www.ngs.edu | 800.838.2580

HSM 700bl – Principles and Applications in Homeland

Security & Defense

Module 4:

This material is protected by United States copyright laws. You must treat this publication like any other proprietary material. No part of this material may be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, or reduced to any electronic medium by individuals or organizations outside of the National Graduate School without prior written consent from the National Graduate School. For information, please call 800.838.2580 or visit www.ngs.edu.

HS&D Performance Measures & Targets & QSM Applications (Benchmarking, HS&D Six Sigma Analysis, HS&D Metric Development), HS&D Intra-agency Cooperation,

Coordination, Communication & Measuring Success

36-Jan-09

Process of the Benchmarking Class

Understand “process” of benchmarking: Secondary vs. Primary; Internal vs. External; Strategic, and Operational

“Fast Cycle Benchmarking”

Organize for benchmarking, plan for secondary benchmarking;using library and electronic resources and APA Style; Benchmarking

Code of Conduct

Complete Secondary Benchmarking,Review Integron case study; design

data collection instrument

Reach out; Apply “Creative Benchmarking;”Continued planning for benchmarking

Present plan for Primary Benchmarking

Module1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module5 and

beyond

46-Jan-09

Benchmarks

Benchmark:– “A standard of excellence or achievement against which

other products or services can be measured and compared.”

– Can be used to spur exploration into reasons for differences, to motivate planning and implementation of changes, and to seek continuous improvement.

– Typically, there is not one benchmark, but a set of benchmarks or measurements for a product or service. Those metrics can be used to compare a best process, product, or service to your own.

56-Jan-09

Benchmarking

Benchmarking:– “A method for identifying, analyzing, and using

information and experience of other organizations in order to improve your own business processes, products, or services.”

– Note that benchmarking can lead to benchmarks, but the latter

metrics can also result from routine reporting in an industry, such as cost per unit or revenue per dollar spent.

66-Jan-09

Benchmarking

Basic Benchmarking Definitions

Primary Benchmarking -- Comparison of one or more of an organization’s processes directly with another organization.

Secondary Benchmarking -- Information about a best practice obtained through a review of literature or using a third party as a resource.

76-Jan-09

Benchmarking

Sources of Benchmarking Data Internal -- Comparisons of processes, products, or

services with others within the same organization. Competitive -- Products, services and processes of

competitors compared with the organization’s operations data.

Functional -- Focus on practices of a specific type (marketing/manufacturing) not necessarily specific to the company/organization’s industry. Cross-industry comparisons.

Generic -- Comparison of processes with those of a world-class company not part of the same industry, but with similar processes.

86-Jan-09

Types of Benchmarking

Operational – Comparison of a work process or functional area to determine enablers or best practices

Strategic – Strategies used by organizations (strategic plan). An example would be the innovative ideas from any of the seven Baldrige categories, or a company’s continuous improvement targets.

96-Jan-09

Strategic planning

Continuous process improvement efforts

Operations performance review

Observations of other companies spur ideas

1.0 Launch Investigations

into Possibilities

2.0 Organize for Benchmarking

4.0 Assimilate the Information

5.0 Act on the Information

Define the opportunity or

problem

Select the project team

Set expectations

Target the process or the

function

Identify customers’ needs

Analyze process flow and metrics

Enlist sponsors and mgmt support

Identify process inputs and

outputs

Develop hypotheses to investigate by benchmarking

Conduct secondary

benchmarking

3.0 Reach Out

Collect baseline data

Determine performance measures of

interest

Develop plan for collecting primary

data

Select organization to

benchmark

Analyze the secondary data

Analyze the primary data

Compare performance

levels, present and future

Target new performance

levels and compare to earlier

objectives

Analyze processes and practices of

partner organization

Develop recommendations

for change

Seek agreement among all

involved in the changes

Plan the implementation

Implement

Monitor and adjust as needed

Drivers

Benchmarking Team CharterDeliverabl

es

Full benchmarking plan Comparative analysis

Recommended improvement

Implementation

NGS Model for Benchmarking…

Initiation team operates here

Benchmarking project team operates here

Conduct primary benchmarking

Develop survey or interview guide

106-Jan-09

Force Field Analysis Force Field Analysis is a method for listing, discussing, and evaluating the various forces for and against a proposed change. When a change is planned, Force Field Analysis helps you look at the big picture by analyzing all of the forces impacting the change and weighing the pros and cons. By knowing the pros and cons, you can develop strategies to reduce the impact of the opposing forces and strengthen the supporting forces.

116-Jan-09

Force Field Analysis Forces that help you achieve the change are called "driving forces." Forces that work against the change are called "restraining forces." Force Field Analysis can be used to develop an action plan to implement a change. Specifically it can . . .

1.Determine if a proposed change can get needed support 2.Identify obstacles to successful solutions 3.Suggest actions to reduce the strength of the obstacles

126-Jan-09

Rationale for Using Force Field Analysis

Indentifies forces/factors that:1. support change

2. work against change

So that:1. Positives can be reinforced

2. Negatives can be eliminated or reduced

136-Jan-09

Reasons for Using Force Field Analysis

Provides comparison of positives and negatives

Illustrates all factors influencing change

Provides method to identify priorities for/against change

Stimulates discussion about the “real” problem and how to solve it.

146-Jan-09

Steps in Using Force Field Analysis

1. Write out the change issue

2. Brainstorm the reasons why people/organizations/etc. will be for/against the change

3. Prioritize:1. Issues that can be strengthened

2. Issues that, if removed/mitigated, would create the greatest acceptance of the change.

156-Jan-09

What does it look like?

