Enterprise Modeling: Improving the Analysis of Alternatives Process
for IT Solutions Government Contractors
Saad El Beleidy, Peyman Jamshidi, Jared Kovacs, Gabriel Lewis
Systems Engineering & Operations Research, George Mason University
Context
!   100% of revenue from proposals
!   15-25 proposals a year
!   5-10 competitors per proposal
Must be efficient in time sensitive
proposal development process
Solicitation
AoA Task
Category
Percent of
AoA
Variability
Labor
Intensive
35.2%
Low (± 22%)
Decision
Making
19.2%
High (± 55%)
Experience
Recall
26.3%
Medium (± 45%)
Networking
19.2%
High (± 100%)
10%
Define the
Problem
Domain
40%
Define
Evaluation
Criteria
20%
Explore
Alternate
Solutions
Evaluate
Solutions
30%
Analysis of Alternatives Phases
and Relative Time Durations
Ranked List
of
Alternatives
!   Decreasing Federal Contract
Spending
!   Decreasing Contractor Revenue
!   Increase in Competition to Win
Proposals
↓ by 33%
25%
20.00%
Mean
(Filled)
10.00%
A4
A3
A4
A2
,
A2
A3
A2
,
A4
A3
A1
,
A4
Variability
(Hollow)
A1
,
A1
,
A3
0.00%
A2
,
AoA Mean
Time
Efficiencies
AoA Difficulty
Time Variability
↓ by 25%
Information
Availability &
Applicability
Quality
Maintain or ↑
Number of
Technologies
Cost
< $100,000
Simulation
4.5
Note that the alternative configurations that meet the AoA mean time duration and variability
reduction need are those that include the “Optimized Staffing Levels” (A1).
A1: Optimized Staffing Levels; A2: Sanitized Repository;
A3: File Management; A4: Content Management
Closest to Desirable Region
4
3.5
A2
3
A2, A4
A1, A2
A2, A3
A4
A1
A1, A2, A4
A1, A2, A3
Rank
A3
2
Mo
re
1.5
1
0.5
Meet the
Duration and
Variability
Reduction Need
A1, A4
A1, A3
Baseline
2.5
AoA Time
Variability
Quality
Metric
Target
Optimized
Staffing Levels
Parallel Tasks
Sanitized
Repository
Task Category
Times & Output
Quality
File
Management
System
Content
Management
System
Task Category
Times
Task Category
Times
Conclusion
5
Utility
30.00%
A2
,
Design
Alternative
AoA Process
Logic
Task Category
Mean Time
33%
A1
2011
There is a need for Analysis of Alternatives
process improvements to reduce the mean time
duration by at least 33%, and the variability by
25%, while maintaining or increasing AoA
proposed solution quality and keeping
maximum costs below $100,000 per AoA.
Does not
meet Need
40.00%
A2
2010
Fiscal Year
Cost Benefit Analysis
50.00%
A1
,
2009
Need
Meets Need
A1
,
$500
Area
Percent Decrease In Time
1.  Solutions Architects work on one task at a time
2.  Only one proposal is being worked on at any given time
3.  The four task categories adequately capture time
consumption in AoA
4.  All tasks are of equal importance to the quality of AoA
output
$530
Results
60.00%
Key Simulation Assumptions
Monte Carlo discrete event
simulation running for 1000
Replications each simulating
1 year (25 proposals)
$560
Need
Results
Ba
se
lin
e
Method of Analysis
Problem
Federal Contract
Spending (Billions)
IT Solutions
Government Contractors
Problem & Need
De
Do Not Meet
the Duration
and Variability
Reduction Need
sir
a
bl
e
0
-$5,000.00 $15,000.00 $35,000.00 $55,000.00 $75,000.00 $95,000.00
Cost per AoA
A1: Optimized Staffing Levels; A2: Sanitized Repository;
A3: File Management; A4: Content Management
Alternative
Configuration
Utility
1
A1, A2, A4
2
A1, A2
3
A1, A2, A3
4
A2, A4
5
A2
6
A1, A4
7
A2, A3
8
A4
9
A1, A3
10
A1
11
Baseline
12
A3
4.25
3.95
3.90
3.90
3.54
3.49
3.28
3.18
3.14
3.09
2.50
2.37
Based on Cost – Benefit Analysis:
Recommendation is Optimized
Staffing Levels and Sanitized
Repository
In case of possible cost reduction
of Content Management System:
Recommendation is Optimized
Staffing Levels, Sanitized
Repository and Content
Management System
A1: Optimized Staffing Levels
Meet The Need
Don’t Meet The Need
A2: Sanitized Repository
A3: File Management
A4: Content Management