a judgment. Nonavailability or limited availability of support from otLer services (e. Time period covered. operacions. d. inadequate cvsiden~tion Is sometimes given to the support the division receives from nondivisional units such as corpe artillery or tacticil air units. ARE THE ABSUMP'iCA UNDULY RESICTi Assumptions are properly used to narrow the scope of the study to mavageable proportions. g.onsider nondlvisioJal support may lead to erroneous conclusions and recomamundctlons. 4. However. tactical air support or MATS effort). This failurt to . Enemy organization. Duraticu and intensity of operations. c. for example.
this often results in the 4enmy being considered t. the coicluslo•s and recammeedatias of the study may be no more valid than the assumption unless it can be demonstrated that #Je conalusion and rzcommendataon are Wi #ensitive to plausible errors in the tfacts. and whether further sensitivity analysis may significantly affect the conclusions and recommendations. these aimates are aometimes assumed to be facts. A common qualitative uncertalidy that may dictate the conclusions concerns th estimate of the enemy. or the start of agression by the poertal enemy In a given year arn *=mplea of a qualitative un certainty. or tarlt arrays prepared or approved by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Whet it is not definitely kwm bow we will ope. It is oaftu better to handle signilicant uncertainties by oemsltivity anmlysis. The avaflability at bass rights in a foreip cwftry at seme ft time.AMCP 70S101 5.. DO ANY OF THE MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS TR•." The wamber of sensitivity aalvses.) The reviewer should be alert for stated and implied major assumptions that assign fixed values to quaMtitave uacertaintase and then treat these estimates as facts. A common exampa is the assumption that a proposed weapon system will hava a csrtal hitki!l probability. Somietimes an educated use". In effect. Uncertainties can be ehe quantilati (risks) Wr O ltvative. will suffice. However. is a matter of judgmeat. 6. There are limits to the time and manpower available for a given study.'ste or be equipped 1 a years hence. (See UNCERTAINTY and 2X In CIoes iC . are made for him to react ir different ways to our operatoess or to At introduction of new capabilities. In such cases. DO ANY Or THE MAJOR A8SU)ePnOW UNJUWJFIABLY TREAT QUANTITATIVE UNCERTAINTIES AS FACIS? (9 An uncertainty can be defined as tm lack of deftaitive kbwledso for assigning values or prdbabilities to bal that biumso decisims. Many scudies are based on intelligence estimates. Trls is a repetitive analysis using different quantitative values to determine if the reiultv are sensitive to the values assiped. . and feasible. equaipmn4 avaihbi•t rates. required.0 be inflexible and no atlowance. (See sext question. considering all the circumstances. thbe reviewer must judge whether the study agency has performed adequate sensitivity analyses considering all the circumstances. tho Importanne of the subject. It Is qu*estAoble to asqume that the enerw.) Usmpess of qmtMative uzmeertaaties are hitkill probsbilites. When significant mcertainties are treated as facts by assumption. and relaoillity statemets.T QUA LITATIVE UNCERTAINTIES AS FACTS? Major qualitativo uncertainies treated as assumptions also tend to dictate conclusions.y operationsi and equipment In the future can be predicted with certainty. ammul expenditure rates.
oC thes wnitiasl mift. ARE THE MAJOR ASSUMMTO1U RLMACMBLE? major asinuiptloss should also be tested to detemim if they art riasoamble. This test cam be ftailitated it the Fitudy diecumeats or provides some explaantio at why each assuimptam was made so that the reums can be ovalusted by the reviewer. assurome of overfli&t pe& iSWIM. ahWe or inplied. 7. It then invalidate the oemlusims and socomm~dticms. 000MO etod 0"op with slplfic~aut crta imU atesc kiwi to to ame coutrgmoy anaysis. The smoung of oostlaps'y amaalysis we"red has to be a matter of jadguest. A osdWl tschqaoq for revIewers is to try to thfk cA tht naAw aamunqlons that ae plamsble. snab as tpe at ocufict or emmy *&pibtllties to deUrl. then the study Io qAesticmable. "s discusse Wtho pruouims gooelom. med coiposttlc ci psHIttMi MWd mOiltar &Umie 06 e0the Aide. thst should be wih W"ute astm ha"ime assoolbed With patlmosleeldrtm Snmupies are availabitity of base rl~o.AMCP "$S191 ot~bs gmaliAeve mm atatie. hir effects for oinuarisom with the remit. This lavolvos repettiv twos saIye~s wot dli we 4ia1MTSa~ asu ~. Treetmes ad the kiwis of ueralsi dimscsed above In an manalyess Imto adimPle. blot the udied$ of mb isetaiues as the ocmclusiom s bould wat be &NdISAW In a study. .
Possible eamples plish the currd mlissla. D. (See question 23.I where appropriate. the desip oa alternative should oceealdr "tradeof. recomMisaane in the viciitay (Athe FXBA.It ." with e'mating systems qr orponstio•a. the ated osa show the dffer••e is Omeotivaeess aw costs tbat result rom the adoptlon al tn propoeed mew @yao or 'prt/atlo. Air Forr. is an improve.) Curr* opbillties should also be omsLkWd. as an altermative. 10. and Air Force surfacetoair missiles. much of wboee coatse s alrem pard fr. Navy. by consideratibtmze ing current capabilitie. OR MARINE CORPS CONSIDERED AMONG THE ALTERNATIVXS? The alternatives should comider the capsbilitiso of Air Force.so of alleruativee• 0e" for 'vad ro M that ane olealy mawe. art sipjnwlam Curreg ospabiltUes eldd .o be cMid h m msld_e la in come08uct. Current and projected capabltUes of the other Services caa be obtained from a nauuber of difleret souroes icludiag the FivoYur Force Structure and Financial Plan matnlalfed by *Loh Service. The reiewer should becr in mind that fusctwow such as air defense. The Arm7 usu&4 eoouots combat operstons with the support d oam or more of the other Services and the other Services are cbergod by law with fuwulshbg ortain support to the Army. ARE CtWUPI CAPAMUTMO ADZQUATrLY CO DUE AMO ( THE ALTERNATIVR? to thatof the potetial wmmr.. C danof nouwrt ospIhilitt. a compoea of an altermaty.AMCP 70MI91 ALTEUAlVU 8. or Marine Corps as appropriate. Valid re"ow nay fluwi kilo" at *e awin eya4m to aooom4dapi o ciab•elft elatve are: (1) inj d alternative might include reduction in other meaw od tansuport. (2.* mumed intereeptors. For example. CONUS air defense is not the exclusive reqpomsibility of either the Air Force or the Army. ARE "TRADEOI8" WITH EXISTI=G SYST U OR ORGAN4IZATION ADEQUATELY COU14WD ZED MTMN THE ALT MNAT!VES? Where appropriate.alterttiv* migh include a reduction Li ammetiion detckag. NLAVY. the attack of surface tar pta. A CONUS air dpie'se problem must consider Army suracetoair missiles. in a t %d•f Army tranport aircraft an study an an improved fire coatrol system _. ARE THE APPROPRIATE CAPABiLXTIE OF THE AM FORCE. These types of supports are lisetd iv = Publication 2 (UNAAF).mae that Is worth the ofw rweourao. 9. wd trausportatios within a thester are not the exclusive responsibilities of the Arnny.
and feasible alternstive* that the study may hAve failed to consider. ARE AY lFEAIMLE AND §[GNMFI(AN.only indicate that minor variations have been considered as new alternatives. the reviewer must exercise judgment before . For exampl*. ALTERNATI'VS ObMTTED? A major contribution that a reviewer can make is to poiln oot. On the n'"er hand.dered. However. the study of a proposed new missile system might consider as an altertative a suitable comilamtion of existing missile and Sun systems and aerial fire support rtther than only an existing missile system. a large number of alternatives ma. 11. in compkring certait transportation systems one alternative for s face transportation mng1A be a oomblatlm o( truck. D. ARE MIxr'.!ES OF SYSTEMS (ORGANIZATIONS) CONSIDERED AMONG THE ALTERNATIVES? The reviewer should watch for failure to consider appropriate alterlmties trhi are based on mixtures of two or more vatems (organizations) to combine the best featuires of oach. ral mid water systems rather than only a truck system.able for a given study. There are practical limits on the time and manpower avz .. Excessive use of such minor variations as ahernatives often beclouds signlficant choicee. 12. If any of the answers to the previous questioas on "Alternatives" are in the negative then it is possible that some feasible and significant Llternatives were rot cons. 17i . The reVewer should consider these Lspects in determining whether feasible and _s• tigcaj alternatives have oetn omitted to the detriment of arriving t sound recommendations. The relative imp•ortance of the decision on the subject under study will also influence the numbKr of alternatives examined.riticizing a study for failure to consider all possible alternatives.AMCP 70619. sipglfcar. In the same matrr.
the referi~nce manuals may nat have been computed for the purpuse required in the study v'nd considerations important to the study mar not be included in the calculatioi~s. The test of adequacy can.are involved theni a thorough verification of the facts presented mray he in order. TVechn'cal. The unquestioning use of these iverage figures inay lead to erioneous conclusions bvcause the use of an average hides significant vqriacions that exist in the real.ýentsd in a study. of the pr~oblem~ that can sometimes compeP. a study appeals for acceptance soliey on faith in the authu.ncor docmentation." ENTED? A key element of systematic analysisi 1. Tfhe data contained in Lhese nman.. to detarmine if theyr are fltated in such a way that another study agency could tr.ances ln~o future tinte frames should allo L~e examined critiCally. Further. For example.CORRECT? It is usuai~y neichegý possibli. Inadequately aooumented st'ndies may require only slight additions to be properly dýcuimented. frequent use is r~ade of data contained ini FM 10110.. fS THE STUDY ADEQUATELY DUCT. to the factual material )n which conclusions and recommendations depend. where possible. For example. its source should b? examined critically.rlty and expertise of the stiudy group and without critical examination of the sources and methods used to arrive at the recommendat ions..n.ýs not always c:over the same number of mriles each day evEn over the same terrain.nor rc~cessary foT a r.ce thrcugh the steps of the study and arrive at substantially the same results and conelusions. A tank battalion do.* sate L. zufficient documentation of methods and sources so that with the sane material.als are usually averages of histcrical data obtc. data. Orgni~a'iion. anld Ilogistical Data"' and similar publications. the data contained ir.MCP 70319! DOCUMENTATION AND DATA 13..factual material pfe. . world. A study that is not. assurrptions. Particular attention should be paid.. etc. armmunition expenditure rates containedi in FM 10110 are based en World War 13 and Korean experience aind org. but it is advisable to spot chuck. If many errors. be applied by examining the models. adequately documented wxiil usually fare poorly when revisvied by agencies !acking the dceailed knowyledge. TIn reviewinfg factual material. a study used aij data . ARE THE FACTS SI Al C).iewer tto verify all the. The use oll these rates for projected operations in the 19657f'l tjie frame would be questionable.. Projection of current operational experi. For examrple. Without such documentation. other study 'groups can arrive at substantially the satrie results..1 Laed from certain kinds of operationr in specific theaters. 14. zat ions..
ability to assess effectiveness of air defense fires ai:tosurface fires.. Use of administrative breiks for rests. B% casualty production. Field . and maintenance operations. c.19 . When used in a study. 16. The circumstances surrounding the field exercise or field tes! should be reviewed. and grcundtoground fires. The reviswer should determine whether the data were obtained by measurements or by judgment of Individuals arid if similar data would likely be obtained ii the field test or fieid exercise were conducted again by another agency or unit.5 miles per hour. and the remaitrng missions for suppressive fire. intensive reitmply. where possible. Some material may be factually correct in isolation Wxut may take on a different significance when other facts are added.xercises usually have many parameters and very few runs. to determine if any artificialities (there are always some in any peacetime operation) were of sufficient influence to affect the results of the study based on field data. this rate is valid only on relatively level roads.qestioning projection of such data into future operations in other areas fails to allow for possible introduction of significantly new US and enemy tactics and may result in conclusions and recommendations on how better to cope with the last war. Fqr example. Often this support is eit. Common artificialities that may slgnificantly affect data from field exercises and field tests include: a. These deta were obtaine& from experience in Viet Nam operations. 15. D. ARE THE FACTS STATED WITH PROPER QUALIFICATION? In addition to checking the validity of the faztual material. therefore making It very dlfficu!t to single out cause and effect. it is good practice to check the factual material for uompleteness.AMCP 70619? that an armod helicopter' a missions are A% eacort. This ur. Lack of realistic levels of support from the other Services or other supporting units.ier kiot available or available in abnormally large amounts. b. ARE FINDINGS AND DATA FROM FIELD EXERCISES AND FIELD TESTS USED? Field exercises and field tests can be excellent sources for effectivenetie data. However. it is true that infantry units can march at an average rate of 2. such data should be carefully examined. Tr.
18. Well planned and executed wargames are excellent teaching devices and provide the participants with good insights into the prublem gamed. ARE THE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS VALID? Performance characteristics data are often the key elements in the dctcrmination of the effectiveness of a system. the revlewer should judge how well the game portrp'yed reality and should satisfy himself on the validity of the judgments and assumptions used in the conduct oi the game. Effect on actions of participants caused by use of only blank ammunition. of events of the exercise. ARE THE DATA FROM SUPPORTING WARGAMES VALID? Studies sometimes use the findings ol wargames as facts. when analyzed. Basically.tics are essential to .he conclusions and recommendations and the source of the data is not clearly D20 . Unrealistic maneuver and deployment becasuse of restricted maneuver areas.. In evaluating the validity of performance charactcristics. g. the reviewer should weigh the dependence of the conclusions and recommendations on the findings of the wargame and consider whether other competent players playing the same game woti.AMCP 7191 d. In evaluating such fact. provides clues to problem areas that need further investigation. Such games. In any case. In all forms of wargames. the source of the data should be examined. a wargame involves a hypothetical situation in which two opposing sides interact in accordance with a set of more or less definite rules. ( f. When the claimed perfcmance characteri. Thene rules and judgments are based on assumed situations and known or assumed facts and system characteristics. if well documented. thc play is determined either by mechanistic riles or judgments made by individuals or beth. Poor or inadequate reporting. the reviewer should bear in mind the nature of wargames. 17. e. The study should lay out for scrutiny the major judgments and assumptions used in the wargame. The units or quantities of materiel tested are not a valid sample either because of inadequate size or of bias in composition. usually provide a body of synthetic c:ita which. Itis recognized that it is usually not possible to lay out all judgments and assumptions used in the wargame. have arrived at 'imilar results. In determining the validity of the findings of wargames.
" The reviewer should evaluate these judgments and weigh their impact on the conclusions and recommendations. be examined to determine validity of the questions. in this case. the adequacy of the sample and statistical procedures. product. This may not be necessary if the study contains a sensitivity analysis I a reasonable range of values for the perfomnance characteriabtics. For example. 19. and the expertness of the personnel questioned. ARE ANY OF THE DATA DERIVED FROM QUESTIONNAIRES? The data obtained from questionnaires should. 20. subjective judgment was in orde. These educated guesses and judgments should be identified in the study and not " swept under the rug. Performance characteristics derived from tests at research installationc also require examination.AMCP 706191 stated. the judgment of ihose who order Army aviation n :ssions flown (commanders. Even performance characteristics derived from field tests should be examined. ARE GUESSES AND INTUITIVE JUDGMENTS IDENTIFIED? At times it is necessary to fill in data gaps with educated guesses and intuitive judgment. operations and intelligence officers) should have been elicited rather than the tudgment Ahe only of those who execute the missions. the reviewer should consider: (1) performing a sensitivity analysis himself if his time and the data in the study permit. Sometimes. D21 . such performence characteristics are derived under coiitrolled conditions that neglect the manmachine relation that exists under field ctndition. Performance characteristics based on a manufacturer' v claims are often too optimistic. Such tests cAn. There was no operational experience applicable to the study and an educated guess o. ore study cited data on the frequency of kinds of missions expected to be flown by Army aircraft in a conventional war. The data were based on a questionnaire completed by Army aviators Pt one Army post. However. additional information may be required from the agenuy that prepared the study. at times. misleading results due to artificialities caused by varlous peucetime restrictions such as safety regulations and choice of test areas. (2) requesting vaiidation of the performance characteristics and seasitivity analysis. if feced with questionable performance characteristics that are key to the conclusions.
quipinen. The e•nswer to the. then additionai information is requil ed fron. For planning. The cost models are utilized to estimate the nrobable economic impact on the Service (or Natiuw) of introducing a new c&pability. The study should soufficiently identify the cost model so that the reviewer can determine how the total system cost estimates were derived from the material in the study. 22. (For a further discuss n on models in general see question 37. what kind? Where wil' it be stationed? PaciiL.. A cost model generates cost estimates by application of cost estimating relations and cost factors to specified physical resources. these costs are normaily stated in terms of research and develcpment costs. seemingly simple question. Operating costs are recurring costs requirud to operate and maintain the capability. or will existing 'ssets ot Standard B type .as been designed to the extent of an outline TOE. in the CONUS. ? What is the cost of this new division?" depends on many factors *aacluding: Will i: be an additional division to those already in the force si!ricture? Will it replace an existing division? If so. be Used ? . investment costs. Investment costs are those costs beyond the development phase to introduce a new capability into operational use. If the material In the study does not perm!t the reviewer to do this. and operating costs. For exar2%ple. have niew Stindard A equipment. Will it e. g.AMCP 706191 COST 21. Reszarch and development costs include those costs primarily associated with the development of a new capability to the point where it is ready for operational use. Europe. etc.) This model can be very complex and computer assiated ar it may consist of a few relatively simple equations readily computed by hand. IS THE COST MODEL IDENTIFIED? Every costeffectiveness analys 4 s contains a cost modei. the agency that prepared the study..ed fromin books containing cost data although cost factora and cost estAnating relations (CERs) can sometimes be found in such booke. ARE THE COST ESTIMATES RELEVANT? Cost estimates depend on the problem under study and can rarely be obtalz. a hypothetical study cons'cders as an alternative a new kind of light infantry division which .
a stndy considers as possible alternativea weapons systems A.AMCP 706191 Are there ay existing Army units whose personnel.elopment and investment costs already expened in bringing those units into the force structure. and facilities that are or can readily be made common to both units. These previously incurred costs are normally excluded from costs presented in costeffectiveness analysis. The costs which are usually pertnent for planning purposes are those costs yet to be incurred. equipment. 23. It is not possible to prepare i universal list of costs that are always relevant..ally. one of the alternatives is retention of all of the tube weas. An occasional ervor is the failure to consider the research. equipment. In determir. Id. and C. in a hypotheticl stidy of the conversion of certain artillery units from tube to missile woapons. B. The questions that follow are designed to help the reviewer determine whether the cost estimatew used in a study are relevant. Only alhernative A is already under devc!opment.:ag the incremental costs consideration should be given to the inherited assets of trained personnel. a study should indicate why certain costs were considqred relevant and others not. ARE INCREMENTAL COSTS CONSIDERED? Inherited assets are those resources such as installations. For example. Including the costs of inherited assets and other bunk costs leads to distorted cost estimates with consequent effect ca the conclusiui. and trained personnel inherited from earlicr systems which are phasing out of the force structure and are usable !n one or more of the alternatives under study. a study considers as an alternative the conversion of certain artillery units from tube to missile weapons. The cost of that alternative would not include the sunk costs represented by the research and dc . The cost already expended on Alternative A is a sunk ccot and the research and development cost of Alternative A in the study should be only what must yet be spent (to complete the research and development of Alternative A). and recommendations. For example. For example. each with an associated research and development cost. equipment. 3unk costs are those costs already expended. and fa Jities can be used by the new division? The determination of which costs are relevant requires considerable anlalysis and judgment. . development and investment costs of existing systems as sunk costs.ns units.
the cost of aviation units should include a direct share of the cost of aviation maintenance units. must be parchased and stocked in peacetime. (2) construction of any necessary additional facilities.?ritlon and maintenance costs of the facilities. D24 . ARE COMBAT CONSUMPTION. These replacements are required because of normal attrition. the cost implications of communicationselectronic equipment utilized for .AMCP 706. to include peacetime training requirements and expenditures in the first part of a war until wartime production becomes available. REPLACEMENT/ CONSUMPTION. The total ammunitionrequired. are taken into consideration in determining the resources required. ARE ALL TRAINING COSTS INCLUDED? The resource implications (f training military personnel can be significant. ARE DIRECTLY RELATED SUPPORT COSTS INCLUDED? Cost estimates of systems or organizatlens should inchrde the proportionate cost of those other units or elements required in direct nupport. replacement/ consumption. and combat consumption sto4kage are excluded. Aunual "raining costs represent the resource implications for training replacements. th. 25. Failure to include directly related support costs may result in misleading cost estimates of altsrnative?. cost estimate of HAWK battalions should include ti costs of the associated HAWK direct and general support detachments. AND MAINTENANCE FLOAT COSTS INCLUDED? Cost estimates for the major eotipment items should include not on! the operational equipment assigned to organizations.) For example. but also the costs for those additional items required for initial stockage as well as repiacement items over the period in which the system is to be in use. (3) oý.. as well as the number of personnel requiring complete or transftionsl training.) If the resource implications for procuring and maintaining authorized maintenance float.raining . 26. a common error is to i. The availability of fullytrained personnel. (See question 32. of course. For example.urDoses could be highly significant. For example. (4) the pay and allowances of the trainees.elude only the cost of the basic load of anmmunition and to neglect the cos. Initial training costs represent the resources required fbr the training of personnel necessary for introduction o' the alternative into the force structure. (These levels of stockage are. In the same manner.. Training costs usually include such items as: (1) procurement of equipment utilized for training purposes. of the additional ammunition requirements for support of the weapon system or organization. subject to logistics guidance.191 24. the total costs of the system alternatives may be significantly misleading.
000 flying hours) while a. For example.onsisterny in handling the cost aspects of competing alternatives prevent. onz service Smay calculate aircraft a•. j Great accuracy in cost estimates is not req•ired and often is not feasible.)ther service may calculate it as a function of the activity inventory (3 percent of the active inventory per year). in dealing with costs of advanced systems it ia usually more realistic to have a range of possible costs (upper and lower values) rather thAr the pseudoaccuracy of one cost figure which assumes no uncertainties in arriving at that figure. he should spotcheck and examine the sources of the data. The basis of the cost data for advanced systems should be included in the study. Cost data furniahed by manufacturers should be viewed critically.aneous conclusions.. There are a number of ways for arriving at such estimates. 28. One commonly accepted method relates the cost data for the components of existing analogous systems to the cost of the advanced system. per 100. Advanced system costs stated as an exact figure rather than as estimated lower and upper values are particularly suspect.. THE COST DATA REASONABLY ACCURATE? Although it is not usually possible for a reviewer to check all cost data for accuracy. D25 . ARE. Th. Unsupported cost data are suspect.3 an objective evaluation of their comparative or rel&tive costs and usually leads to er. The reviewer should dettmine that the final doilar estimate is related to the aetual resource requirements for the alternative and that computational pectilivrities do not distort the cost resultb.tritton replacemeni as a function of an activity rate (e. 29. 'articularly for advanced systems. If the study does not include any construction coets and does not state how the facilities were obtained.s Is often the caae ir studies involving alternative systems of other miditary servicet'. then the reviewer must either satisfy himsell that no construction is required or take necessary steps to have the study corrected. It is not always possible to use the same cost estlmating technique for caiculating a cost element such as attrition replacements. Experience has shown tha&such data are usually understated. ARE COST ASPECTS OF ALL ALTERNATIVES TREATED IN A COMPARABLE MANNER? Iix. ARE CONSTRUCTION COSTS INCLUDED? The costs for additional installations or facilities are often overlooked yet these costs can be important. Ln fact. g.AMCP 70191 27.
30. and 'educ. oper~tlnK cost of the program. the purpose of a cost estimating relation is to translate a specification of a physiial resource into a cc~t.. If the system alternatives are very advanced developments.ng the total to an annuA' basis by dividing by th"4 number of ycars of expected service life ol the system.. Thc same general 2rocedure may be utilized to armortiLe the costs per tmonth.a o. At times a properly construeted cost estimating relation may be inapplicable.'apolaticn oi recent experience. In all cases. simple ex. For example. present stateof theart may not be appropriate. the maintenarce cost per flying hour for an Army helicopter has decreased signiftcantly over the past several years as new helicopters have been introdiced into the force structure. the cost estimating relations based on the current technology may lead to false results. the cost of the aircraft. per sortie. civilian personnel might not be used in )oe altern2tive but zay be required by another alternative in significant numbers. or complex equations with many variables.s should be based on current data or distorted estimates may result. the V/STOL aircraft concept represents a departure from aircraft currently in production. To exclude this cost could distort the results. While many design characteristics may be bilnilar to present aircraft. IS AN AmowrT1zg) conT USED? Amortized costs reduce the total program cost of the syste. The design of valid cost estimating reiatiors is a complex subject beyond the scope of this publication. For example. For example. 31. ThE.approach disguises the differences between annuaM opera t ing costs resulting from shifting denloyment patterr.er the 'fe of the systin and from a varying set of inherited assets over time.AMCP 706191 Treating alternatives in a comparable manner must not be carried to the point that costs which may be ingignificant in one alternative are therefore not considered at all in other alternatives.a cost estimating relation bated on . However. to an annual cost by taking the ýoal. adding to it the research arnd development and investmeit casts. If the cost estimating relatIJnZ used in a study were based on information for cost per flying hour for a prcsee system as well as for future systems alternatives could be distorted. Thig approach makes an arbitrary D26 . several common errors made in establisning cost relations are discussed below. per day. there rmay be a number of factors which could increase the complexity and hence. ARE THE COST ESTIMATING RE1ATIONS VALID? Cost estimating relations may be crude factors. Cc3t estimating relatior. etc.
as Is the cost of replacing the combat consumption stocks if the war terminated during the useful life of the system.s uiuaily deficient because of failure to consider all the cost. This approach i. and maiatzining a cepability for potential war during peacetime. If this cannot be done readily from the material contained in the study. It is the total cost of the alternatives which is of primary concern. then additional information.191 alloetion of *"e fixed costs of a system over time.teral purpose forces there may be significant production of weapons and expenditure of resources after a iimited conflict begins (ar in the Korean Coifdlict anW the military assistance rendered to South Vietnam). per casualtY and per sortie. wartirne costs could be significant. 33. yet in reality there may be relatively large dollar costs.. The reviewer should be guided in considering the pi oper cost approach (peacetime or wartime. may have concluded that System B is preferable. Wartime costs are the costs of procurement after the war tas begun. is required from the study agency. and rnissions undertaken. the last year. obsolete technology. The first year gets the newest technclogy. buying. wartlr e costs are difficult to determine because of uncertz inty regarding the duration ot the war. There is no basis for Sthe assqmption that the last year of system life must be charged with the ame amount of R&D cost as the first year. Such costs also include combat conavmption stocks (war reserves) to cover the period from the begin~r~g of a war until wartime production is able to replace battle losses. loss rates. Further. study be made. Pacetime costs may be defined as the costs associated with deve!oping. The use of peacetime costs only may indicate that System A is prefei red while the same study. WERE PEACETIME OR WARTIME COSTS INCLUDED? The results of a costeffectiveness stvdy may be very sensitive to the use made of peacetime and wartime costs. if wartime costs were used. Varlat onr on this approach include ordnanc< cost per target killed. an amortized cost does not present a true pictire of the total resource implications. In this case. WAS A WARTIME ORDNANCE COIST PE1R MISSION USED? The use of a wartime ordnance cost per mission should be reviewed carefuily. the amortized annual costs way look relatively small. of putting into place and D.27 .AMCP 706. However. The reviewer should attempt to convert amortized costs Into total program costs and use such :osts for comparative purposes. In the case of ge. by existing policy or directive from tye aicncy directing that th. 32. If the system is to be in the force structure for say 10 years.
It' s or lnort.bte com.. Csts .XJila u' 1 )r intita. prodtxv enti rev d~iferent setzi of co.umes.eamn to anotner annula cost strearn infers that both cost streams8 represent the same total time duristionr. If this is not the case. this approach !W~ludes only the ammunition costs expended during a t~rief battle.rs for rO thc si1mc miitt resources. Adding the amotized peacetime costs to the annualI waxrtime cost _fimplicitly 49sutnes that the war will continut: over the entire "service life" of che system.n.rv.per mission coct instead of a per year basis. the samne result wculd hold.':. thy i in:.j'e andi Ouration of ýar 110Wwhether f~ . Ni ilitary 1b..uyt( in peacetime.ovd when the two cIst streamns 3re of equ1 lenLwth that the costs results are not oa as'Ur.16 ~'> such !.pvacetime. wa rtn.: t. arnd *glects the bulk of the significant costs associated with developing.ensurable. the inference being ttat the war would coniinue over tht entire " service life" of the system. 11 is . periodthe wartime c'ts.11r Vc d1u.us. The implied assumption t~hit tne war would last ~or the life" of the weapon system.rN vc_au rues nixy Lc. a common mveasure between the values of esworkc s 1)r itured in w3rtine ztnd thlose pr(. 34. costs will . lgvt ckinstrraint!5 duringpta'cetime iind phvsica. be ciut e different from ttut tn ýVaceti mt.AMCP 706491l maintaining a capability for potentWa war throughout the projected life of the system ini the active force structure. then the two cost streams should not be added together because thev are inconimeisurables.cst (A a r urt...V of4 . WAS AN AMORTIZED WARTIME PEACETIME COST USEED? In this approach the total peacetime coitt of the bystem is reduced to an annual basipt as explained in question SIl To this amortized peacetime cost is added the estimated annual wartime replacement! consumption costs. Suc~h weighed VesLUls favor thý_ shorter Ona. bu~ing and operating the system in peacetime.1 i~rvater ropnrtlon of Vt.i war. is "service questionable. (2) the cost results use weighted wartime uvsj (3j arnd peacetim~e costs may ". As. M10it. Diring ti I~rt!Iw *hk. anl3rtizced to a per day o.cca~ relittive!'._omputed by this methor' are %ýeictted because wartime costs do rno cover the same iength of time as peacti~me costs. resource vnma itis durn n. national bud' is Ihdt ti. Adding amortized costs in one stý. Often.time and peacetime cost_ Are cumnmensur . thafri rur~ og pc~wci~mc C mi~unsura!hil: v ~'wt% t~r. If the peacetime costs had beer. wa i'irn ma. TiiI! approach is def.'ce life of the system. and (4) it does not present a true picture of the total resource implications as discussed in question 31. No distinction is made betwceen wartime and peacetime #%taa.Icient because: (1) it assumes the war will coitinue oi~r the ent:'re projected s.lj wi rt mc the Sý'arC i. This a_. eita~rnti'scs tic tx .i'.hle maY he vrrone..
L of peacetime operations as opposed to five make a significant dif".i. ¥.erence in the relative costF of the alterratives&' lould it iiake any difercnce if the procurement *evels or number of units to be . It is be:ter tn treat human losses as a separate measure without as. WAS A DOLLAR COST ASSIGNED TO THE LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE? Frequently. .:igrmg dollar valus.:.jld ter.iear thu sensitivty ot the cost estimates to the major cost assumptions. IS THE SE"'SITIVITY OF COST ASSUMPTION'S FXAMINFI)? In comznpring costs of alternative syste. the reviewer should att#inipt to determine if there .•umnzed changed? The study should make . Men and dollars may not !e inter changed. a study will assign a dollar cobt to a human casualty. Manpower availability in both peace and war is very important but this problem cannot be praperly treated only in terms if iollar costs. The loss of human life is certainly important in selection among alteriutives. it is important to detecnmi. 9 I 35.any sucn significant sensitivit% b% rough calculation. If tbz stud: fails to do this.ie whether the 'esttuts arc independent of the cost assumptions.nmaa...AMCP 706. . However.n alternative. the value of a . life is incomn•iosuiaole with the dollar costs associated with . For example. . 36.. yea.
under various tactical sitations and rules for conduct of fire. turret stability. 3.10ELS' 37.3. An effectiveness model relates measures of effectiveness to measures ot performance in an operational context. the explanation of the model should be sufficient to provide ready understanding ot which aspects of the real world are included in the model. rate of fire. 2. The exact nature awd number of these models will vary with the problem. The study sbould contain suff~cient explanation to permit tracing the operation of the model from input to output. a measure of effectivene'ss the prolhabilit of 1. . AREK THE MODELS ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED AND EXPLAINED? The conclusions and recommendations oi a costeffectiveneos analysis camnt be evaluated properly unless the models are aieqaately identified Tid explained. For example. Usually there are some kinds of an effec'iveness model. D30 . and the underlying assumptions tor the abstraction. which aspects have been omitted. The detail should be sufficient to permit calculation of new results from different input values (sensitivity analysis). and others.. BasiZally. friendiy tanks winning an er.. a system and organization model. 2. A system ard organization model describes the physical resources required to pro" de the perfoinmance used in the effectiveness model.•i• a nxde' is machineprogrammed. Therefore.. a cost model. sufficient explanation should be provided for following the general logic of the program.r example. Every model portrays the real or expected world by abstraction and simplification in order to predict the outcomeý of a possible action (see Glossary). turret slewrates. a good model emphasizes tWe specific areas in which decisions are to be made by removing those relat)ve'y constant elements of the real or expected world that can be described with a great degree of certainty. The study should provide sufficient information and explanation for the reviewer to follow the logic by which the models relate cost and effectivene ss. ARE COST AND EFFECTIVENESS LINKED LOGICALLY? A properly structured costeffectiveness analysis contains a number of models that link effectiveness and cost through logical interrelations.gagement with 1. enemy tanke under different tactical situations.AMCP 706191 RELAf'ION•IlIPS 3M.. hull characteristics. . warhead specifics. 38.ccuracy.. In cases wo. target acquisition . in the combat vehicle weapons system study referred to.qtidy on combat vehicle wearvons systems used .. This was related to performance measures such as muzzle velocity. and a costeffectiveness model. F.
Depending on the criterion. The costeffect~veness model finadly relates the cests of each alterrative to its effectiveness under varying assumptions. consistent with the planned operaticnal concept. Equal Effectiveness Method D31 .000 1. (See question 22). Included in these total costs were not only the devebpment and procurement of the preferred item but also such additional ccsts caused by training of perrionnel. For example.compare effectiveness and costs of alternatives at equal cost.AMCP 706191 this included tb. This permitted plotting the following graph: I $ 20. physical description of each alternative. Deacetime a'nmun!ticn zse. the mame study used the total future cost of aquisition and ownership (R&D. communications. A cost mnodel relates dollar costs to the &. in one antitank weapons study the equal effectiveness method (winning the duel .000 wpn A 100_______ 500 Range i(0 Figure 1. annual operating) for various quantities of systems. at equal effect4geness. The method and the techniques used to achieve this cost and effectiveness relation should be logical and explEined. Effectiveness was related to cost by a numerical formula for calculation of cost of achieving duel success at a given range under specified conditions. TOE unit description. the support and maintenance c'equirements. The cost model applies cost estimating relations and factors. ammunition. initial investment. equlpment maintenance. fire control.000/ W pn B 10. etc. For example. the complete vehicle. the model ma:. or at different cost and different effectiveness (see page 9).ysical resources (and their peacetime activity rates) described in the system/organization mnodel. and so forth. armamer t .ail pertinent factors considered) was employed.
the study failed to consider the steps that the enemy co. See Bibliography Item No. Vietnam. or similar planning figures based on averages of large numbers. consumption. The model for judging.AMCP 7OS191 The graph sh. pages 131. (The graph portrayed above is highly simplified. the enemy should be considered to have time to adjust to our system decisions. Korea. killing the target at various ranges. Therefore. For example.000.e. costs $1. and is 50% effective (on some valid measure).g. (See qutstion 6). a bind was used to portray th. but also the interrelations with the information proce3sing functions to be performed oa the ground. variance in vosts for wining a duel at a given range. The relation between the total cost of the first 100 and that of the first 1. the sensore and their maintenance.000. Models should provide for theproper relations among subsystems so that the full Implications of a change in one part of the system will be reflected in the rest of the system.. In using the model to evaluale the effectiveness of the future system only in the light of these current or recent conflict scenarios. a study of a proposed system was based on its incorporation into t.000 imits of a new main battle tank is not linear or a straight extrapolation. DOES THF MODEL ALLOW FOR ENEMY REACTION? it normally takes several years to implement fully a decision to deploy a new system..ild take to ýounter the proposed system. 39. ARE STRAIGHT EXTRAPOLATIONS USED WITHOUT PROOF? While straight extrapolations (linear relation) often do apply over limited ranges of performance.e current force structure. If a missile system has 10 risItles. For example. of winning a "duel". 40. In the actual study rather than a simple line. DOES THE MODEL TREAT THE PROBLEM IN A SYSTEM CONTEXT? Most military systt ms have many subsystems. i.. then D32 . A major aspect of the effectiveness of our system is the degree to which it makes such adaptation !or the enemy either technologically difficult or economically unattractive.ws tht cost. the relition between the total weight of rations for one infantry divisionmonth and the weight for 10 divi'ionmonths is a straight extrapolation. they rarely apply to effectiveness or cost data. For example. 1.7 for more complete descriptJa). 41.. subsubsy stems and so forth. a model in a study of an airborne surveillance system must not only show the interrelations among the aircraft (or drones). Europe). the effectiveness of the proposed system was dominated by current or recent conflict situations (e.
For example. such as cost of $8. 30 will require 2 manhours. "If A is 5. 42. There are two principal types of probabilistic models: static models using probability statements instead of other values.PAM P 7061 PI a missile Rystem with 20 missiles. such as weight of rations per day per man for large forces. 15 will require 4 manhours.ie it will give the same most probable result as if probabili'Adc techniques had been applied. D33 . 5 will require 5 manhours. Of arny 100 jobs (demands). and dynamic (stochastic) models involving change. an analysis of a maintenance suppo)rt organization may include a model which represents the demands for mainienance Wffort placed on the support organization. then B will be 610 in 50% of thl cases. Of course. the reviewer should distinguish those cases in which a probabilistic model iAs nceded to reflect the real world qituation. "If A is 5. Costeffectiveness analyses frequently require many intermediate calcuiations involving data. 20 will require 1 manhour. and 11 or 12 in 25% of the cases".tr. The deterministic technique is correct in these thcee casec becau. 2 will require 30 manhours. The only averages with variances arj dJ revie. the majority of the coefficients and planning factors used in modds are ickat degrees of confidence. at any given time. there may still be a problem if the most probable result is not the only one of interest. any one value of a known range and frequency of values. 000.ver should try to identify the probable range of variance about the averages that are used as inputs and have at least ar.butions for a given problem. A probabilistic model (see Glossary) uses relations of the type. to select values from frequency distrl. costing $2. Deterministic models are usually appropriate (1) when the planning factor has an insignificant variance. representing change. 2 to 6 hours per 'lay) multiplied by 9 flying hour cost function of $20 a day plus $4C per flying hc'.000 per man for a force of 20. ARE DETERMINISTIC AND PROBDABILISTIC MODELS USED PROPERLY? A determninistic model (see Glossary) uses relations cf the type. 4 or 5 in 25% of the cases.. 10 will require 10 manhours.00. The indiscrin±anate use of specific values often creates what is In effect a deterministic model. (2) if the uncertain factor is multiplied by a point value. Additionally. (3) a varying factor is multiplied by a linear function..000 men. Probabilistic models are used where the variables in the problem may assume. intuitive feeling about the confidence of the numerical results.000 to $12. In reality. Some stochastic models use random numbers. such as an uncertain flying hour rnte (P g. as opposed to deterministic models which use fixed or average values all the time. 5 will require 20 manhours. will not be 100% 15 effective but (at best) '1. then B is always 8". 10 will require 3 manhours.
say. 10 manhours.queued) in the order of simulated requests: 2 manhours. 4 manhours. Duel D34 . a twodigit random number. Probability date for each of the probabilities listed above are derived from tests and experimerts. the effectiveness of alternative US tank systems was based on a study of duels between US tanks and enemy tanks. In this manner. 30 " 40 " " 80 20 : S798 : 99 ro represent requests for work. a sufficient number of repetitions to obtain adequate information about the range of values of the solution. and I will require 80 manhours. 1 man to jobs less than 4 hours.s.t random number is. etc. This infocmation is aranged into a cumulative distribution as shown below: 019 2049 5059 6074 7579 1 manhours 2 to 3 ti 4 it " 5 8089 9094 9596 : 10 manhburs . The socalled MonteCarlo model described above requires. and the gains of one side equal the losses of the other. it acquired by a weapon Probability of kill.g. e. 43. and so forih. Available maintenance men would be assigned to requests under various rules. 2 men to jobs of 4 to 8 hours. apply in a study on aircraft vulnerability. if detected Probability of being hit. For example. 37. The r. A static model using probability statements may. a hypothetical studiy.iot justify the use of this type of model. and the value is 10 manhours. for example. Is drawn (from a table of rpndom numbers or a random number generator). The probability of survival for a specified time is given by the product resulting from the multiplication of the following probabilities: Probability of aircraft being detected Probability of aircraft being acquired by a weapon. if hit. however. This process continues at some rate (which is probabilistic) and the requests for maintenance are arranged '. Most conflu situations do . eay 84... I. trie corresponding value is 2 manhour. the relaion of number of maintenance personnel and delay can be determined for various assum~ptions about demand for maintenance effurt.AMCP 70619' 2 will require 40 nmanhours. The model would keep track of the tine elapsed between generating and completing a request for maintenance. IS A ZEROSUM GAME MODEL USED WHERE IT IS NOT APPLICABLE? A zerosum twoperson game is a conflict in which there are two sides.
ARE THEI MODELS INTUITIVELY ACCEPTABLE? Models tend to become mathematical and many are difficult to understand even in their broad aspects. 44.nk. the defender must inhibit movement. the objective of a US tank may differ from the objective of the enemy tt. Hence. In fact. If the reviewer is aware of special cases in which there is some indication of the outcome. overlysimplified models tend to become superficial by limitation in choice of detail and omission of important variables. An enemy loas of one tank was equated to a US gain of one tank The net US gain was uaed to . Models can be tested by determining if they represent correctly known facts and situations not considered in the study. D35 . the model can be tested to determine if the results are in generkl agreement with the indicated outcome. comparable absurd answers should be produced by the model. is to vary some of the principal parameters and determine if the model produces results that are consistent and plausible.etermine tLh effectiveness for each alternative. Yet. Converseiy. Another test that can be applied. other alternative concepts might inhibit enemy tank movement more effectively than would a US tank similar to an enemy tPnk. The situation is not always symmetrical. at times. The attacker mast move. Our gain is not the enemy' 9 loss. if absurd facts and situations are introduced into the model. The objective of a good modicl Is to be near enough to reality so that the model outputs can be used to predict some portions of the future with an acceptable degrec of confidence.results were baaed on the losses incurred by each side.
Failure to use meaningful measurea of effectiveness i. Examination of the effectiveness measures requires analysis and sound military judgment. Specifically.uld attempt to identify these measures from the materiaW contained In the study. incipient dam:age area produced by the burst.a valid aualvJs. In a stvdy of selected infantry aud ar/Lery weapons systems. in this case. the measure of effectiveness was a division firepower score. The conclusions and recommendations cannot be properly evaluated. C the other LInd. several measures must be used to ha.. Primarily. ^ the fI':power s 'ores cf 6c units within the division. directfire weapens such as rifles were assessed in terms of probable hits per minute against personnel in the open.• a major contributing factor to unacceptable studies. This score wjq tho a ?.blon firepower score us'u in the study also assumed an inexhaustible and uniform supply of ammunition regardless of whether the weapon was a rifle company machine gun or a division generl support artillery cannon. which in turn depends on target acquisition and weapon guidance or accuracy.. 46. Mortars and artillery were assessed in terms of maximum effective range and lethal area coverage per minute. effective width of burst. D..ngly dependent on burst rate of fire. This use uf a firepower score was wrong for a number of reasons. the revie. and the fragmentation area of ihe weapon in comparison with other weapons.o under study.36 .. For neutralizatien. IS THE EFFECTIVFNESS MEASURE APPROPRIATE TO THE FUNCTIO!V OR MISSION? The reviewer should satisfy himself that the measures used to evaluate effectiveness are appropriate to the function or mission of the system or organizaton under study. ARE TPE MEASURIES OF EFFECTIVLNESS IDENTIFIED? The study should calarly identify the standards or measures used for rvaluating the effectiveness of the system or organi2.. Thus. tht effectiveness is stL . without prior evaluation of the measures of effectiveness. casualty production depends strongly on tht probaAiiiy of hit. ' The total di. it failed to differentiate between the effectiveness of weapons when used for neutralizatlon and when used to produce casualties. If not explicitly state. particularly when the study is based on equal cost alternatives.AMCP 706191 E FFECTIVENESS 45.er sho. and ability to maintain fire over the required time (the latter a furction of weapon characteristics and ammurwdticn reqairememr'. The example below illustrates one use of an effectiveness measure that was not appropriate.atio. The firepower score of a unit was based on sustained rates of fire..
ARE PERFORMANCE MEASURES MISTAKEN FOR EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES? Measures of performance characteristics are sometimes miscons'zued as measures of the ability of the system or organization to accomplish its funct!. DO THE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES IGNORE SOMW OBJEC<TIVES AND CONCENTRATE ATTENTION ON A SINGLE ONE? In the measurement of effectiveness.. and target size. Performance cLaracteristics may contribute one of the many inputs requirZd to achieve the effectiveness of the system or organization as a whole. 48. weapon guidance. An unstated assumption Lh. The weapon with the smaller CEP is not necessarily the more effective weapon.. IS THE EFFECTIVEJESS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF EITHER A CCOPERATIVE ENEMY OR AN OMNIPOTENT ENEMY? Neither baste . the relation of lethal radius to CEP may be more significart.speed of movement omobility of a unit is only one aspect of the unit' s capaoility &oaccomplish its function. if irmplemented. . the s'tady failes to corsider that the vulnerability of other elements in ihe'linr.AMCP 706191 47. Other factors that must be also considered in weapon effectiveness include target acquisition. Far example. A possible test for effectiveness measures suspected of concentrating on a single objective is to evaluate them against a hypotietical obviously Pbsurd weapon or device that does only one job Valid measures of effectiveness should show an absurd hypothetical weapoi or device in its trae light. the reiewer should watch for ay tendencies to concentrate on only one or two objectives. may cause an imbalance and reduce the capability to achieve other objectives. The resulting conclusions and recommendations.t vulnerable element in a line of communications system are the bridges in a rail network aznd measures effectiveness of deployment of given air defense unitW by degree of protection afforded railway' bridges. to te surrounded . For example.s vaid. fhe enemy should be expected to adjust his decisions to our own planning as much as his resources permit. For examplt. a counterguerrilla stuoy used a icenario in which the hostile guerrilla forces retreat to a metintain redoub. The speed at which a unit can attack the enemy is not In itself a measure of the ability of the unit to defeat the enemy. a study indicates that the mo.in costeffectiveiess studies. In evaluating tWe overall effectiveness of the air defense deployment. f communicaticas system may be greatly increased by the redeployment of the air defense. I. Sucn a situation indicates an unstated assumption that other cbjectives are unimportant..f thL enemy is inflexible in the face of our changes is a common erro.
er. Some studies absume maximum future enemy capability in all wealpon areas. As a rule. . he wi!l ave •o limit hie tactical capabilatieti.e of t. where appropriate. The real question is: how much does it cost the enemy in time and resources to e..•8 . particularly In the case peacetime budgets. rapid dibpýrsal) in face of the new U: capability for air landing is . 1 51. wargames are a questionable means for measuring effectivenees because of the difficulty of testing the sensitivity of the results. war were based . riflemen. AdaptLion of ene. but is hardly realistic.AMCP 70616 1 by US troops airlanaed ty helicipters.s capabilities if constraints hytscal resources and budgets . in a forLP of £0 riflemen the percentage who will actually fl. IS THE EFFECTIVEfES M14ASURED BY ANALYSIS OF WARGAMES? When effectiveness is measured by analysis of wargarmes the reviewer should look to sensitivity analysis f the results. :mmunications. A comparable adaptation to the enf'my capabilities wsi illustrated during Worldr War Ii. A capabie guerrilld leader snould not be expected to use such d. Another error in straight or iinear extrapolion is disregard of the element of dimin.ny tactic_ f(e. For example. ZG0 t>. For example. IS TKE EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS BASED ON STRAIGHT EXTRAPOLAuTION? Occasiona.'atrous tarties.g. should be pitted against a variety of enemy postures aM the choice should make none of these postures particularly attractive to the enemy. In theory. The enemy r%nnot simultaneously maxi'ize all of th.ne variables in target and fire distrib.. a hypo!J'etical study nia) show that 6 riflemen can destroy 10 targets. referees. Thais scenario rn~kes cornventional ta:ics palatable in counterguerrilla warfare.•inly feasible. (See question 6). German air def. Further. at targets may not be the same as for a for.tilon are not nrcessarily tk?. Alternatives. If he inaximizes his strategic force3.are present.lly a study may evaluate effectiveness by atraight (linear) extrapolatlor from the measuremeat of effectiveness of t small unit.(0w (ste question 18. An extrapolation tht states 100 targets can be destroyed by 60 riflemen is not Justified without sup~orting evidencz•. as well as n•atn[f f•. and vice verba.shing returns or marginal utility. same in both cases. To do so means challenging the effect . 50.. the enemy can 2ountor every systern we design and our effectiveness will not be sufficiently high to warrant a positive decision.fect a direct counter? Ih the price is very high he will probably seek other lesser alterntives.in the attackIng aircraft using certain altitudes that were optimum for the air defense batteries.f changes in players.rnae analyses prior to the. Allise bomber aircraft did not oblige end avoiked the "optimam" altitude raige.
d :W iv.mits. a certain manner may a( complia. where appropriate. and IFF upets of operations w tl the U. . (See question 10.. ndi2•• *he latter vart of th. lu measuring thv effectiveness ct a system or organizatior. . effe tive'nse of Army air aefense operations muz. S. and the dgree of dependence upon it should be exaialnud. the judkment of the effectiveners of the aystem should als.future sysvems is often dcoeoWent upon when they cau be avaihablo fur operational use anc the total operational life span of the :.? onjy practicabtt.e grtuid movement of U. 55. its function by stopping enemy ground moveu. worn for very s~hort periods. or leadership.otve. Further. e•stttr . ARE SOME ASF'CTS OF EFFECTIýtENYSS INCOMMENSURABLE OR UNMEASU1ABLE? The reviewer should examine carefully "he treatment of incommen.nemy chemical agents.% often obtained by quanifyV such aspects as morale. t spatiulrattent (1) the time betwi t hue present and L. valve or irportsnee. Howeve:..si of pr. . DOES THE EFF . . there are only 2O) targets. Air F.hKE INTO ACCOUNT THE "1'IML% DIM\LNSION? "The effectiven.m.) 53.lied air forcee.01l parucipate in the o)erctlon. Huwcver.r Aautiat o4x rzanai al l:tof TLIC complete r3 ..missi'ts rdo not igmfy twict as nt...:iat on13 the Army . IS THE IMPACT ON OTHER ARMY OPERATIONS lGNOREr..e.. exarilne the effect on i...n to dimension upon ef*civeress. SEhVICES IGNORED. Fir'rnurc a£ tar'gets :s.turables &ad unmeasurýIle aspects of performance in the total measurement uy effectivenss. the clothing may cause such bxdy heating that it can oniy tý. OF A UYURL SYSTEM T.c.? in measuring the effectiveness of a systcm or orgamzatioi. The ability to aehl~tv' this air supertorir. on other Army operations should be consideced.h . shoul. consideration must be glven to the opeawuois f otrn c. G0 rr~Isles if 00tec!i'ir. command ard contrrml. At times.' a aualiat. for v. the .Eect..r exzmple. ieved by the Air Fer. 9 thiese factors.Ample.:easures of effectiveness are no. Services.S.nt. Misleading n. In the same manner certain protective clothing may be effective against .. te measurement o.ystems In exanmring the effect of !te ume n rrcuar .g on. Failure to do so is the equivalent of rraking tlb erroneous unstated assumption . ARE THL OPERATIONS OF OTHE:.not of equal 52.. ralca life span.ol•utjýi may 1. the use of sctical nuclear weapons i. the effectiveness if certain Army operat jns is aepnaent upon the aegree of air siperjrity ac. rce and '. &. consider the comrnunicatlions. F. 54.
In the 1972 to 1987 period (the operationa life of B) the international environment. in any given individual attack by 100 aircraft. rnd hence the missions m:. Weapon B. In fact. whereas System B can be counted on t. Nevertheless. Effectiveness is not always constant but often must be related to time. or dispersions about the average. It is very possible that the changeover from X to Y i•. In such a case. replaccs Weapon A and is designed to pvrform the same mission more effectively.roys 50. The sensitivity of the system to jumps in technology is a vital input to effectiveness evaluation of massive long lifetime systems. Breakthroughs cannot be predicted. %verysuccebsfully. deployable in 1972. This risk is unacceptable even though over many events the results will average out to the expected value. . Jn another ease involving the time dimension. If the objective "D40 .AMCP 706191 For example. A quick fix means may be needed to bridge this gap and must be charged to the cost of X and Y. consitute an Lnecceptable risk for any single event. For example. cerýain trends are noticeable. For example. It is necessary to recognize ýhat missions do not remain fixed. Weapon Y is judged to be more effective and requires entirely new support equipment not compatible with that of Weapon X. 56.y undergo major changes. This equipment cannot be operationally available until 1974. the effectiveness of Weapon Y. Effectiveness is calulated on the basis of the 1972 environment. the system should be judged on its ability to adjust to such chenges. destroy at least 25 aircraft. The old weapon is becoming obsolete arid the new one is not fully effective. air defense System A destroys trom 0 to 99 of 100 approaching enemy aircraft bu+ on the average de. is compared with that of the current Weapon X. IRE EXPECTED AND AVERAGE VALUES USED INCORRECTLY TO MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS? It is an error to employ an expected alue or average as part of a measure of effectiveness if the obiective really requires a specified minimum.plies a dp in effectiveness during the 197074 interval. it the objective is air defense. the mission for which A is designed may already be on the decline. Similar comments apply with respect to changes in technology. antitank weapons have improved more rapidly than tanks since World War 11. Effectiveness should not be evaluated on the basis of either a specific probability of the conthwuity of the mission or of a specified new mission. on the other hand. Rather. It is stated to have an operational life of 15 years. deployable in 1972. System B. destroys from 25 to 35 of 100 approaching aircraft with an aveagc destruction of 30. the posfible variances. System A may not destroy any aircraft at all. makes A an unacceptable system. assume that at the same cost. The risk associated with the possibility that.
1Tis situation is common in compaxison of general purpose forces such as in studies of alternative division•. IS A QUALITATIVE COMPARISON FEASIBLE? There are tlned when the effoctiveness of a system or organization cannot be presented adequately in quantitative terms. Then no statement can be made fo~the relative ranking of A and B for the deception tactic. These iuzeric. 57. It may fe justifiable to say that Altzrnative A is more effective than B (denoted i) in a certain characteristic. and intelligence.I? A tabular comparison can be useful in weeding out some alternatives. this does not me. Various pertinent aspects can be described and characterized by "yesno!' or "goodfairpoor. D41 .er.!comný... Its key ingredients are mobility. If we shouid arrive at the ame ranking for the other two basic flctrs. A stuly that assigns uumericsl values to effectiveness of general purpose forces should be examined carefully.d alteritative divisions in termR of numericLI scores.%n that we can simply add up socalled scores of these three basic factors and thereup'n compare the deception capability of various alternatives. The re. command/control/communicatlons. For example. B. A qualitative comparison is possible.AMCP '706191 were destruction of as many enemy aircraft as possible over some period of time but without regard to their damage to us.(. The tactics. Howe. we may obtain a grouping as follows: A E Let us reconsider the example of the deception tactic. logistics.% basic factors (firepower. even if it is not known whet~er A iq 1i times or twice as effectivX a. deception tactics strongly Inv . comma•// utrol. (an unlikely objective) System A would be preferred. e. mobility.mications. command/contrl/commu. in tVrn. IF QUANTITATIVE MEASURES 01 EFFECTIVENESS ARE UNATTAINABLE.or mobility and W for intelligence. Each o•. then we conclude that w is also true forthe deception tactic. therefore.. inteligence.. Ore study comi . If it can be determined I. values are l'kely to be meaningless because the six basic factors are inputs and not objectives. survivability) was given a numerical value and tnese values were summed for each alternative.. combirse to evolve strategies.4ve the basic building blocks of intelligence. ASUppone we know that Division A Is nore mobile than B. They combine in undetermined ways to make up the effectiveness of tactics.ultign sums were compared as effectiveness measures. it may be that . however. nicatin•as. and mobility. On the other hand. the . we cannot distinwe have a partial ordering B that A and guish between B and C but either is inferior ti'.
a good study will isolate &Jis dependencce. the qu•. wvere it exists. Generally.E We have now learned that D is dominated by A for all three basic factors. It should not be assumed that rankings of aernativ~es with respect to the tactical level can only b. The reviewer should isolate the degree of dependence and dete.AMCP 706. system.D D C D. A slight change in any of these assumptions may produce significant changes In the effectiveness measured. and lay out the degree of dependence by various kinds of senetivity or contingency analysie. and hence for the deception function.hile costeffectiveness analysis is performed preferably by quantitative analysis. Mob.i. deception effectiveness as a result of wargames or field exercises. A combination of both bxuldup and direct approaches would probably prove most fruitLZul.derived by buildup and integration from the basic level. Control.) D42 . 58. We zy find dominant alternatives. IS THE EFFECT1VENESS SENSITIVE TO CHANGES IN ASSUMPTIONS? The effectiveness derived in most sttrdles Ie usually dependent to a degree on the assumptions. additions of a new ECM band width to the enemy's cay )illity may drastically degrade an otherwise cutstanding U.. So D can be eliminated if all alternatives have equal cost._ Intellience Communications _______ A. For example.C.titative results are often only of academic interest and offer Jittle or no Yelp to the decision maker.AE E B. say. . tactics of baterout can be investigated and valid rartial ordrrings of alternatives obtainad.. most commonly influence effectiveness and are often not subjected to contingency analyais concern the locale. When carrie.mine If it As amcaptable. and enemy forces and tactcs.1 too far. The Lsnmpt~ona Jha. there are limits to suboptimizlng or idealizing the problem to make it amenable to quantitative analysis. Sippose we obtain: Command. (See questions 5 aknd 6.191 In thiJ manner. the time and level of warfare._ PE. The reviewer shonud recogrize that . There 'nay be direct qualitative comparisons with respect to.
and the Combat Developments Objective Guide (CDOG). Yet A may not be the preferred organization because the mobility was achieved by degrading other factors that contribute to the higher objective of efficient control of conflict situations (e. Such generalizations are meaningless and cannot be related to the analysis as can a good criterion such as "the minimum cost of maintaining a [ specifiedl level of transport capability over a [ specified] time span. If W3is is not the case. Overall Army objectives are contained in documents such as the Bas•c Army Strategic Estimate (BASE). The criteria should be stated specifically and clearly." D43 . ARE THE CRITERIA TOO GENERAL? Generalized criteria are suspect. A study could conceivably demonstrate that organization A can be made more mobile than organizations B and C with a lesser expenditure of resources. For example.AMCP 706191 CRITERIA 59. This requires good military judgment and the necessity to examine the larger context of the problem. or tests of preferredness. Army Force Development Plan (AFDP). For cxample. the reviewer should attempt to identify the criteria from the material contained in the study. g. When this does not prove possible.. An example of incorrectly chosen criteria is illustrated in the use of mobility as the sole criterion in the selectiov among different organiizatione. firepower. consideration should be given to having the study returned for futher clarification. This is particularly important if the study is also to be reviewed by agencies outside the Army. are the basis for the conclusions and recommendations. Therefore. 61. etc. problems of air defense of the CONUS are aspects of the larger problem of restricting possibie damage to the CONUS to certain levels. The design of artillery systems is part of the larger problem of design of land battle forces. ARE THE CRITERIA IDENTIFIED? The criteria. sustainability. If the study criteria are not consistent with the objectives at the higher level then the wrong problem may be solved. the reviewer must determine if the criteria used in a study are consistent with higher level objectives.). a study may state that the criterion is "the system with maximum military worthm or the "best system". 60. ARE THE CRITERIA CONSISTENT WITH HIGHER ECHELON OBJECTIVES? No matter what the concern of a study. the subject falls into a larger framewor*. Army Strategic Plan (ASP).
However. the choice of aircraft is not the real problem. or tYhe effectiveness to be achieved by it. It is impossible to maximize gain and aimultaneously mlnim4ze cost." or "causing the maximum amount of casualties with the least expenditure of ammuniticn.• TU TIVE A I 10 50 100 ENEMY TARGETS DESTROYED (EFFECTIVENESS) Figure 2.AMCP 706191 62. suggests that something can be obtained for nothing. is that it leads to invalid compromise criteria by using some erroneous conatraint on effectiveness or cost in an effort to make an impossible test seem feasible. costeffectiveness curves for two hypothetical system alternatives are given below: 30. The da ger of using an overdetermined criterion. such as the one described. is not given or is incorrect. The minimum cost Is to do nothangand achieve no effectiveness. It is not possible to increase effectiveness without some increase in resources (cost). CostEffectiveness Curves D44 . Occasionally It may turn out that system A is both more effective than system B and costs less. 63. For example. The subsystems carried by tie aircraft are really more crucial. For example. ARE THE CRITERIA OVERDETERMINED? Overdetermined criteria lead to erroneous conclusions. a hypothetical study involving proposed surveillance aircrait shows that aircraft A offers greater mission fleidbility thiu aircraft B at the same cost and Is therefore preferred. In this case. system A will not be both more effective and cost less when compared with additiona) alternatives.' the cost of a system alternative. 64. S. IS THE ABSOLUTE SIZE OF GAIN OR COST INGNORED? If the absolute size o. A criterion that states "to maximize the damage to the enemy while at the same time minimizing the cost to the U. The allweather sensor effectiveness and a&?o•Ics cost may even determine whether there should even be an aircrdt A or B. ARE GOOD CRITERIA APPLIED TO THE WRONG PROBLEMS? At times a valid criterion for one element of the problem is incorrectly applied to the total problem. the analysis often leads to wrong conclusions and recowmendations.
The flaw in the use of such ratios is the absence of azy specified level of effectiveness required or resources available as cuscussed above. For example. studies ignore ebsolute size of gain or cost and use effectivenesstocost ratios. at larger levels of effectiveness alternative B is preferred (from about 70 to 110). Which is the preferred? If one did not look at the absolute level of effectiveness required to achieve the military task but only at the effectivenesstocost ratio. D45 . If the number of enemy targets to be destroyed or cost limits are not indicated. a dangerous criterion. a ratio may be useful in ranking among alternative systems. If only this iJuformation were converted to effectivenesstocost ratios. "This is a curve which gives the most for the resources expended. and alternative B destroys 100 enemy targets for $25 million. The effectivenesstocost ra. then neither alternatives A or B is preferred or even acceptable. The selection of alternative A on this basis may be correct." At times. in the graph above alternative A destroys In enemy targets for $1 million. If the level of activity is fixed. at low levels of effectiveness. the effectivenesstocost ratio criterion is often applied when the level of activity is not fixud. The crucial ques4•on is how many enemy targets are required to be deotroyed. the envelope (indicated by line of X' s Li the grap) along the bottom says. and other things have to be taken into consideration at higher levels to determine what the absolute gain (number of targets destroyed) should be or the maximum resources (cost) that can be made available. Until the absolute level (magnitude) of effectiveness or the absolute level (magnitude) of the coot is specified the preferred alternative cannot be determined. Either the study should be based on an absolute size of gain or cost required or the study should present a costeffsctiveness curve (or posnts) from which decisions can be made.AMCP 706191 In this situation. If the capability to destory more than 110 enemy targets is to be achieved. or some other alternative.io can be misleading and. at times. but only by cinrcdence and is obviously wrong avhen •he system must be capeble of destroying more than 70 targets. alternative A is preferred (up to about 70 enemy targets destroyed). 4:1. If the study presents a costeffectiveness curve as shown above. then alternative A would be preferred. However. there is no real basis to recommend either rcternative A or B. alternative A would have a ratio of 10:1 and alterratave B.
conside. the reviewer should consider whether other prudent Ltudy agenc'es would probably arrive at substantially the same conclus'ons and recommendations given only the material contained in the study. unfortunately. The determinmtion of whether the conclusions and recommendations follow logically from the material in the ittudy is a matter of judgment by the reviewer. storage and transportatioi operations would be affected. For example. In making this Judgment. the study may negl3ct to examine the maintenance support and the maintenance units that would have to be in existence concurrently with the proposeo weapon system. Tl. ARE THE CONCLUSIOINS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LOGICALLY DERIVED FROM THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE STUDYk? The conclusions and recommendations should be derived logically from the material contained in the study. Some studies. These unconsidered ramifications may either influence the validity of the conclusions and recommendations of the study or the devisions to be made as a result of the study. the Army supply system to include supply. Other ramifications that are sometimes neglected are factors that should be considered jointly with the problem under study. The resources required to orgpaz( and maintain the malnzenarme system will influenme decisions on the proprsed weapon system. However. This requires. scope of application and uncertainty which is associated with the particular input.Vaion of such ioint decisions could affeCe the conwlusions and recommendations of the study. a study may recommend ad~p. the adoptior of dehydrated rations to achieve greater shelflife may also reduce construction and transportation costs becaise of the smalhor unit volume of dehydrated f'tod. D46 . Spillover effects are not always negative.ion of a new weapon system to fulfili a certain fuw. HAVE ALL THE SIGNIFICANT RAMIFICATIONS BEEN CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONSIDERED? Sometimes a study fails to consider all the pertinent ramifications in arriviLg at the conclusions and recommendations. at least. For example. If input from another study is essentitI. 66.. a statement as to validity.fed witbin the study (mention I•i * bibliography is hardly s=*ficient). At timer. i: _hypothetical study recommended adoption of an engire requiring a new type of fuel..tion. draw conclusions based on previoi. studies and materials that are not filly doe~im." For example.AMCP 706191 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65.e ramifications are often referred to as "spillovers. it should be documented and explained in detail.
but really are not so in the light of other considerations that influence military operations. For example. If suc~h implt. the reviewer should bear in mind the limitations of the study.cular toxic chemical munitions system may be demonstrated to be superior. While the limitations may be treated within the study. the reviewer. particularly when the study is voluminous. considering cost and effectiveness. auf consider the relation of the agency that prepared the study and tne e et of the implementation of the study recommendations. the "~udv limitations. It may be advisable for the reviewer to refresh his memory or. Studie'. ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND REC'Ž%!O.i~lveneas models. 68. the dependence of the conclusions and recommendations on the limitations if. to a high explosive munitions system for accomplishing a certain function. ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY? In evaluating conclusions and recommendatlcas. because of natona~l policies an employnent of toxic chemicals._tics does not appear to furthier what are generally considered to be tht. before evaluating the conclusions and recommendations.NZATIONS INDICATE '048? Studiet sometimes unwittingly reflect bias bemause of parcel n'r institutional interests. For example.TENDATIONS REALLY FEASIBLE IN4 THE LIGHT OF 13LITICAL.us a rule. The reviewer should also consider the Impact of policies thut may not have been known to the agency that prepared the study or were promulgated too late to influence the study. the study conclusions and recommenaion my depend upon the valldijy of particular assumptions but this relation may not be Pointed out. DO THE CONCLUSIONS AND RIVCOMME. criticality of assumptions. I posibedetermine tho effects of these reiewr ramiicaionson he cnclsion an recmmedatins.AMCP 706191 If significant remifications are uncovered that are Dot adequately cansidred th soul.(See question 2 67. D4 7 * . It is necessary to be cognizant ot the real world in which the Army must operate. However. sometimes neglectad. Tim more cor o. To asslsa in detecting bias. POLICY OR ~OTHER CONSIDERATIONS? In reviewl4g the conclusions and recommendations of a study. criticality of unrertainties and validity of cost and eff%. CULTURAL. A&I times some recommendations of a "dr#4 amear to be emlnWty may feasible from a strictly economic or military view. a part. %headoption of the high explosive munitions system may W~ the only feasible solution.io pes of limitations iaolude inadequate data bae". have varying &'green of limitations. 69.
For example. but the results are very sensitive to the values assigned to the Inputs.. In thie situation some studies arrive at conclusions and recommemtbions based on considerations other than those studies.everal alternatives exhibit similar costeffectivaness. but indifference. ic!. maximizing selected enemy capabilities. This type of bias may be prejudicial to the interests of the Army when the study is reviewed by nonArmy agencies. 70. Unnecessarily referring to all Air Force fix. and in selection of effectiveness criteria. 71. In other words. A study may find that . t:Cen other grounds should also be demonstrated for selecting among the alternatives that are close in effectiveness. a study . The use o( this technique without eplanatim'. the application of the criteria does not lead to preference. then one occasional form of bias is probably not present.)d wing aircraft as "long take off and landing" aircraft is an example. la situations of this Kind. based on the mzterial in the study. IF PRIORITIES ARE US rED. ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON NESIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES? At times a study will presert one alternative as baving the highest value of effectiveness of the measures applied to all alternatives. ARE TRF CONCLUSIONS AV RECOMM EXTERNAL CONSIDERATIONS? . amor. the alternatives and therefore the issue was decided on the basis of other untudied criteria. treating significant uncertainties as assumptions. If the differtwcs are relatively slight and probably no greater than the uncertainties in the data. A relatively minor form of bias is sometimes found in the use of prejudicial &djectives. the study agency Is stating that after having made the analysis. ARE THEY STATED MEANINGFULLY? Conc!usions and recommendations often list items of equipment in order of priority of recommendad procurement or adoption. is often poor because it provides no basis for a decision.A•iUiN6 •MED ON At times. Bias is often displayed by arbitrarily excluding certain reasonable alternatives. The difference in effectiveneiun among the "optimum" alternative and the other alternatives should be exmined.AMCP 706191 particular interests of the preparing agency. when recommeaticon of an alternative Is necessary. sensitivity io new criteria must be fully studied. recommended selections amon alternatives must be made in the face of great uncertainty. by another study agincy. 72. Another test fPw bias is to judge whether substantially the same conclusions and recommendations would be reached. particularly for mate.
in order of priorit: (1) Sevell 144 (2) Dlsintegrator Ray Pistol (3) Universal Viewing Device (4) Camolage Suit (makes the wearer invisible) that all of these items are required. This mean' also iners that even though all & m.AMCP 706191 may ~oelude that in order to accomplish certain functions. cnslderation should be given to returning the study to the preparing agency for further ralmud"U on how much shjuld bo allocated to each Item for various budget levels. buy all of te Disintegrator Ray Pistols rwalred. either given or assumed.%a stud concluded LM Although mqtes witbout mW quantitativeconsiderations oou1t have any of thae matnings: a. the Army can do without the lower priority items if sa1cted returcee are not available to procure them all. the reviewer should attempt to isolate the cause. .ff the study tails to demonstrate by data. Assume that the items found necessary by the sMy for Itafty units 41 accompnlsh the required functions are. * b. models and other meeas that the reviewer's lntulfon was wrong. the of pi . afre reqaired. then further exminatiom ts reqAiuLd to determine If some subtle consideratios he"v not bee considered became at oversimplificatcon or other reasons which the reviewer Isthitively koms are pertinen. Coadnue l unnr the avallable resources are down the list of priorities In this ma exhmumted. Buy all 4 items at once but qpend mxe moey om Seven Leage Boots than on Disintegrator f•ay Pistols and even less amounts on Universal Viewing De€ices and Camouflage Suits. 73. Thim. ARE TEF CONCLIONI. inAMCPy units should be eqipped with specified items of equipment that are listed in order of priority.49 . with limited resources it is better to have all SeviJn Lgu Boots and now oi Boots the other items rather than some of each Item. as resaroes are avaflable. AND RECO•MNMDAIOg CTM vELX SATISFYING? When the conclusions and recommendtions oathe study are not IntuiUvely stlsfying. buy ll of the Seven League Boots reqi/red. When faaeA with this kind of situation. For e=mple.
rock as pm~mpawE loss. t Jr. 2. are * RECSUMENDATIONS Estakilish a central Navwhic data storW And retrieval sýstcm to SUMAIJtze mad saintat tutoincal and current( data to saippart iWtrut tesm:ceefitic(ttmenss anialysis.!~ by pterLerarica lAbiurstory. Wo a F COWAnitatiorio tinix ty V. R.4~ Calft.osaeffpctuvmness 5 ft~od 4CKWIPed Md fVW crtcd Weifsly is NE!. San Dito..aicaiton link. 3. effective manmm noise fige.. JWAnurY 19T. It. 9 jia. Yff ROPOkt n77'..Lae1xt Of V. llwi. mand enr rates. Task 1592 (%fL fQ097bw. b. m. Niums~ The repmvr zowtr% mxrk frOW 1965 10 Se~embet I %S MWd was apjtu%eJ foN piaataiap 4 Isaiii I%.AMCI ?IC AN EXAMl f AKMETCUIKIU COSTEFFECTWBES AMulYS TNE PROBLEM DCOL & feasibility of Mie c~iatcuutusystem . Extend fte mettod to inictude the ivrmumicatsw systew in the t.*4 . I.'t4. RefroAdu. Cotstunaug equations havt been develpe for the basic equipmats camprisi an hi . Tradeoff curves ilissttating s~stem cost versus system parmpeters. repart 132V 1 RESULT L' ThCCU ui~~~ ~ eueseod bas beeni computww6~fci atzed and aqpplied to the analysis of a dimetotup hf link. aL Smiustivit) analysis curves art devehlad for the vaiabl*e pataniettes used in the anlysis.I Mek Eawy 10lthb .j I o 414. ADVINISTRAOVE INFOINATION fti fts Wfcrud Widef XF 006(1 I07. h micmbtrs 0ý the Cacm~caumn Trebauim.. Devtckp a lexal data %*orage and teuieval p~a~n~ to s4ipcwt fiart'ei fesovceeffectivae m anayss I... c. T.wratgonal en uoineuwt.
.. LTS ...... E9 E2 . . E13 Cost analysis . E211 Systew.. paqeE4 Historical background . E58 APPENEIX G: REFERENCES. Systesv effectiveness model .15 Confidence level of predicted performance RES.. cost versus BER as a function of F. ..AMCP 706191 CONTENTS !'. . E53 APPENDIX E: METHO) OF STEEPEST DESCENT ... E4 METHODS. E17 E5 E. E37 APPENDIX A: A SINGLE MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS . E30 System comparison ...6 o Submodel . st prediction .. E20 thecffect of primarypower tequirements upon system design System cost versus range for various values of F. E7 Performance .SSION ANALYSIS . E4 Statement oi problem.. E.. E5 Ploblemns in costeffectiveness analysis. E51 APPENDIX U: WLTIPLEREqPE. . .36 E22 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . U " E 434 E56 APPENDIX F: LIST OF SYMBOLS. E35 CONCLLS!ONS••• E.. ..... E14 Optimization technique ..NTRLDUCFInON. ... F9 Data base... E38 APPENDIX B: SURVEY OF PROPAGATIONPREDICTION PROGRAMS APPENDIX C: DATA TYPE AND SOURCE . • E25 Sensitivity analysis ..
. Typical printout 'or optimization program. E33 12 13 System cost versus transmitter power....page E1O System cost and power requirements ...AMCP 706191 ILLUSTRATIONS 1. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 System cost versus Pe for various path losses.. . E18 . . E27 Receiver cost versus center frequency for various values of receiver sensitivity. page E8 System Lost versus range for various values of F. E39 TABLES 1 2 3 Submodel cost and performance factors ..... 2 3 4 Procedure used in resourceeffectiveness analysis.. E28 Hf shore transmitter cost versus power for various values of transmitter st'ability . E30 transmitter stability . . .. E31 receiver stability... E24 E26 System cost versus BER as a function of F. ..... E5 Al Cumulative density of products (single measure of effectiveness). E32 receiver sensitivity . E23 System com•parison ...... E29 System System System System cost cost cost cost versus versus versus versus transmitter antenna coupler VSWR... E3 . E34 Systew cos" versus receiver antenna coupler noise figure . . . E36 E40 Al Fournumber ordered combinations and their products (single measure of ffectiveness) .
3. The method as divefopod to date was applied to a real communicatien situation to E4 . Establish performance estimates. Some of the reported methods call for many judgment decisioru on the part of the analyst. and can be used in a meaningfil manner by the system analyst and decision maker. Also. Prd 2. The method is intended for use as a management tool and as a design tool. the more realistic and representative a model is... and to performa resourceeffectiveness analysis of communi. Statement of Problem The ultimate objective of the work in communication elfectiveness is twofold . Several reasons for using multiple measures of effectiveness are contained in reference 1.. As a management tool. the method can be used in the preparation of Proposed Technical Approaches (PTA).tq develop a communicationsystem resourceeffectiveness method. 3.: system conitgurations. Another method for analysis of cost effectivwness is one that realistically represents the pertinent system characteristics and costs. and in soime cases require cost data that are impossible to obtain.ation systems. and Detailed Action Plans (DAP) to: Iý Determine resource effectiveness of a set of technical approaches.) It is this method that is being developed. As a design tool. Specify system resource requirements. Technical Development Flans (TDP). is capable of being implemented. Other methods ailow system effectiveness lo be specified in terms of m'iltiple measures of effectiveness.nte. Specify system characteristics. The latter method is often misleading and meaningless to the system analyst and decision maker. and 2. as they are considered unrealistic in the evaluation of complex systems that have multiple objectives. the method can be used to: 2. (. as well as in appendix A. some wchods permit grouping all the system charzcteristics into a siagle "figure of merit. Single methods are not used in this report. in NEL report !323. Specify system cffectivenesa. the more difficult it is to implement. (Unfortunately." or measure of effectiveness. This report summarizes the work accomp!ished to date in implementing the costeffectiveness method developed and documc. and often compromises have to be made because of the time required for analysis. Conduct resourceeffectiviness tradeoff sludies.AMCP 7M191 INTRODUCTION Historical Background This report summarizes the continurtive of the work in analysis of communicationsystem effectiveness reported ip NEL report 1323 1 Many reports such as the foregoing are avoilable to guide analysts in evaluating and analyzing variou.
This conception is overly optimistic. dollars will still be involved in the analysis. The optimization should be execdttli for the system as a whole. operating frequency. An hf Fleet broadcast link was selected because of the availability of data pertaining K hf eqnipments and other studies concerning this type of link. A way around this difficulty is to compare the results of analysis at several levels of cost and/or eftectiveness. PROBABILITY LIMITATIONS The singlelink problem can be expressA.ected to the system performance model and its cost analysis. However.AMCP 700191 determine its validity. A particular geographical hf link was selected for the analysis to provide propagation losses. The possibility arises that the analysis will be misleading if the wrong fixed levels are chosen for cost or effectiveness. time. it became obvious that the parameter "cost" as used in cost effectiveness should be more general and should include. The performance model was used to evaluate and analyze an hf Fleet broadcast lick with respect to performance and cost.€ in terms of physical parameters rather than probabilistic terms. The analysis illustrates the contribution of various system parameters to overall system perfornmnce. METHODS Problems in Cost. in addition to dollar cost. For instance. If the subsystems are optimized individually ("s.Effectiveness Analysis The following comments on techniques for the analysis ef cost effectiveness draw frwothe content of related references 2 through 5 as well as from experience gained during the course of this investigation. During the course of this work. In most cases. but thz best system might call for a receiver with moderately good values of each. the limitation of associating everything with dollars is removed. What costeffectiveness methodi can do is to mipimize cost of a system while holding effectiveness to some minimum acceptable level or to maximize effectiveness while holding cost to some maximun acceptable level. This method avoids the problems Associated E5 . noise levels. the best receiver for some given cost might have high sensitivity and low stability. and personnel. Primary effort to date has been di. The more general descriptor "resource" will be used in place of "cost" in order to consider these items in proper perspective. such items as material. the result will most !ikely not be true optimization.boptimization"). and antenna gain as functions of radiation path. The uninitiated are likely to think of cost effectiveness as a method that maximizes effectiveness while minimizing cost..
•. uf unverified probabilities..unication systems to he built in the future.. the significance of cost differences. but the tendcnc) to ignore unquantifiable factors should be controlled. for example. the results should be considered skeptically... since it is obvious that if the probability is unverifiable. too. It is always easier for the analyst to insect the effect of a quantifiable variable into a performance cuatiom than to philosophize upon the effect of an unquantitiable one. in teating matters of probability. If the" cannot. for disastrous outcomcs. . An example of an unverified probability is in the answer to this question: What is the probability that two ships will be transtnitting on the same frequency simultaneously? Sometimes questions like this one cannot be avoided. DATA LIMITATIONS A pIoblem which ttis stuy encountered was the limited cost daot available. the sensitivity of the analysis to the assumed probability should be tested by analyzing th. ease of operation of equipment. a simplified model is used. GCame theory is deplored ty many because it is so often invoked for sinple models. Solutions to the prblms associated with unverified probabilities will br sought during subsequent investigations.to be modified And extended. the expett has no more issurance of its correctness than the analyst does. Under these circumstances it is especially dangerous to extrapolate the results to ranges of the variables for which thcre a~e no data.s merely a way of avoiding the chore of reconciling Cie analysis to this problem. When the real situation becomes so complex that it cannot be analyzed directly. Again.:osvs. Lowprobability eveptualities stowld be inspected. as a single paranmter If tLtev were. and way. to attach dollar costs to traninm of personnel and other expenses not directly for equipment. with the danger that the analyst will become more interested in the model than in the real situation. In the same vein. system fer various values of the probability under consideration. If the analysis turns out to be sensitive to the potability. the costing methods will hay. One tempting way out oi the unverifiedprobability impasse is to accept the word of some outside authority on the matter. but is so difficult to apply to complex reallife situations. LIMITATIONS OF SINGLEPARAMETER ANALYSIS \lost sivstems are iot % simple that tbhir effectivenes'• can be exprtsm.AMCP 704191 with the use. it is a mistake to ignore a variable which cannat be quant. but this . This is a warning that the cost equations obtained by the regression analysis will not be as accurate as desirable.alvses would be much E6 . the analys2 must realize that the most likely event dces not always happen. When the 'present study is expanded to include more complex prob'ems of evaluating large comr.zd.osteflectivcness . the difference between sunk costs (money already spent) and future . Some of the considerations which will become important are the period over which the cost of new equipment is mnortied.
Commnmication. but now itris discowraed bysinbaypmacticed analysts.ýtot 8 of system I is changed (nom I to 2. Somne typcal com"icationsystem obiectives are: 2. the prObaility is surprisingly high that ti~e (product) Q Wators of the V. for example. 1 11 when the suform of Q is used. A. system I has the higher Q. Furtbermore. the prod. for a time. consider two aystems with per~ibruicc factors. system II does. Appendix A illustrabwa one problem associated with defining effectiveness as i. and Cof equal importance (weight) evaluated on a scale from 1tot 5: Faclor System l SystemlIt A 4 3 B 1 4 C 5 2 Stin 10 Q Product 20 24 Ql Oil If tbc .s a popular practice. 8. System availability Antiiiami . I Infolsiation reliability hiftamation fate System reltabihl)t 4." For examile. However.IjectivC5 some group objective by appropriately weighing PU..Quade:3 "'One thing we caimot do is construct fram &'I the indrideal 0.deterinue the objecttves of the systeý.system objectives mray be umný van vatic. . Tht req~uirements. 6. separate ones. system I has all% tage if factor C is given a relative *eight of 2. And there is no way of deciding wiuich foro~la for Q (if eitfler) is legitimaie. of a li~potbtics! comumunication si:uationi s giirn. If die descriptiom I. deciding upon dhe relative inpowtioe of the petformance factors is arn arbitrary process with serious consequ'ences. all considerations of reliability and malntainmbility would be sacrificed. Finally. the danger of upsetting the res~is is great. as shown in Appendix A. After all the arbitrary umuipulations are made.uct Q is doibled and far outstrips the comparable Qof system II. it the effectiveness of a coauaication system were equated with information rate. weight*n does not affect the rstio Q/Q . It these we not specifically quantifiable.f0 =A xB xC.Aparticularly strong statement on the subject was made by E. if fa.AMCP 706191 more straightforward thbm' they are. For example. S. single measur. the evaluations are sensitive to sal changes in the values of the performance faciors. System Effectiveness Model system requirements can be specified. Likewise..vo sy~stemns will he equal. Combining the effectiveness measures of a system into a single "quality !actor" is also specious. this is a practica' absurdity and it has been theoretically deLafstrated that there is no uriýue alid satisfying way to do it. If the prodoct farm of Q is used. giving factor 0 a rtlative weight of 2gives tollt advansystemilithe advantageof13 to 11.islity facmor Q=A+ B +C. ibis wr.
. EFFECTIVENESS ANID COST CONSTRAINTS OPTIMIZATION MISOION OBJECTIVE]S ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM SYSTEM MOD)EL SITUATION DESCRIPTION RESOURCE INTERFACE MODEL. From the mquitemos. pe4~eee s8 .' . 4 tll~l. minmio objectives are specified. that is.AMCP 706191 This report considers only the first two objectives. D•)4~t. REQUIREMENTS & EFFECTIVENESS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES (. ftg . The system model interrelates sysM chaacteistic.. 1tI.t'. Figure I illustrates the procedure followea in evshatlng system resorce requirements and effectiveness.eql . CAt is a criterion for choosing between alternative systems at some specified effectiveness level. The resourceeffectiveness aalysis begins with a given st of system requirements as ublu in figure 1. Cost an a resorce ele•atnt is not considerd a measure of effectiveness. FrBOaft I. the most effective sysem for gia level of fadinagor the lcast expensive system for a specified level of effectiveness. The RESULTS section illustrates bow cost can also be used to select betweeu alternative system that exceed the minimm requirements to different degrees. The mission objectives tadicate the tyW of optimization to be g sought. The type of objective is also rmflecttd in the constwinat imposed on the optisizaliou Procedure. Subsequent work will integate other objectives into the oreuail model. System ohjectives may in may cases be considered as measures of system effectivness.wLs . system model is an analytical mcdel of the system intended to fulfill the stated objectives. .
fectiveness. 3A. The subdels aw: . Thes items weoe sboew wo be ctitical in dhe establobweat of cosi and peufromanct factor. ~czed . Each submodel serveas ar interface betwees subsystem clutracteristics aid subsystem cost. This alterntive coul regain a entirely sew system model. Tarwaittu bjue1 couple 4. Available tint has precluded the isclusion of sy'"em availability and system relia'Wity in this prsxw. The Pyutem PeIrkaw c . I the cost (resource%effectisiacss of s cemywicati= .T~raniitties 3. ae momicatioin theoy toyteJ the messaza of system peomuwce.In omeInsancs te sste moilmay be modlified to evaluate so ulteumaulye solution wo the minsslion objeetiws. The pmoedwt 14dts Cown factors is described %a Anaysis. S~stei c~ ost wor w~diIed bIs syse perwasace actor ate cow~twd to Vve sysiem cak I twdie level 04 Pa k"aae.AMCP 706191 andmisionobjcties. System characteuistics awe caseprizd b wbdel. InRESULTS system chasctertstics at shom apumas cost to indicate the tMp of wa&leo(I m yana wipossible komi The me*4d~ ks te previously developed metbA. islysis of smeuldv1sy of cos a eflixivaene to clwsps in system characteristics in miditio to she optimized system camt or decfivenvaess conIigurasion. The piocedis was wied to deteroune the cost factors listed io table 1.iztcs Oaet directly ioflmenc the saiaimmet of the s"toos Atctivrs. ech obwdelsmbolizes partcular type of commmni containc~ssinstheme epeningupo th ty ofoptmization beial perfomed. Refer to qipenix F for explamiwos of the symbob used thaughost die wepmr The effectiveaess model wbich evaluates die pedromanacc of an bf shiretoshp communicatonla link consists of several ssbrodels. ~ceiawr the Execstism of the method depends %ps abiaty to mnxiste a cost cowt &wiruna3 facum with a s"sem perf'mumce factor. Rmceivtq Wamt comPler R. The Peformasuce to deratd bem camslts of isiducat rthrbility wd auafmetion mte. Pecetiaf sastena 6. The optimiatiun piocedure provides the anlysis q'mss. Trinarq satmas S. I w Combined by saflytical CXrSioMS aCCOWRdIg to f.yaeAs iiadoded system availablitsy and system reliability in addition to system perforaence as measures of sysm . Sabsystem perftwact factots aft tbone mstw *Awyste chmrctrr.
mmeIs Quauliciy mc jails r~pr modulation Mbe wtm~mnacost s~sicm any bir defined (or a npeiafic icvrl Of Pctfme MnkC 11) ut"1h12ng OPhlIM11atW PMu~diaCez 'NaO. ~Abci affect a svvsi's Iov (.. nAa be defined fors w'd imstmna. tbe uaxmmW Peforarnct a fliitr. SUDMODEL COST AND PERFORMAN4CE FACTORS. PRUPACATIOt4 MEDIUMl o pentr~s pgmi6ide a setk4 of auWWWtm waslY1Pivp4uionfedicu jgcop4*iiiaI andi entminc14t*I !&ctmr. Average power Freqeacy SR Nubabe of *m~e prMass CAM tl iletans Rfeceiving antenna Receiving cost per antenna TMamttn coupler Gain An'ean Pattern Antenna ouientatiim Tramittiag Gain Antenria pattern Antenna orienitat ion Noise ligwe No@ise figure Sensiivity Stability Receiver Sesuitivity Sblt Q~uantity of wits Numlier of cwimeds Bit duration kece~ving terminal %iibetof ch.5aisility VSWR S111imadel Trisumitting coo Facw oiermial riamsnitei Nvbef Of ciamels Quality of u'it. Pertoimace f actw Number 01 chaeis Bit &vratim Type MOMiduna Averae power .AMCF 7W191 TABLE I.lth .
tathe . bowe*i. The capriliie a d limitations of Ae pgaoains vary. of pini inumer tranmitter location. o prqiwedc effectivaernma There at sttal coumpiterized available to. Inoraiount reliability may be measered isn several ways. clisacitt atrr rawe.walysis o( ýSK Jlctectim (RPRE) to the Po.) to the correspoding sonalmzed !IN ratio Trhi conversion is mad . each methoad is depeaidest up= the received mesep pet bit sdthe "ose teliability we bit egnvg rue (GERi. Asurvey 0(ow po'tionjoilctio propms known ad available at MEL' is is this tylPe ofcompter popm thatwil beeised commior hi meadsh in p5911651114 modtlg.tio Moelr. I. INC cauncti Cixmpatetzed mmdel so Afamatiw reiability do"ea onvr the probabihty of bet evew (P.'~tion limted a riteltue (l) Egsuo (1) reltes Sth SIN rato ispivmeal pimible to the deft.pmpma and is wklcted from *e am*"pite . Wie mwlys. Moise Vdwg (reeiver) Puopaptm losise Skywave oak (amber of hoKs rftflect layer) Sun*%o number math 20 December iMPORMAf iON R.abm* thl.AMCP 706191 grwams. 2. depetident upnthe smaab=4 S/N rmwi (R).IASIUTY inmaicatioss system is tw heriable trsiaef A majot *bective is sy of unksator'n. =4 wWd erw tatt.1 I..inthi. and receime ofdy. this6 anaulysis te MEL Ri*FI2qwpCcy Radi P59sticm Compoter Posps 6was mse OK modling the WOUjmI umedium.0ftectim S/N raw'%n~ W~iCk Wows ts ftota sooktsar MrIetev with a su~gl biter sod bmw disctimi PPR U ( 5   . bgm th p~edernriWO S/N ratio Tkz. The poepsa cakslawe the following cthetseteristics of The prpepapiox POths) as a batusi. .
04 (2D + )/(2T9)) Z(To  3) (I)t~ E~tadi (2) eqMft RPRO.Stp of Co w sync". so e popptqat Pbr~mutc pwaametu o( die Woesu uubmkies.5+IO1 lo 6 0 6 F= 10 t  I +fJf.edir docmceiag~g sod 10 Ioglo (RPRE) = 10)4o 10 P.cul locauce. + 10~o1o0JjTLrjj L. =ad moor Wt4ORMATION RATZ to the 4.F C  (2) 10101 1o11+fe.AMCP iSISI %/No RT 51 0 S1/2: 3/(4Tq) a~ 3/(2T0 ) ( 5 0L. tot. + 30 + Gl+ G... ad mabe of do"*.) Fveqwsq of qmusKm rna gt w~pote Inct ptasit a systes's paolomaicct be aaly~d IMa wpqific grur.j =134 10 og@S b The Mlowing cpogaznm factas itt obta~oed as w"~t~t rusdý=te NEL pwoptinptasuwdction prp 6 Fpoposion loss (Lp) TnisomiUat mumpi (GO) Rective &News pm Gs Ebfeccive miimen& se (E. RPRE is a baclim of iMABLasm type.) 6 20 +8a VTO) 3/(4LG RPREC' 5 u0. wtim. teceiva Olt&**p poift maoh.20 kgto f me* +65. . ftre at Ctni~s Madeofta ih uono.s(Sr+Sd)I+ KTO Fe ~E. . CMbe Cnk b~rtwei vmwomio itrkhabty an mfslarosre Acawtt 91~2 .
a defteid asolyswa is usqw demt dit ratu atwhich inkrnto 4.#is*z h saieda a*e i%reduced by the effect of statt and stap bits and . bg r.~ ~ tetoeafshssbe ~ O are~as follows ~ ~ Exmlso uet~ is am antm. Alsm.te two systems doM use die sme coding technique we compived.A 5 The vfiectim of reliable d~aa.is equa! to the sovice nate (I)) reduced by the charnel upivocatim 'BC 2 Ra a wk. Ae more eumir there we is a message. However.AMCP 706.'ini a tio. is transfeffed H(z)= Source tm.P +P ogP.Ktn%.%4wmiwdtrd ud tcen of systemn Aw. coding Eq*o(3) sbwq thinth c Inc= H(S) meliowasiam rate. .j (4) The overall systeu tafafomraia rute is ~Asctly op r~t:cvial to the numbct of dhannels c and inlvemtti ~ipopoe "al to tlhce Ctde of chvesitvm as pv in w Data Saln Jbi' of ike PiMMErnt assuarcd WIth costeffectiveness suavT.) is modi fied to cotusidcý both htrn sad raf OVbits awell as armo*w'ccoe bit to facilitate calculations.c an camu we 6fefaitteW lacking. Ii. rstmbludi a &t2 401 mmwa"l "emu at NEL to mp'pat tIbe m= effetiwuss pmgri.191 actom.wissaou' vate H()=Equivocation Fhe u~e iskralcua mi H. infamiiion rue is luuthew redifced by thk chmstel eiulvoLhtion. Th. Is Ott Evaa messure oft istformationtmransfened ly the ~wouc. Ust E1 3 .. 4t is ON dflicudu so detanisse their ffelstiue alkOuntion nies. the less isfauaticui cab uasidwe km sorc to o Wan two symesi doat use d(ifetat coding techoaqas we computed.. system tiii' chanel inkamatitrm rate isi tR~C h1PlIli P.ciratktectme bits. the start and swptits = vela nedic as. Stp haew beevtaike" to. fix w bthbnar. e binfewsi Is elfttme systems.
datA is in the initial $twoe oi a Ssystem's.ed t. Total cost :. E14 .s a cost facter tn eacicf specific equipment clip~racteristic so that cquipment conis :an be predicted as 2 fusction of equipment characteristics..for example.istallalion. a sliding historical dztsA base. Insta~lation co"7.AMZ P 706191 data lbs.%. in order for cost effectivne3s to be. Training cost 6.fixed cost + variable cost.. G.oue a contiuinog pert cr the Nivy procurement procesE. Fixed costs here also includ? performance factors that fxi! to cwRelate with cosi.equiree. Personnel requirevnent_3 8.contained in appendix Dý Total equipment costs can be considered to cons~st of fixed costs and variable costs Fixed costs arc independent of the performance expressions (.io support res c effectiv lies. Predicted value c. MTCF a. Standardized listing of equipmenl characteristics by type a equipment 2.will b~e continually urxdated to pwovid. a r'eiver . The types of data that are . It the equilrnient cost fails i. Sparesq 5. Predicted va. the eqvipritzrts arc further categorized by frequei~cy range. equations 2 apd 5).all equipment characteristics (all on which the~re are sufficient data) are submitted to the cegression program at once.METHODS. Date vrocitred c. Abrief ýxplazpation of the theory and analytical process involved in curve fitting via multiple regression is.iem. Actual value 3.e c.. or other Ji~f'fences. con hL determined. Developint .. typ'e of equipment . historical cost data and equipmt iii Iharacteristics.ý analysis art: as fallows: i. Specification value b. The storage an~d retricyal Program will provide dat# from which cost fat~tor. On the first try at deternmning a cost expression for a particular.ink contained in this . MTTR a. type . Unit cost aQuantity' procured b. a complet! data base of Navy equipurait is r~equired. Spesification value b..if l. Actual valute 4. Variable costs vary with level of WeforMance. The be'i time to acquire equij.life cycle.aph plotting of equipment characteristics vi'rsus cost may be employed to help determine the iinalytical form of the cost expression'.) cettrmine each cost function fron.its The data sources used to support toe resourceffectivenesb analysis of the .correlate with the pertinent equipment characteristics. of dat.:ep7t are listed in appenlik .4 Cost Analysis The cost analysis applied here assi. A cowaiiterized statistical multipleitgression PTOgramn is =.!with tyv.
and Mode 5. Then the SOP will maximize S/N ratio by mrinimizing its negative. Sonme of the "iriables are also constrained widhin preset limits. equipaient characteristics may canrlate negativelIy with cost (that is. called Mode V. The gainloss et~iation can be used as the criterion. minimizing the criterion. by writing S/N ratio in termis of the gains and losses. This approach was taken in the following analysis with respect to shipboard! and slire utteanas. It the datea on a particular type of equipment are insufficient to permit curve fitting. in it the piii's (power. number of channels and isolation did not correlate at a sipificant level with equipment cost. but may be changed for each E15 . The SOP has four major subroutines.Only one constraint equation is used. Mode I is the most important. trasistarized equipment. the cost is written As ý. the t test and F ratio test that are described in appendix eY The multiplecotrelatim coefficient and standard error of estimvate are also calculated. A greater number of the system parameters are held fixed. as well as with the more expensive equipmenis. These parameters currently arc transmitter coupler VSWR. and receiver coupler VSWR. These constraints are always satisfied during the optimization procedure. 7 Several minor modifications have been made to the SOP.. noi.1ie form oi equations or bounds on the individual variables. Inthis price area. called the criterion. receiver sensitivity. function of system parameters.AMCP 706I91 In soni instances the equipment characteristis. as it executes the optimization. receiver cost decreases with a decreas'e in sensitivity). Also. and some for comnpatibility wijt NEL computing ýiquipment. and this expressioni becomes the criterion equation in the SOP. It is rnot implied that they will riot carrelitte. the equipment should be treated as a discretc entry in the performane and cost equations. but only ftt infatmation in extreme depth was not available. These tests w. fThe computtr program used in the curvefittiig process provides several statistical tests to evaluate the "goodne'ss"' of the titted curve. antenna gain) are balanced against the losses (path loss. number of types of modulAtion.es a given function. transmitter power. S 'N ratio). Some of the parameters are variables and maty be perturbed in the proctse :!f. pes.6 required to evaluate a systel~s effectiveness may Pot correlate wilth equipment cost. modified to work with constraints (see aippendix 4~. transmitter and receiver stability. In connection wtih the present evaluations of communication systems. in lowercost equipmerts ($3000 cc less. Optimization Technique Onie of the main tools of the resourceeffectiveness method is the Systems (ptiMiZation program (SOP). the quantity of units procured is considered when this type of information is available.Mode 2. Th'Ie SOP minimi:. The cost and criterion equations are written as functions of the system parameters. Mode 3. some as adaptations to the current problem. The constraints can !)e 'a . Such pertinent equpmen characteristics as mtodulation ti. while satisfying two types of corztraints. the cost can be held less than or eqisal to a certain amount.1 the quantity of units procured affects the unit cost significantly. The techntique used is the method of steepest descent. The toles of the cost and gainloss equations can be interchanged: that is.
aSIG = 8 dB aA4ýT = 8 dB E16 . and environmental anise. or mean. The confidence factor is included in the performance expression (METHODS. thereby assuring a specified lcvel of p!rformance with a given degree of confidence. a capability which allows the analyst a convenient way to judge the effects of individual parameters upon the complete system. equation 2) as additional system loss. A statistical confidence factor is used to com~pensate for the effect of parameter e. path loss. The total uncertainty aT is OT CANT2 +SIG2 +TA 2 Fa2+ NF2j_ P Confidence factor (Cf) KaT Confidence Interval. ap. The uncertainties are: aSIG =uncertainty in predicting signal strength over ionospheric path.is dependent upon.certainty upon system perfonnrmace. FNF' = uncertainty in receivey noise figure value.g system uncertainties.tral parameters simutItaneonsly. Hence. several parameters fc: wtich one cannot specify a 'true" value but only the most likely value. Mode 5 is a sophisticated output routine that lioqts the results of Mode 1 in a complete and readable form. They include Ixansmitter operation time. values.282 1. Percent 50 90 95 K 0 1. It can also plot these results. Mcde 3 evaluates chosen functions while varying se. these parameterv are represented in the performance equations by their most !ikely. Mode 2 enHiuates chosen functions and their derivwtives while varying one parameter. aTA = noise variation about the mean. it can elso convert units from those convenient for calculation in Mode I to those appealiag to persoos using the results. = uncertainty in mean value of noist. () Confidence Level of Predicted Performance The performance equation contains. CANT uncertainty in receiver antenna sain due to receiver antenna characteristics. The confidence factor is determined from system paiameter uncertainties 8 and the desired level of confidence.AMCP 70191 run of :he program.09 The confidence factor urcd in these calculations were obtained from the followii. ntaber of traitsnitters purchased.645 99. or.9 3.
675 dB. 2). In this case the starting values for the variable parameters are changed to determine if the optimization process can locate a new minimum for the criterion expression. 2B) are believed to be the most significant with respect t. The optimization pIogram uses 26 parameters (fig. however the six selected (fig.or. Other parameters could be selected "a variable parameters. the cost equation will then be the constraint or the criterion eqniation.495 dB RESULTS The results of analysis of hflink effectiveness are presented in various forms to illustrate the capability and versatility of the method s& far developed under this program. It was %akenfrom a computer run in which system cost. In the optimization program a local minimum is sometimes found rather than the global minimum. of which only six are allowed to vary (variable parameters). parameter 12.675 dB = 22. the performance equation may be either the criterion or the ý. Correspondingly. Deuending upon the form of tht optimization process. The confidence factor for a 93percent confidence is then: Cf = K(T = 1. was used as a constr•int on system effectivencss. Perfomance and €ost equations utilized in the optimization program are discussed with respect to contributing factors and their interrelationships. Unceainty (OT) is found to be 13.F=3 dB The total syM. system costVerformance tradeoffs.645 x 13. E17 i .AMCP 706191 "47TA = 5 dB opa= 5 dB . a typical SOP output page. Figure 2 i.straint equation.
6 U &a: W . z se  3 a  ~~ W a 8wN" U 4 4 W NOl Ia Z 0 us *N~ us I 32E18i . IL 0 a I Z 75 40 In z W 01 . I 000000000 mmonvow. U 00010 S3&W WW(3 Wa @ q"9U*U :: am" :V4 we & von 0 a 00 a 00 weeuzzma~ aw = wwwwwlasaww ::::::::: I www~wwwuwww oM::::em: I.AMCP 703191 0 WA WVM WW F Z oI Lf @0( w W 10 :4 V. I 3 =o 4L I 3ax w W W. Ciacf. ~wa UA w4e0.: o ~ S o be.
m *a b ..19*5 wow• if.AMCP 706191 It ow Z!U WW ft 44 oc Wf a. ~eaP.. . 3. Wis .J to  a.. e. 44 5 n *#4 ! ILLI Ir "Z19 .... . 0&1..oo a 4c Wu Imt ~49 Os. O U re'.
81387 10910 (100/1) variable cost variable cost due to sensitivity die to stability Receiver Cost (S) = S2481 when bought in quantitac' of 30. Q: 2.48269 (10) fixed cyst variable coat due to quantity   S09..916 .i the surmmay that follows.186.uliplecorrelarla coefficient and standard eriot of cost estimmt (a) ame included.5)j+ $2. slpbsord receiving and iwire WwmmU4m Pre data available on these types of satemans were imsuftficiet is permit cost expressions to be devcioped by relpessiQ anlysis. is also indicated.016.Minizat. 17%c /S I: \ OMI Quantity Frqueniy Sensitiv~t'. at propast Tlze total kf tyacti cst is Ot su !he of the Imrindiaid suiw'il comst E20 .2069 109 100l625x 106) vatiable cost due to frequency $1. Redi' ted costs can be obtained fix the other equipmnts comprsing th si'rem from tht appropriste ~subaodel equittion vi the seaway which Molows.AMCP 706. The expessirks were developed for all but dhe two autenna system. The costs and characteristics used for thre atteanmas were when ktin veirdor literatute.i the Cost Analysis section of METHODS. see appesoxft Consider a typical example of waitcost prediction uising the followiu'g rec~eiver characteristics and the receiver costpirediction expression (METHODS.217 22. T1i :ocfi~cients asivigmed each cost factor art tbe performance facto's and we rikcmnmd b%..191 Suhisiel Cost Prediction Thenclmetho of anialysis requaired dth cost expresuias be jeaaad LW each subwodel of the coimumiicatioes system.S2.f 121. The range for eaich variabl ustd Li the receivfer cowt imalysis is as fol lows: 14.5pt'= Receiver sensitivity ST=I PPM = Rectiver stability Receiver co*4 (S) = + SS. For asi explanatio of the syMbsol used in the cost expressien. The range for each rameter used in the regrexsio analysi. equation 1). with &he. The cost expressino 10r ecub ub ondel slag. Each or the inbmadB costprediction expessions was generted by means of the techniques described. 38Z. Receiver Characteristics Q= 10 = Quaantity of uniats to be procured UF = 16. The qy mbol Qis vied to denote where applicsbl the quirstity of usts to be considered in predicting the cmt of a sumodel.2501 M/s = Receiver center kaeqency ln= .0931 1jlogto (lox 1.
2 069 4g10f 1796.0610 loglop.s Lj OPPtm Z2 29 *1k/ 5(ws pa~ 20.9"429 o = $%68.132c 1s .2036 (S&.0931 IlO610io(IoSA +. #71683. (Q) 6".M3356 + 109I.99909 3.M2 5196(~ (Fc).9¶751V (g 1II.'em wutts a = S105.MM36 (c) I s Q. Us~ Qs 2.04 PPM 1Ss Mthiitil Comlation 0.4309! 4.217 22~ [~S313.l942 181 +7216. *kiipleCamelaim 0.37%kL 1 loat 10 00. Rwfivr adt~e Cosnt Tolu Cst(S 04%.X*3571 74 +A84 3.au1 [) 0. Receiver 31i4( Costle (o) %3)29I 2. 215 Is CS 16 I Mbitple Ctxebtistim s0o90 2 2.W.#)16..2wM71 Whitple Cone mfiiat 0 97445 +I IU. Receive ar T~iuqit Ta.48626. 4e27.01 .8138V 1o8 1 0 (I00/ S.AMCP7 I1 a.maW Cast($ x 443. Timinitte Cast (S): 154.
Vaticl ftiP Cost ($): K Msuduplt The Effect of PrlmaryPswer Rsqulrements Ups.AMCP 7MI91 1. plus other titem.) available at the intes. resulting in a less expensive system fat %0 amm. (oat twcomr%i piftcast as the coammaimcatmonivA range is increased . The ARWint of ptimaa~ power sequired is deenident GPMn the eff~iciecy Of Ote WaSRS SIster. the effective noie at the receiver ar'ema (E. ctaxbt Jvital chnwdsk.Atusizatmu for each irare conxsdeurd.3 Cgrar M~c tut. to 74.. The variation causes system price 0 aluctuate along the selected path rather don.ice irmm i)R nqo tio o. raich opeastsng win& a bui enrx rate (BER). The expression loc pomaypower cost uses the cute srauctwe of the Smai Ptcp Cias L Electric Co. Rteceive Aateas. of 10. T1w.. Hlowever. than kIT totelast two coluvas the effect of primary power (oc comercial power) is shown. time effect of considering primary power and its associated cost was to reduce the sount of the trawamuer Power acpui ralukred. Mhcomwmincation link analbrzed consisted of j (1. vahits lor these variables ax determined by the pIopagattowiprediction ~tprU frcach RpCstic iAae. The eqwpoca was considered so be in operation 720 bD~was ctj mconth.external noise power (E. Pte efticietcy of showe ranamstiers was fuund to etIa&As trass .7 dBaaa%0 amm. as thts information was readily awilable. The ptimarypower cost Fhr a ?kyeas period w&3 included an the cost (ctiterion) equation.913M9 a = $249653032 6.7 ddat 240am. thw link &. The received noise field strength and operating freuescy cause the effective asteari noise figure to Vay iffegulauly with Mar.275 b. Thet variables ihat affect the sysiew cost aic efrqmecv of operation (. the fseqoency of ogra operation selezted is the optamuu eqmettcy for that amp ad recenet Ioatiua. othie dD witfreuec an3 at 240s in~ oprtin3.lCS ~4 CUIrelation 0. bteS monotowic with distance.. c"*sumg !he system to ItCk am ditosl gain from otber system Para mettrs at less cost to the system. The aconfmitkeu E22 .m c1vat e4 anm topertin s0am.. and this relationship was tacluded in th~ ctjxcsswn or n. thas dcrmenase s EN oth~e 0dS with crease in path loss.am.4 qat c mot. and propaptaio toss (L. System DeSigi Table 2 'iluisuntes die cof of an hIIeiammacatifthh linkcaiAh1100 s of a receiver removed from the trnmittaer in a fixed direcion with ruip as a vamtble parameter. The S/N 1atio at a specific reCeiASS locatio 1us faution Of the effc~tiVe A wte"namoise figure and traonsisbion pata los. Also..Te effect of tranmarier efficiency Ma~mtwe on %. The first thme lacae coes an table 2 illustrate this sitsation. '[We path 6ois (LP) is monuotonic with range increasingfrom64. in most cases.r shis dcrmeasae i E.) decrease (Ma 14.1Iiku pwrx is inaceased. Anteams a. Transmit Mintes comCIca CIFmnoPoit Cost ($) =$1.
2 64.8 3.599 ri.121 37. a. do I. Dollars 56.605 Power.000 1. thc Worst *(ofa comuincatmi..2 9 1 "60 1. Withoat PtiioaryPow"r Costs Cost.141 1.. 1.293 2.117 47.114 56.040 W6.775 %1~291 1~ 2Rewici stab~lity 3 Receiver seasttvity 4 Aftelve coupler Noise fipire 5 luasamner coupler VSIR becss o( the istenct~ow 1 vartisbLe.6 74.318 44. Also of imarteamct to the Jesilp of a u sivo is &e trommiter efficitac with its asocitaed piniwy power cost .3 14.1 90.952 With Prigiary Power Costs cost.0 4 4 20 2 20 16 46.7 80.m. Waits 1.589 210 240 480 64. E.01 42. system.4 155 3.4 1. &1 8 166. Ntlars POW".7 68.663 *16.000 500 WO0 13 j 4.AMCP 706191 TABLE 2. Watts 2.7% 33.296 35. PAW.40. Sk STEM COST AND POWER REQUIREMENTS.088 WSM¶ 1.1U0 3.000 500 1.8 14.767 1.810 63.960 . Mid fuc ". E.
per bit with a 95ercent camfi&nce factor.man 60 dB..000 2.000 RAN4CE ?N4AUTICAL.A= F 60 •..T. The link perlormance for these ca ulatios is constrined to an eightchannel system operating with a BER of I03 ego. C200ELS OOJATION FSIC    att Ia. 0 in 5:9   w .AMCP 706)1) System Cost Versus Raing for Varieus Values of Fe Figure 3 illustrates the effect of c•cmunicauonlink range¢ u system cost The curves are for effective anka anose fipares (F6 ) of 40.~ i =s jBOe . ID.r ' ' : Lil I 2w0 AG0 1. ktIESI $000 E Fe ..  I I  .4I SYSTEM CHARACTER&SICS 4 I 180. Each point plotted in rigte 3 represess as optimized (minimum cost) system.
. 50. 1We cAJ*ulamaces hair bes made fog peth hunoe of 10. cakulatwao ýQI !bw laww mAwed.Aiteai Conical Monopole Receive num Vertical RWdp 11ie caives ilhmst'e the cos iscrease associated with a 104B invcras in the effective asta wiue Rlwe. 30.%5iX 104 c~om pa hit. and 60dB.link. wd **s NO* Usdt in. can s a constraint & aknwdý i~hmu~arablstv is tfte cintewnoe . The cuerves in~cate 3*x fou a vr S1IOI increase to system Cal 14te BER can be improvedi Jrom f x W4. Is tha tv'r of Oplimizatmos. (dfcctie as~naomm sr.OM(irivestmeui (19 percen iacaews) in the systm. Mal type Cf cw~vt ca be Usd to ConM~r die 81. miniumm couti evaluated to Provide a specified level of pc*rmnwc. an incrent to the effecive sateama Mae BW ins 50 AS to 60 dB ww~W reqire an addminoa! fo $21. Thte ftwivtmw samerma se lipm gud in the opti~onso cakeuaiouos am 4. System Cost Yises SIR as a WOWtie of Fil Figae 4 Isa SaVo ofSystam Cost versusDER asa functionofF. ~ ~ elm *  AMCP 106191 Specific commumicatioeliak Link locatio Modulation Somiqot 10101 Mout chu3cehsihcu ame: 0* Azimatt h'om HOMolUla. ACe q fap iewaacy of WVW s tCaMWMd by OW bf PM~W . Thei ctinncenstics of the Wik we as Molows: Coafideumce Channels Moduation Locmutoum SUSWCnu mober12 95 percet a Nancobercrit FSK 0* azimoth (Hawaii) MlmthDecembu The Waph illusinraas be cost mciated with ifesiping a system for 4111(cmt effective satmta noise figure. Hw Namcobacat FSK 20 Decomber Ttammit .Pftd~tcWQ pigr. Figure i illwrtisosd toeip"vms to mslbrinat"o reliability cAmaxaal with an tacrrasc in system camt. and 90 dS.fipgue) ou vages of0.cestrarsd at SO d&.R impoW*Vn1 aith cilaea wiih thai obtained kinm a diffeest system kamip. Each puimi PlOuteJ rewmesas ar op~maned system (thiat is. ill cakcultsuci are for a ficed mage to elftimiat' varihtios ia S/N tatio *m to "ub loss and receiver kwution. For a 4000um.
U .00(_________SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICSI CHANNELS8 N.'000 MODULATION FSK I 2.0 O   0 0 . 102 103 BER 10i 105 Figure 4... E26 . .M I " 5.000 N. 200 /1 IL I. 100 5.. ~20L[ 101 . 40 d B' . Sysem cost versus BER as u function of Fa.Fa 50 60 J~______ _a :...M" RANGE 3.AMCP 706191 0..
000 50.27 .000 SYSTEM COST (DOLLARS) Figure 5.AMCP 706191 102 I0"I 107 10±f11 PATH LOSS AHLS: 10 dB 0d 1 25. for v'orkivu path losses. E. Sy'stem cost v r3V5 P.000 125.000 T 100.000 200.000 175.000 150.000 75.
58. Figuta 6.AMCP 706191 Fipre 6 shows receiver cost versus reccivex caller kequency for three valueb of sensitivity. E28 I L ______________________________________________________ . J j 0 U5 0 I OL 5  t AVOT  "W) 31 I 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 RECEIVER CENTER FREQUENCY (MEGAC'NCLES) 28 32 sensitivity. The ratio seems to hold in most cases regardless ef receiver ceuter frequency. The average ratio of teceiver range to center frequency\. The curves have been plotted for thee levels of transmitter stability. Figure I illustrates the relaticnship of hftransitter cost and average transmitter power output. Receiv r cost versus center frequency for various values of receive. was 1.
AMCP 70MI91 .1 60     F 0 5 0      TRANSMITTEP POWER (KILOWATTS) Figur* 7.i 75 .01 PARTS PER MILLION f . cost versus powver for various vo/ues of tronlsmi ttf E29 . Hf shore trnsmlfttr s tabili p.
5 3 3.AMCP 706191 Sensitivity Analysis The hf link configwation was evalurted to determine the sensitivity of system cost to each of the six variable parameters. E30 . The transmitter cost analysis should be reviewed to verify the costprediction expressions before finalizing the analysis. ( 70 j  ... Figures 8 through 13 illustrate the efiectE of the variable parameters on system cost.5 1 1. link is 95 percent.ixeifically. The optimum system cost was determined to be 55. The confidence level over the 3.5 TRANSMITTER ANTENNA COUPLER VSWR Figure 8.5 2 2. Figure 9 and 12 indicate that system cost is most sensitive to the characteristics Pf the transmitter.000n.m... 6 7 >0 I T.530 and is indicated on each parameter curve. 0 55 50 0 . vansmitter stability and power. The system was first optimized in term of cost (minimum cost) to provie an eiightchantzel link with each channel operating at a bit ertor rate of lO" errors per bit. .3 . System cost versus transmitter antenna coupler VSWR..
TRANSMITTER STABILITY (PARTS PER MILLION) Figure 9.AMCP 706191 70 ~60 .6 .  451 0 .2 . E31 .4 .. SyPstem cost versus froosmitter stability.
4 . Rr.32 . II .j 0 60  5 0 .EIVER STABILITY (PARTS PER MILLION) Figure 1.2 .Sysftem cos~t orsus receiver"stability.AMCP 7W91 65 ..6 .
7O~~MC  MI9  e   0 60   ~ E3 .
Amcp 706191 70      60 40 ..34 . E.  0 5 10 Is 20 25 TRANSMITTER POWER io(ILOWATT'r) Ftgwre 2 Syston cos ýervms ftemoutwu paw.
The ec~hnmqic is to cost out the intiecais!x effectivenss of each rneasiar &adsabftaci the inctrrAse'J cfi~ivctecA cost (wor the total system cost. Tth duifetenct.191 1   0 72 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 RECEIVER ANTENNA COUPLER NOISE FIGUJRE (4$) Fiw.0 13. The pattic. Systan cost wvwuw . (% 51stem iclistbiduo. i !k)1*CI I owei system 2 is 5. Czxcc ptfkwmaA(( COS.to %. in the example selffaed ca. og it.1a eavirmL11iia cormhwNes used lot the ccmovison are a IOOGam. System Cemparisem The followinth tecbhaqut peovides one rnnho of ccmparing two oi amo Systems with muti~e meawes of effectiveness.4ew colt as 'IS5. The Iowcst mneasuare o! cefkotvrncss in etch aitA is used as ztue beasis fr the ccr~t c~ar'tson 310'Q In this example.7011111zz~I 65  AMCP 706. 2 is tt'.. brutte bo %A tuai siste taw E 35 ..caaNiaty of 8 % 104.oi~ vm ~wwi t~pi~a ntois* fiujw. link with an effeci've~ mimina noise hguue of %0 dB.89j. T1he effectivenes~s of each "eysm is krtturmed for a %pecific commuuacatiuns link.. Pie chaut ot t3bic 3 induartes thati sist'*. the irsult of &druamiaW5the excess eifrcttavcnc% camL is to norah~~ac the pcwfurnaii r tacti YAf1 Iicr i~uminshas. can be c .9 A sitmlw~ cuspari.h rnca~*re of el'ko:ive ness exceeds the system requaemerts. The cos of systemn I urith informatacm *ritabiliaty of 2s wts teJuced zo dw cowi of system 2 with iihtniatiin .
to the same level of CUCk1ctnilcs.4i'V' ý4uwwt~aI Multtpic tetsmoin u'Jv n4bc pmxxale.000 . ic"~r 1Q3 has birrn 5mde. System cWsz Excess Pt. Mhere in a &fmtur nird for a %sA.76. Ste figure 4.hra~lmmwaas which =.7011 System Rethabliy 1900 his 2VAJ his 1700 twa A0dkiiyS.oxullatte.rof M.ZSCs E 36 .99 jI9d Excess Cost of m SwxAthzed System * WrTR =I hout SResults from 1. *'r (. SYSTEMI COMPARISO. eqwjutrcut . bctaw~ of Inbc.A. CONCLUSIONS ithe ftAsibihto of ~impkrmunting the UetOW ~kdclot~ in '.%brdizxtJN~Av. 1.$6036.X14 g7%6.hwamim~ce Costj~ 9q717¶ V40.i wl mattaprmcni too!. Syi~1ew 1 System 2 System Requirement WeRea~lit I.&.e Aralsts m to couuwmc as a %aso &xa. aide data bank d if k cecta'voms~.AMCP 7MI911 TABLE 3.%L.427 Ntugnaahic %64. anid jw 'I uansl¶o.41 ea9978 %S0 0.5%6 S61. I M ka ivaI insg of cquipacit ircta sd as kmii of 4ctrc lion.
Thee cts not may que fte acqBWONs. They can Ams be aswful i3 the preo4 PTA.AMCP no. c it Muuxe re hacacaft of resoacetflectivcaea "~Y16.n Rai mt. P. Uth weited ad w~i~siq devt$oped cm be used in dte ainlysts &Wa evolomit of bi eqviper! aid systems. Establish aceavali~ed collection an d&soribtaim savice (fnctmin data an Navy equimatus. bwcosporate th et fees of Uv. S. Ezzeod reswuc~fe tflavenc ency models to ecaLsopass oa hegoe" y s ?37 .*1 raelp . Iuepate equpmw reliability aind ia~utimabiliy awtk vde metftW 2. mad DAP. detailed coan 4mwa a the devck*pmmitof WrCOUzpredicof u~ce fif wochsg . Exteed the maisod wo nclude che cinacsuins syste m he aperatoal 4. 7Ue much frwkped provkdx baf fe wie dmtiled ad compebeavwe x link wahvis. S. 4. to I.ckutaiskis to die uepessia malysiv. ft CSUNISIATtONS iaig I.:r'ua.
3 9*86' is differen~t from a system with pjrr~icters 6*?'9'8. 111e single measuie of effectivencss is generally the product of several probabilictes or rank O'esignators diat represent ome of the 'iiaracteristics of the systems Leing eialuaieo.catc some. in Fhe following paragraphs. re suited to tý'e use of multiple mneasuzres of effec) ti. A system with eficctivenress paranietc. to relate tradeoffs to the overall system objective(s).. py. or figure of nerit.561 possible different ordered cnimbinotions of t. means of rating anid co. As etL~ situaJomn ii' whidih sý. !f til efktctiveneý. or Vrobabiliiy vf mission Euccess. Tecase in which a sysizm's lalor chatacterisiics are rankcd from I to jand then ccivibined as~ a product inýu P. j3 ~and 8 i or effectiveness=:0av. W.punaing *. Decision makers quite frequently request a single measure of effectiveness. Large systems with multiple olbjec'ives are defiiiitely . 7igvrýr Al graphically illusirrmes the cumulative denisity of available p7(Y dircls. i'erc are 6. It should not fortle a specific decision through previous decisions in the czreof analysis.ffectiveness is appropriate. purticulafly in those casts in which the'system lacvrs are weighted on some abitrary basis. . The probabilities can Kepresenit systzm factors.A MCP 706191 APPENDIX A: ASINGLE MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS Severl2 recent publications have recommendec a siigle measure o: effectiveaessj. Cons~ider the siuumton in which a fsVr. as . Where a single mepasure of systun effeclivTress is used. if not impossible. system availability.ystems. P. 'nd S yieldi.s rating is 144. Ps a single measure of effectiveness would. it is d'ifficult... To determine whether a single measuie of %.mlysis of system effectiveness is desig'ied io present all significant aiternatives in system configuration with thcir inherent ramifications of resource tequirements ard mission fulfillment inperspective. rating :s J014 There are 24 different sy'sterii :40fgurations defined by the rating system ihat will Provide the Prod. of the more basic limitations associaiea with sintgle measures of effeciveness. The purpose of this appendix is to demoný. wliatevei difftrencc the systems ha. item effectiveiress is the prodxý of four system clraracieristics a.i. 6 are integers. tho'c are 132 possible di~h'rnt system :onfigurars'uis. where I •frct. 2. tire single measure~ of' effecoiveiiess. 6. Howe~er. A resourceeffectivtness aitalysis should poresent an unbiased array of possible tradeoffs.z must firsk look to the purpose of a resourceeffectiveriess analysis. The rAnking sdieme itivoives rating these system chacracteristics~ oti a scale of a to b (b>a). sinigle measure of effectiveness is e~amined in de_.'5 cifft.e is tmasked bl.. E38 . as 4i igc'!iates decision inaking and &ecreases the admniv~strative problems associated with it. such ?s reliabifity.ict Of 1024.eness than to the use of a single mea~ure._tcn.ent products. An ui.
E  .AMCP 706191 _z I4 t44 C4.
ith a specific combination of numbers. 4NUMBER ORDERED COMBINATIONS AND THEIR PRODUCTS (1U each number<.2 14 4 12 46 4 147 150 160 162 E40 . 9) (Continued through page E42) Number Ordered Combinations Product Giving Product I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 18 20 21 24 25 2) 28 30 32 5 36 40 42 45 48 4¢ I 4 4 10 4 16 7 20 10 12 36 12 12 31 36 24 12 64 6 16 24 36 40 12 72 40 36 24 S 6 Product 50 54 60 63 64 70 "72 75 80 81 84 90 96 98 100 105 108 112 120 125 126 128 135 140 Number Ordered Conbinations Giving Product 12 52 4O 60 24 44 24 112 12 48 19 60 60 9 Q2 18 24 88 48 84 4 60 40 28 36 Q2 12 24 52 Product 168 175 180 S 189 192 196 200 210 216 224 225 240 243 245 250 252 2%6 270 Z80 38 2)4 300 315 320 324 136 343 150 36W 375 Number Ordered Combinations Giving Product 84 12 84 28 88 is 24 48 i16 48 18 84 16 12 4 84 1 60 48 120 24 24 36 40 ". An ordered combination would consider the permutations pmSsible . D ! TABLE Al.AMCP 7046191 Table AI indicates the number of ordered combinations that give a particular product.
Number Ordered Comrinxatinm Giving Product 60 64 24 18 24 48 1i2 18 40 24 60 36 12 9f Product 378 38. (Continued).40 648 672 671 686 24 1 48 24 76 60 12 4 '12 U2 10 Q2 4 1025 1134 1152 117C 1200 1215 1225 1260 1280 12% 1323 B344 1350 4 36 48 24 12 12 6 36 12 55 12 12 2016 2023 204d 2058 2106 2187 2205 2240 2268 2304 2352 2401 2430 36 6 4 4 24 4 12 12 24 18 12 1 "700 "720 729 ?35 "IS0 Q2 F.928 40 512 525 540 20 12 60 4 72 10 1764 1792 1800 12 1.4 392 400 405 42V 432 441 448 450 480 486 490 Product 756 768 784 800 810 840 864 975 882 896 900 't45 909 Number Ordered Combinations Giving Product 60 36 18 12 36 48 76 4 24 24 18 24 3 12 Number Ordered Combinations Product Giving Product 1372 1400 1440 1456 1470 1512 1536 1568 1575 1600 1620 1680 1701 4 12 36 16 12 52 16 12 12 6 24 24 12 500 4 972 1003 1008 1024 36' 1D715 4 504 900 1.AMCP 706191 TABLE Al.41] . 12 560 567 576 588 36 24 88 24 1029 1050 1080 1020 4 12 52 24 1890 1920 1944 1%0 24 12 2?% 12 600 625 630 6.
528 3ýý84 3645 3888 Number Ordered Comnbinationis Giving Product 4 4 6 12 12 12 12 4 4 12 Product 3%9 4032 4096 4374 4536 4608 5103 5184 5832 6561 E42 .AMCP 706191 TABLE Number Ordcred Combinations Product Giving Product 2520 24 2'%0 4 2592 24 2646 12 2688 12 2744 2835 2880 2916 3024 4 12 12 10 24 AL (Contintied).( Number Ordered Combinationa Giving Product 6 12 1 4 12 4 4 6 4 1 Product 3072 308'j 3136 3240 3402 3456 .
Collins ladio Corporation 7. ESSA.S. These prograus provide a pictire of the energy distribution on the space illuminated by the antenna. RCA 11. Ft. Inc. Nearly every 6h solution in existence can trace its orighi to the procedizes developed at Central Radio Propagation Laboratory (CRPL). Raytheon Corporation S. (CRPL) 2. U. s. signaltonoise ratio.AMCP 706191 APPENDIX 8: SURVEY OF PROPAGATIONPREDICTION PROGRAMS Introductisu Use of digital computers for propation calculations has grown with the computer developsent. DRTE.rajec'ory output.lities: 1. Stanfoid University 4. H.atatime adyance in this use has occurred with initial applications in the hf spectral region. JapN. The vif programs depend generally upon solutions of the mnodal equations for the eartdionosphere wave Sotide. v•'do. PropagationprcdictiGn programs have been generated at the following fac. and hop structure. AVCO Corporation 10. NRL 3. which have been adapted to machine programs extensively. NEL 9. Various groups have produced programs restricteS to use in appropriate spectral regions. No comprehensive programs adapted to the entire sp~xtrum exist. E43 . 6. As aaic& Division k*dltJt t *ortobl V.O. Less effort hpq been devoted to generating pregrams for frequencies above hf. Most provide some kind of estimate of signal loss as well as the primary ray. mostly because adejuate solutions for system design are available rather directly by nonmachine proceJures. DECO Electronics. *T. MliA. Monmouth 12. Stanford Research Institute 5. USRPA. and for tropospheric ducting in the microwave region. A general exception to this statement arc the raytrace programs. Thus a ste.k surv/y of p. In the spectial range from vlf to nicrowaves the most intense effort toward computer solutions has been made in the hif and vif regions.C.%Pcif•11hy fv dlrectlef o(C. D.u4a9611 by pwsosl of * MEL poEalicteIon p•Ore"M wag gseeruIt'd 1. The prograws provide estimates of maximumuaable frequencies (MUF). Programs of this kind exist for hf ionospheric scatter from 30 to 100 megacycles. Radii Research Laboratocies. Lanada i3. Tokyo. field strength.
AMCP 706191
7 14. Radio Reseuch Station, Sloab, England 15. Ion Prediction Service, Sydney, Australia In addition both DCA and NAVCOSSACT employ a wide mage of computer prediction programs. Brief summaaies of programs about which NEL's Radio Physics Division has more than superficial knowledge follow. They' are intended to do no more than indicate the scope and intended use of the pIograms. A programncharacteristic matrix that provides some compari'on det., is appended.
NEL HighFrequency PropagationPrediction Computer Program
Redio system parameters are combined with geophysical and ionospheric characteristics to predict the performar.ce of highfrequency skywave communication circuits. The program computes Maximum Usable Frequencies (MUF), probable modes of propagation, E layer MUF and cvtoff frequencies, angles of arrival, ground losses, total losses, field strength, antenna gains, absorption" losses, signal strengt4, noise strength, and sipaitonoise ratios. In contrast to the CRPL program, the program utilizes hf characteristic charts for critical frequencies and utmospheric noise (CCIR report 65). The solution is divided into two parts  an estimation of the field strength independent of equipment parameters, and an estimation of signaltonoise ratio using antenna gains. The program was written for the CDC 1604 computer and is in NELIAC Sm. The;e is an output for every operational mode, whereas the CRPL outputs only for the optimum node. Computer time is less than for the CRPL program.
AVCO Polar HF Prediction Program
lhis program determines the hight.st and lowest frc.1cncies available txtwecn two particlar stations as a functi ' of timn, and the gcophysical and ionospheric parameteis. Propagation losses aie dttcrmined for specific frequencies within this cakcu'ated range. The calculati .n is evtended to ionosphaeritca. disturbed c•oditions, b,,t all calculations are valid only for high sunspot nuinbcr 1The kompuie. [p.cgram is written in 'tandard Fortran and :ncludes l9 mode, of ptorugatin. Frequencks from I ie Nc %1s in intervals of "I s arc tousidered. The program pri.ts mode, tiansission angle, and Mc avaiiablc hItcuency range. Ii addition, it ptunts space, absorlion, sporadic E, and total Io,ses fhw each test frcquenc, within the available frequency range.
E 44
AMCP 706.191
CRPL Propagation  Prediction Program
Radio system parameters are combined with geophysical and ;oospheric characteristics to predlct the performance of highfrequency skywave communication circuits. The program computes maximum usable frequencies, optimum traf(ic frequencies, lowest user,. Irequencies, probable modes of propagation, agles of arrival, circuit reliability, system loss, available signaltonoise ratios, and field strength. Numerical representation is urtd for all parameters not exprebsed in closed mathematical form, such as world maps of critical frequency and atmospheric noise. The solution of the problem is divided into two parts  an estimation of the availa'le signal, and an estimation of the required signal. The program was initially written for 14SM 790class computers and was translated at NEL to Fortran 63 for the CDC 1604. At a later date, NEL added CCIR report '22 noise data to the program. In the 322 version the calculations of circuit reliability cankot be made.
Collins Radio HF Program
"1heddferences are in the calculation of Lowest Usable Frequency (LUF) and
auroral absorption. At present, Ltle median noise levels; are used to calculate the frequency that satisfies the loss equation; this frequency is called the LUF. In the NBS program for LUF, the loss equation is solved by trial and error for a reliability of (10 percent, taking into account change!' of mode with i twodimensiona! antenna gain function. In the NBS program, the additional loss is determined by the F2layer control point location. In the Collins method, the average (,f two absorpwion rndices is coIculatzd from geomagnetic coordinates of the rays. Input insertion of links is ,mique. As many as ISO staiiocs are permitted with as many as 200 comhinations ot stations as links. The program is similar to that used by NBS and yields comparable data.
Canada DRTE HF Program
This progiam computes the maximum usable frequency (MUF) and lowest usable frequency, dui: to E laver cut off of thc F layer for a given mode or modes. The basic icnosphenic data used for the predictioti of the F2 and E layer MITF are obiained trori DRTE's manual prediction system.
VLF Program [Pappert) NELIAC MOD 7 f1604)
Pie propram solve, th earthionosphet' w veguidc modr equatton. In gcncral. Bu~dten's formnahwiis is emplocd. Solutitis in Stokes equation in
E,45
AMCP 7011
to•s of thirdorder modified Hkak fnctions are employed to determine the rdlection msicx solution to the problem of the threelayer boundary value. Gosard's solution for the upong wave is incorporated in the Papp• sooution. Required program inputs ae the initial adnmittance matrix (GomardSmtu pROMam), profile increment, imegration limits, path data, geophysical daza, and control PI ametera. The program oitput lists the characteristic mode angles, phase velocity, attenuation. kacitation factor, mad modulus of the polarization veetor.
(
VLF Program (Smith/Gessard)
A fullwave soludion i., made for electromagnetic propagation in a continuous ionosphere with arbitrary parameters (electron density and collisno frcquency). Budden's solution is the basis.
InputsU are initial conditiums a: high altitude, heigh:. complex angle ot incidence, propagation angle, dip angle and magnetic field strength, freqiency,
collision frequency, and vertic2l profile of electron density.
The basic program output is the reflection coefficient matrix exr.essed in polar coordinates as a functinn of height. The program employs a procedure for finding an apprcpriate initial valvte for the reflection coefficient prior to performing the real ioposphert integration.
DECO Program
This program predicts the mean intensity of atmospheric iaoise for an), frequency for which a waveRuide model of earthionosphere is acceptable. The waveguide m'.e equation is used. The program assumes thzt the mean noise intensity at a receiver maý be simulated by properly combining fields produced by a number of transmitters that replace the actual thunderstorm sources The program output is the summed field intensities for given locazous and times. With an appropriate piettes worldwide contour maps of noise in,'nsities can be produced.
DECO Program (NEL Variation)
The Nsic DECO pgram will be modiiied ,o provide predictions for the
phase aid Amplitude of given transmitters ',4 anv location on tht earth
E40)
AMCP 70&.191
liftFeeks Ray Trace [Stanford/NEL Voision)
b9etween• a temtinel pait. It provides an assessment of possible h9op structures, usaing at zetoialin procedise tos reject all rays not within 1:00 km of the receivinlg pixnt. The ionisophaic model is keyed to the CPPL predictions, t%,, repm•sents
This progam employs a simplified qpproximate procedure fo tracing rays
and concentric. The magnetic field effects ame not aparboir the laye s included. Tbc output includes the path maies, frequency, takeoff angles, gro.a;circle path length, travel time alokg the my path. ionospheric absoptuion ioss (only) along route, and the maximum usable frequency. The inputs required ire the terminal coordinates, the appropriate CRPL
predicted ionosphere or a measured set of vertical soundiipgs, declination of sun, frequencies, range akeoff angle aperture, and time. E, layers may be incILded
"after the fect." Separate auxiliary programs provide for tmpeloading the CRPL ionosphere, and for plotting :he )utputs on the 160A printer.
Ray Trace Program 'Shoddy)
The Haselgrove equations ate used to trace ray paths in three dimensions in a model ionospheae. The ionospheric nodel is a threedimensional combina(ion of parabolic layers and CRPFL (CalletJonts) world maps. It traces both cqdinary anW extraordinary rays. Ne special provision has been made to use values of frequency below the Kg)o frequency. Input paxameters are tieminal coordinates or azimuth and maximur, distance, elevation angle, frequency, yeer, month, and hour. Outputs inlude greatcircle oaht length, ray angle, ray i•.igl, and geographic coordinates at each computod voint. The proeam permits ready substitution of alttenatce ionospheric models.
E47
AMCP 706161
of
 1I
•1
it

M
, .
.
.
I
,IUit

.
~IR4. I ;._ y1

5

1".•"
I II
ii
' ' i ItiIi,,

•• I
I E48..
AMCP 706.13"1
I 's
I
2I
ij
IT
i!
E4
I
ii
"D
C
ii LRA
II I
V
AMCP 71)6.191
E50
AMCP 706i.1,
APPENDIX C: DATA TYPE AND SOURCE
Data Type Average Prices of Navy Electtonic Equipment Data Source Bureau of Ships NvShips 92,561(B), Index to Burezu of Ships Controlled Electronics Eaouimen( (F Cognizance), 15 March 1Q63 Bureau of Ships NavShips 900,123(D), Nomenclature Assigned !o Naval Elecironic Equipment, CONFIDENTIAL, August 143 Bureau of Ships Navhips 94,200.01, Directory of Communication Equipment, SECRET, April 1Q64 Bureau of Ships NavShips 94,200.0100, Directory of Classified Electronics Major Units, CONFIDENTIAL, January 1Q64 Bureau of Ships NavShips 94,200.1, Section 1, Directory of Communication Equipment, n.d. Bureau of Ships NavShips 94,200.1, Section 2, Directory of Communication Equipment, n.d. Bureau of Ships NavShips 94,200 !, ection 3, Directory of Communication Equipment, n.d. Bureau of Ships NZvShips 94,200.1, Section 4, Directory of Comffunicaton E3uipment, n.d. Bureau of Ships NavShips 94,200.1, Section 5, Directory ot Communication Eluipment, n.d. Bureau of Ships NavShips 94,200.1,
General Characteristics of AN type Electronic Equipment by AN designation Equipment Characteristics and some price information
Section 6, Directory of Communication Eq'aipment, n.d. BureMIL o0Ships NavShips 94,200.1, Section , Directory of Communication
E51
200.d.ipment. Section 8. n. n. Quantity and Date of procurement Shil Specifications F Cognizuice Material Control Branch (Code 6627) Electronc Equipment MTBF and NfTTR values Fleet Electronic Effectiveness Branch (Code 6678) E52 .200 . Section 9. Directory of Curpmunication U.1. Directory ofCommunication Eouipment.d. Bureau of Ships NavShips 94. and specificationi NvTof value Equipment Cost. Equipment Characteristic.AMCP 70611 Li•zaeu of Ships NavShips 94.
.. a 21 x X2 a 12 a2 2 . Ym n i=1I a. estimates of these constants can be obtained from m observations of Y and corresponding Xj values. However.. A simple way of writing the n observations is in the form of a table as shown below: X Y1 Y2 a. AIIX. dependent variable Y and one or more independent vadiables X1 . The quantity e' represents the random or simple error in the variation of Y not accounted for in the regression plane. The true values of constants il.. X. am2 amn The linear estimating equation then has the form Y = a0+ a Xi + e wheic ai is ihe repression coefficient and is an estimate of the true but unknown coefficient 1i e is the residual of the true Y about the regression plane Xi is the independena variable Several assumptions are made about the independent and dependent variables that permit significance tesis and confidence interval estimates to be made.. E53 ..resson analysis presupposes that some relationship exists ietween a X. The simplest case is approximated by the linear equation of the orn 'a Sgo0+• .. These assumpti ons wec 1.. ' ..32.. there are rko probability distributions). On can never be detemined. 'I are fixed variables (that is.8iXi +e' i= 1 pi are the parameters i a onedimensional space generated by the regression plane. or X2' =X 2 2 will yield an equivalent form of the foregoing equation.. Xn aln a2 n ... These assumptions also lend themselves to the leastsquares method of estimating the value of aj. General transformations such as S/X. 2 "g.AMCP 706191 APPENDIX D: MULTIPLEREOIRESSION ANALYSIS t Re....
..:ansformations requiied in the linear regression equation. rhe FNest determines whether the 'uf us' thle 4.(o + ai(DI) aX j)] 2Dl Graphical pr'cedures are uscd to determine the form an" .AMCP . Miltiple.Correlation Coefficient R The square of the multipCcomreIation coefficient is defined as the fraction of !he total variance af Ywhich is :ontributed by its regression upon the variables X1. X2.' eke of s'f A value of zero gives no ..itica! " for L. T Y'.orrelation between Y and X1 .Xn.. The ttest checks the significance of the partiiilregression coefficients. X2 ..X. R 2 _ i"1 j=1 ">1 j1 The foregoing is obtained by exponJing equation DI and grourping into total sum to A" the mp qt~r d~tvm regression (numevastor).X.s ire all normally and n&pendenuly distributed about the mean (ao ai Xa)with variance (2 Tihe leastsquares method minimizes the sam of squares of J'eviation (G) from tht estimated regression plane. whereas a value of I means all sample points lie on the regression plane.05 i9i 2.ifc•cnt. G G j=1 2 j .ation A.. significant by comparing a calculated F value with a c.54 I . F1r. X2 1 X3 . latiztically siy. F Ratio Tms The Ftest determines whether he foim of the regression equation is stati" call. The multiplecorrelation coefficient R gives the degree of correlwaion between the dependent variable Y and the independent variables X1 . . Multipleregression analysis makes tise of several statistical tests to determine the sigimifi%. A more detailed discussion o&these tests follows.ance of cuefficients and equations.
For n greater than 30. 30 the t distribution slould be used. If the calculated value of t exceeds the critical value of t a for'the significance level selected and mn'Iegrees of freedom.AMCP 703..91 (n) nd(wi.!1 degtes of freedom at a preselected significance ievel c Alp•. it can be said there is probability a that the actual divergence of the sample mean occ. thb.a 0 2 1m.... The level of significance indicates the probability of obtaining a value of f outside the range of :t t (critical). purely as a result of random sampling variation. J= s AX or AL t : .A simply by chance. the sum of squares due to error. s' of j.Jard deviatiun 7. and s/ln is the  standard error. = is the arithmetic mean of all the values composing a normal population that has A sts. for the degrets of freedom from 1 to 30. normal distribution gives a sifficiently precise approximaticn. The Ftest compares the sun of the squares due to regression wtl. Student t Distribution The variable t has the Student t distribution.5 . for n".N1 F= (iR 2) (n) If the calculated value of F is greate than the critical value of F. E. then the null hypothesis that all ai = 0 is rejected and the overall regression is judged to be figiificant for the alpha significance lIvel..s/i/f  X $A s where of sare n X = is the arithmetic mean of the data selected for a random sample = is the standard deviation of this random sample.
Changing the sip of the crierion fliction inteidtariges the roles of the extrer . Each new point P.Yj:. h a r. Yi+ ii+ i) < F (x. dy a 1Z/ 1(Zi..z) is the maximum of . [he method can be extended to functions with constmints.ion of the gradient. The use of AVF indicates that the path PIP 2 . the minimum of F (x. .'itions o the method When the magnitude of the gradient becomes . In A further the point ma' be or. .+ is dete:mined f* .. in E56 .' ir the steepest direction to a maximum of F.+ 2 If not. ik is conclude1i at F has rAched a minimum. : + ): (X. a new A is chosen. the minimum may he a local minimum. :j) and the variables remain Nithin present bounds. 2. If F (÷i+ 1. jure +ai *il [cmate an extremie va!uc (in this cAse a minimum) of a crtetion function..s • ý..di¢ point. :he criterion function is evaluated.yiZi)  is the gradient of F (denoted V F) and is a vector iii the direction of greatest increase oi F.dp "IVFWdP~cos 0 [his expression for the differential or increment in F is greatest when 0 is 0: that is.y." Following the selection of a new point. when the gradient and the increment in the parameter vector are codirectional.'91 APPENDIX 1. the 1oint pi + I becomcs the new point oi departure for finding P01. is an optimization pro. 1. a ledge. P. lead. cithcr ol cises 2 or 1. giving rise to vai. or the pint mAr 'o a Ua. For example. "method of steepest descent..y. the expression 1)~ (XaFFF ~ / F In this expression i I..AMCP ?O$. fsurther variation of the variables would ptrducc deCreCfC F. Ho'ever.z). a x.values.. of stepefwt des•er .+ .: METHOD OF STEEPEST DESCENT Ihe mutho. . The method of steepest descent uses successive approximitions to find an extreme value of the criterion function. Thiere are several way's of choosing A. o !'. The constant k (kA) is a scalar indicating the step size for the next set of coordinates in the dirtc. That the gradient is in ihe direction of greatest increase can be seen from the following argunment: OF ýFz = dx OF + a OF dv + dz OX y " VF.F(x.ero.J +1 i L.hrer things can hap11W to L(ontravel r A valid I.i.
4MCP 706191 The method of steepest descert is adaptable to problem3 witd ¢onstaints of two types: f(x. The method of steepest descent his one major liabilit~y. In the case discussed.. 0 (x. implicit function of x and y. the true (global) minimum may be missed. since the fwnctio. ssumed to hold.jint (xi. y. and similarly for az 2L'3 dy Each constraint equation has the efiect of elimini±ting one variable from the pmblem.are evaluated with the aid of a theorem or IZ #dy the differea.y. zt) will be found. of the initial value. 1he piopamme souli bave some idea of what answer to expect in order to climin•. the problei is :on as the constraint is violated t! some m . and the problem is "'eated as one with a type (i) constraint.y. prf The purtial deriatives. E57 .of i . ard z. namel. z Then F(x.>). treated• as one with no c• j. Y1. If the finctixz has more thao one local minimum.(ry)) G(x.. the xii minimum nearest the initial point (xt yt.yj. As long as the constraint is satisfied.z) .i pcssible spunous answers by a wise choics. This is the key to the problem with constraints of type (ii). the variable eliminated is z.tiation of rn implicit function that states that dz ax SX if 0. and =(~ VF 43a c) aF dz a dz dx G dy aF 8.aF dz dz dy where dG = F ox ax Th il er~livsaz and. y.a g(r. z) c. the equality sign i.and . y. zi). .1 f specifics it as dependent upon x and y.z) 5 b (i) (ii% 0 so that z i3 defined as an A constraint of type (i) can be w~itten f(x.
Q R rot Frequency rangc Receive antenna gan Transmit antenna gain High frequency Boltzanann constant 1. to Equivalent vertically polarized groundwave rootmeansquare noise field qtrength ii dB above lfV/m for Ikc/s bandwidth Effective receiver noise figure Effective antenna noise fi gure =. Effective receiver antenna coupler noise figure Center frequency of frequency range f"r fb?..1 Band width of lowpass filter =Receiver noise figure Transmission line noise figure Operating frequency in x units of c/s f'. PPM Transmitter stability.Ba&71width relative to I kc/s .Standard error 5 E58 .PRE= Pr.onfidence factor Frequency shift  *..W G.AMCP 706"191 APPENDIX F: LIST OF SYMBOLS In most cases in this report the relaiionship between capital and lowerc&.iliti.tectiwi S..o .38 x 1023 W/"K c/s = Propagaton path loss = Order of frequency diversity = Noise power per lc/s bandwidth = Bit error rate = Average transmitter power = Quantity of units = ST0 /N0 = normalized postdetection S/N ratio = Transmit antnna coupler %'SW'R .Nimber of chAnnels .zd.5c/o F F.. PPM T = Temperature ('K) To.c symbols is: F = 10 lOgto B c C D . Gt hf K L~p m No Pe = = = = = P. = Baud length (pulse length) vlf = Very low frequency . F.!N ratio : nReceiver sthl.
E. P..qo Vsh W .B. . I SOP.0 .Z 1965 . U. #~j~tt ncv Prapag!to Sat.WO. 1964 Svtt Cw&H& is L& t J. *'C~s Efictlivuees ?allacies Ri*u 41ýceponxin Rev WIMCI(Absuacl). v. k. I. 1%64 Qua&. rntemlaoiaal Trxtbmik Coampivy.. SUqPI.S. " O~.gi. 28 Feb . 7...4. 160. kioxnAw. CA60o SygIew4.CWA~iC 1. P.O. 0 Rarui Corriton M and I. and Kenned4y.M.42:1426. A. C. Ntevi&ie. Diulot saW R. Amo 1956 V Ký17wvwski A.Aw .'i.426430. SPring 1966 T . Y.R.Appso~ix G: REFERENCES '. 4Z3p KOopI~an. kuwv ~i s .% kvWi ny owus. A Coimptier Pwl~am ~o2uaxze Systri £'esigpi by I..C*Xd1. Destip! iatdy of t Fleet Broadcast .. Ten Qvmmon Pitfalls. 1B. S. 10 ditiv 1966 a Radio Cv'ouatioo of Anerica Labcntmies Technical Rc. 1'. A. "Comneam on 'Falacies in 01'ertmuct qeaeach.3wic Swthatsical Medw&FmEzquai~q and Stientists.'ws.CX.4. AMT ElC. PI5Itam.t37. 4.o p. Rm9d McNally.h vw s Ova acach.. 9.D.czatinas F&.. A.. P.e'szch. Cost Ef(~c. 3A.irf'D. "Fallacies tclasom . mlaw. Atmpsi 1956 Hitch.aiy ro~ &:ott.0ebAA:XuY P1ot! P1~3.Juy 195 l Navy Elctmoocs Labomtcqy Repxf 132. 4 b. by H. 1. R. I Octuke 195. 9 Aug'us: 1962 &satbflcseitich amduates SRA452.vcanes in gLk~wai 2. oI.
249 Experience Curves. 246 R & D Coste. Assumptions. 241 Capability. Calculus of Variatiors. 339 Incremental Cocting. 115 Cost Analyis. ?44. Cost of Maintenance Manpower 253 Cost of Supply Manpower.191 Alternative Systems Identify Basic Alternatives. 330 Availability. 254 Cost Model. Application of SA/CE. 331 tb 33ý. 114 to 116 Prerequisites •o. 246 Material Costs at Supply. 24 . 243.Aralysis. 234. 23. 247 Investment Costs. 225 Cost Uncertainty. 233. 19. 239 ChaLractertstls Develop Hardware Characteristics. Analytic Models. 244 Cost Commensurability. 243 to 254 Cost Analysis Problem. 32. 226. 249 Cost Estimating RelatiLnship. 243 Ii . 223 Calculation of. 112 ti 116 328 to 330 21 Army Force Development Plan (AFDP). Alternatives. 26. 269 240. 114 to 115 Requirements for. 251 to 254 Cost Categorization. 248. 25 Senai tivity . 34! to 345 The RAND Method. 245. 253 Operating Costsr. 217 to 218 23 Combat Development Obj'ctive Guide (CDOG). 244. Concept Fornulation Applicet'on of SA!CE durLng. 114 to 116 Contra'!t Definition Application of SA/CE during. 16 212 to 215 210 to 217 Synthesize Alternative Systems. 221 Calculation of.AMCP 706.
: emss. Statistic:* 250 Analysis or Test Data.eness. 112 to 119 Formulation and Contract Application of. 112 to 113 3ee al&o. Cost See also. Capeb~lity. 221 bass for Val.1 Kewc.tions of syste¶s rAtlyi•i3. 19 Data ". Zffectiveness Cost Sensitivity Analysis.191 fDID) (Continued) CostIffectiveness Arr1? of C• Characteristice 271 Application of.abinstio withI Systems Analysis.uating.~eral) to 212 17 Methodolo~y of (G Reoquireent for DuringiUfe Cycle. Effectiveness Availability. 17 ifWinition of.ollection of. 240 Dynami. 1:. 225 16 12 11. Chaptei 2 . 22.r2. 2. 15 to 17 C. Prgrartir4g. 272 14imitations of. 229 to 230 ]1fectinenoss Model. 3. 12 faspues uf CZ Curves. 331: Definitione nf CoetZffectiveneos. 32.its. Dependability. 117 to 119 Methodology of (Detailed). 218 to 224 Define Neuiures of. 224 Depe7ndibilityr 222 Effectiveness Equations. 3i7 to 322 I2 . 428 to 471 Deciasin Theory. 220 System Iffectiven•ss Problem..I AMCP 706. of Itf'otiv. 231 to 242 paerience Cuevas. 114 to*16 Pwikground and KRitory of.3O System Zrfecti. to Camet Definition.339 to 141 Oame Theory. 122 Calculaticn of. 3r 330. 341 to 345 Criteria. 233. Defin. !16 to >17 Economic Welfare Theory As It Relates to CostIffoctiveness.
22T Operational Exercise. 227 Objectives. Incremental Costlng. 225 to 228 Gaming Models. 266 to ý67 Liltatoioon of aA/cE. 15 to 17 "History of lystems Analysis.8 244 Decision Model. 1. 225 Exercise of. 255 to 262 Formulate. 440 Lmnchesterts 2quations. 32. Maintainability 312 to 316 Confidence M9IntaI b±l1•±t munations. 117 to 119 Linear Programing. Chapter 2 Mission Profiles. 430 General. 228 Types of. 13 I . 24.S AMCP 706. 19 Analytic Models. 328 to 330 Leverage Effects. Kolmogorovftirnov Test. 328 to 330 Effectiveness Model. 322 to 328 Inventory and Replacement. 225 32. 436 of. 435 Point and Internal Estimates Methodology of BA/CE ~imits for Maintainability Puncticwna. 228 Simul'ation Models. 17 to 112 Detailed. 32.1St =aD (continued) History of Cost3ffactivenees. Cost Model. 32. 27 to 29 Models. 228 Mathematical. 12 to 15. 262 to 269 Operating Coats. 39 to 311 Investment Cost. 247 Wfor'mtion Theory. 243.
114 to 116 Background and History of. 210 tn 0'11 See also. 112. 25 to 27 Research and Development Costs. 11. 228 Small Development Requirements (SDR). Qualitative Material Requirements (QMR). 114 to 115 Probability Basic Laws. 44 to 49 Definition. Simulation. 244. Alternative Systems Systems Analysis Application of. 17 Definition of. 112. 436 Point and Internal Estimates of. 243. 12 to 15 Combination with Cost Effectiveness. 29 to 210 Prerequisites to Contract Definition.28 Confidence Limits for Reliability Functions. Sequencing and Markov Processes. 14 Limitations of 117 to 119 23 I4 . 262 List of Techniques. 42 Distributions. 262. StateoftheArt Analysis. 430 Requirements Defining. 33 Models. 25 Queueing Theory. 23 23. 425 to 4. 32. 270 to 273 Performance Paramnters. to Concept Formulation and Contract Definition. 32.AMCP 706. 266 Output Results.191 INDEX (continued) . 33 to 37 Reliability Applications of. 112 to 1lu Applicition of. 216 System Total System. 245 341 to 345 32. 37 to 39 Sensitivity Analysis. Optimization Criterion. 49 to 42:7 Qualitative Material Development Ob~iective (QDO).
15 Requirement for during Life Cycle. 17 to 112 AMCP 706. 269 Confidence Intervals 332 to 335 Cost Uncertainty. 259 261 15 .49 to 250 Expressions of. 229 to 230 257 to 262 Interdependence Between TradeOff Performance Parameter 2radeOffs. Studies and Project Objectives.) INDEX (continued) Systems Analysis (continued) Methodology of (Detailed). 257 Risk and Uncertainty. 222 Effectivcness Equations. 112 to 113 TradeOff Analyses. 2. 221 Capability. 264.191 Nonmilitary use of. 223 Dependability. 265 Weibull Distribution. 226. Cost TradeOffs. Performance vs. Chapter 2 MeVhodology of (General). 259 Uncertainty. 4Co WSEIAC. 219 Availability.
PartThree. Part Two.ENGINEERING DESIGN HANDBOOKS Listed____ beo r heN'_okswihhw enpbiserae urnl udrPearto..0iaITUeet ef stack No~Ism OW F M*V .sI vEnisaers nucleer tffects rkwu.3 for Projectiles Trajectories (ii) 264(C) System Dynamics of !Tracking Gimbal 145 Elements of Aircraft and Missile PrOp. 291 Collect~on and Analysis af DataConcerning lnte~ration Targets MU Weapo 292 SurfacetoAir missiles. 'System AnalysiS 41idCQst*(ffettf*eel I 191 onsm: I. Qualifices. Section Basic 1. All new.. 21 4( Fuzes. aesiop of )16 (ii) SStxem Effects Amsentitimi forPyrotnctiatc 1331(m) *etip tnAiiwr*s macleer. Computers 2113 LiquidFilled Fvoactil. 107 1 M6saC) n".Title 100 104 106 201 *Rotortraft Engineering. Mtissile **Armor and Its Apllication (U) 170(C) (U) Areament Solid Propellants.. 0iesign for Terminal *Criteria for Environmental Control of Mobile 120 (U) Effects Systems *Onsition. Part Two.. Sectlon 3. sibliegpragh 169I YV!3. Effects 4a~el Wlitary Pyrotechnics. Part One. . Part 127 Artillary Asmiutior. Safety. and Data 143 Aerodynamics 26. . Electrical. St. Part One (U) 109 Tables theCumulative Binomial of 212(S) Fuses.03 107 Elements of Armament Engineering. Siction 4. Sec tion 2.'S(S) *Infrared Pilitary Systems. Design Pact l. relivinary 'Oesflye Guidance for Producibility Design *Value Engineering 00Rotorcraft Engineering. Measurement and Propellant Actuated Devices 270 Sigi~al Converters Design of Aerodynamically Stabilied Frio 260 Seryoms. Part One. Basic Environand Index for Series mental Factors 245(C. Design for Control of 246 '21 **Packaging and PackEngineering BY I Iht Characteristics (REPLACED242V Hydaulic Fluids 13 Sectin4 Design for Projcction 247 Amini tIon.g.0weloent 64i4w fer Reliability. 162(SADI Elements of Terminal Control Application to Missile. 115 'Environmental Series. Propellants.tS 24uts. Part 0One.Sear~le Explosive Treins 179 Problem N).n tables 114 246.hanisenv. . Part One. Kill Structures 266 (U) Marvavmisms Vulnetrability sod Work M sGomeral (U) 29(C) Pert B&sI!stics.iaeps 143 Design for Reliability fetus Carriage bide W149lon re 116i1611itY. of Explosivo% of Military Interest. Elect~ical. Section 6. Part rout. 20S *Timing System and Componants 210 Fuzes weapon System And components Prohbstlities 211(~C) Fuzes. Proximity. famplats (e. Pare Ofe.00 n"r aliobilit. PartTwo(U) 110 Experimental Statis~ics. Benavior Principles of Explosive too ~meea Fire Control 121 end Military PrIOteci.t' 7i waespm Properties Military Cyratechimc. Part One.161i qe~ PlIEPAATlSaii a#41i8614. or revised Handbooks being p. no0 Mamwlls bmuastiv Sten 3§' Mathemottcol A00@0iS a 00441a"y ~iule ~aec. hi'ory 136 2X0 Automatic Weapons 137 Servomechanisms. Part Three. Ballistics. liallistics tion Assurance 030 qlewts of Armamat Engineering. Electrical. Pact Four. Electrical.".cs.. of materials sadi in Pyrotoemic Cam iatiems 11. Inspection Aspects of 248 One Infrared Military System. Dart Two..Devlolmwt iS6 too Car. Special Land Mines (U) 241(5)i Topics Design for Control of Projectile Flight 242 Explerinwntal Statistics.rvges aV4 asnsGn me0 Introdwoction. andRelated Matters 135 Flash Lharacteristics of Muazzle Spectral 255 Sc. Part Three. Theory 195 Systeams cosputin.. Partrive. ING elee ffect1 ftinul.244 mental Concepts General. Proximity. Part Five t~umevrative and Classificatory Data Systems Against RF Energy 235 01(ardening Weapon 112 Espeiliumntal Statistics. Detail 202 Elements of Arnment Engineering.* PartThree (U) 213(5 Fuses. Section 2.rvrxaschanlsms. Section 2. Part lvi. e06 PlenAIRa far Cr5415. Design Sources of Energy 'Rotarcraft Engineering. Background. DROP redesignated those pub!icatimvs asi 706series AMC Piamphlets. Artille.andSeac Targets (U) SurfacetoAir Clissiles. of Military Interest 07 Structures Part Surfacetoair Missiles. Glossary. Part Three. Part tM~ae44. Pert IIts TooAstentil. Two (U) 249 Amminiticn. Part $12. S. Analysis of (U) 21SI(C) Fuses. lectronic System and L"tistcnl C Mws Military pyrateciaics. Electrical. Proximity.eom1~t G8...1ironaut WL System halysis Army VW&y~ 190 SW(S00) lofti 147ineers Nuclear Effects Manuel. Section 1. Section 3. 3129 Fire Contes Aopl icjtion (Iomets C~ 14stisng 331 Military Pyrotechnics... Assemly s ngfor bliebilIIty Lontrectfi hatoatine sirsorsiesa 116 fer "Develuamt bmide Srabi lity. 341 ArmyMateriel hewiremts JcsiSyste 34241 farAlabi&jJL. Planning *Small Arm Ammnition (U) 239(S) and Analysis of Comparative Experimc. Power Elements and 139 System Effectiveness (U) 281 (SR) weapon System Design BY 282 *Propulsion andPropellants (REPLACED 285) Trajectories.34 Maintainability Guide for Dsign Gun Tuoes 2S2 Inventions.~blilshed as 70series AMC Title N. Parttowr.. Design 165 Z943)1 Surface~toAir Missiles.iatkl Statistics.. 161(S) Elements of Terminal System Surfacetoair Missiles. ConProximity.w I. Proximity. are reprinted. PartOne l7S Counter29SIS) Surfacetoair Mistils.otmvelont bmide ii'. Part Four (U) III ExpIw. Differential Effects. Two. PartTwo (U) Sclfij 176(C) (U) mastiren Properties of Explosive. Six. with Tabir a* Contents.Section 3. . Patents. %acloar Effects iui~ far lellebil1t.11 11maleer Env. 29 +Proipertiets lTMC) anld Pow Sources IV Section 2 (U1 (REPLACED 177) Part 2117MS SurfaettoAir wesinets. Section 4.. Manufacture of Metallic ign 13C Des for Air Transport and Airdrop of Components of Artillery Ainmeniticn materiel 250 GunsGeneral 133 Iftintainabil1ity EngineeringeTheory andPractice 251 Muzzle Devices . Sectit. Pact Five. Ammnition. Electrical and Cable Wire 125 **emanition. (levetial AG4 q.. Amplification 1US Rocket$ Servomechsanisam. W44 197 tiewillaretarn MS prediction hel1sielist. Sectio . l Treversiag Machissl Ply I1611 Same lt 7 Fmiafrint Am"4614 Whe~eled ?ite. Section 1.Hndok ih ulcto peAMCCionculard 31 it8 p9ublication k h96ebeee 0shedf "onae Currensl publida undehrt.. Basic Environ115 AmmunitionAmmunition. C. Part Two. distes belowr t Augush I he adok 20136 was redesignated APEP 706138). Part Three. Part One.. Characteristics (REPLACES Environm~ental Series. Ballistics. lossien Ieiners 11I I33(51M) Prncedutits and Glos~ary Systems11 *ewn(M. PertTwo. Grenades (U) 113 Experimental Statistics. cepts and Analysis of Macsuramant Oat.'Sion 261 Guns Interior P11 icsofl 150 (*[PLACES 282 160(5) Elements of Ta:.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.