+ -Issue: _____________________

166-Jan-09

Measuring Progress

Progress may be defined differently by terrorists.

In a search for meaningful measurement criteria, measurements need to be clearly defined and linked to goals and objectives.

Existing methodologies for measuring progress in combating complex social phenomena such as drug trafficking and crime provide solid examples for HS&D Metrics.

176-Jan-09

Framework for Measurement: Incidents

Past measurements included “Number of attacks”. In attempting to measure incidents, some in the United

States tend to define success in familiar ways: body counts and numbers.

A common pitfall is overreliance on quantitative data at the expense of its qualitative significance.

In previous years’ Patterns of Global Terrorism reports, incidents were counted equally without regard to their broader impact.

186-Jan-09

Framework for Measurement: Incidents

To the degree that terrorist constituencies are not from western cultures, their mindsets may not necessarily place a premium on quantification metrics, but rather on other values such as religious precepts, or honor or revenge.

Western policymakers often tend to define success by the absence of attacks.

Terrorists sometimes define success in terms of making governments expend limited resources trying to defend an enormous number of potential targets.

196-Jan-09

Framework for Measurement: Attitudes

Attitudes drive both terrorism and the world’s response to terrorism.

Shaping attitudes to break or weaken the political will to combat terrorism is a central terrorist goal and an important indicator of success or failure.

Terrorists often see success as breaking their opponents’ will. They want the public to push governments to adopt policies

of appeasement to force governments to spend beyond their means and to become increasingly oppressive and draconian towards their own populace.

They may see public opinion concerning anti-terrorism policies as an Achilles heel, counting on protracted reaction of protest.

206-Jan-09

Framework for Measurement: Attitudes

Attitudinal criteria include:

(1) Negative psychological or behavioral impact of terrorism on a society.

(2) Loss of public confidence in governments, or in their security measures

(3) The degree to which terrorists are able to radicalize and polarize Islam against the West and vice versa

(4) The level of anti-American or anti-Western sentiments, and (5) the level of religious bigotry in countries which are breeding grounds for terrorists.

216-Jan-09

Framework for Measurement: Attitudes

Attitudes drive both terrorism and the world’s response to terrorism.

Shaping attitudes to break or weaken the political will to combat terrorism is a central terrorist goal and an important indicator of success or failure.

Terrorists often see success as breaking their opponents’ will.

They want the public to push governments to adopt policies of appeasement to force governments to spend beyond their means and to become increasingly oppressive and draconian towards their own populace.

226-Jan-09

Framework for Measurement: Trends

Trends are changes of incidents, attitudes and other factors, over time.

Measurement of trends is particularly relevant with regard to trends in terrorist infrastructure.

Is their leadership being weakened; is their recruitment base, network, or target list growing?

Relevant also are intentions (tactical and strategic goals). Have the intentions of a movement or group changed and if so are they more or less radical — more or less focused on causing widespread damage?

236-Jan-09

Framework for Measurement: Trends

Capabilities are important as well. What are the capabilities of a terrorist group to inflict serious damage? Are they increasing or decreasing?

Other trends that might be measured include are:

(1) The number of governments that do not embrace appeasement policies,

(2) The number of defectors from the terrorist ranks

(3) The terrorists’ levels of Internet activity

(4) The amount of media coverage they receive

(5) The number of supporters and recruits they gain.

246-Jan-09

Measuring HS&D Performance

Performance is fundamentally measured by a positive change in the problem you are aiming to address.

From a client perspective, change is defined by a measurable improvement in client knowledge, skills, behavior, or condition.

256-Jan-09

Measuring HS&D Performance

Performance Measure: This is an indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program performance and assess progress in meeting the program performance goal, and in turn, the objectives and goals of the Department.

Performance Target: A target is the projected level of performance for each performance measure during a fiscal year. A target is a quantifiable or measurable characteristic that communicates how well or at what level a program aspires to perform.

266-Jan-09

Measuring HS&D Performance

Performance Result: A result is the actual level of performance for each performance measure achieved during a fiscal year. Results are compared to targets to determine how well actual performance measured up to that which was planned.

276-Jan-09

Building a Performance Measurement System

286-Jan-09

Performance Measurement Framework

Program Design. If you haven’t already, now’s the time to articulate the client needs that your program is trying to address and your program’s goals.

Performance Measurement Framework. If you’re starting from scratch, start backwards with the outcomes, followed by determining the activities you think you need to achieve those results.

If you’re starting with an existing program, then work through current practice to document what you are currently doing and its impact.

Revise current practice if you are not satisfied with the results you document.

296-Jan-09

Lean Definition

Lean is defined as a management approach that seeks to maximize value to customers, both internal and external, while simultaneously removing wasteful activities and practices.

It is based on the management system used at Toyota Motor Corporation, with Shigeo Shingo and Taiichi Ohno generally considered to be its architects.

Womack, Jones, and Roos in a worldwide study of automobile manufacturing, used the term “lean” to describe the activities that seek to minimize waste, such as excess inventory and defective products.

306-Jan-09

Lean Definition

Their study concluded that Lean was preferable to “mass production” prominent in the United States and Europe.

Lean manufacturing gradually found its way in the mainstream jargon during the mid to late 1990s.

316-Jan-09

Six Sigma

Six Sigma can be defined as a management approach that seeks to maximize profits by systematically applying scientific principles to reduce variation and thus eliminate defects in product and service offerings.

Six Sigma has evolved into a comprehensive management system. Many practitioners, however, continue to view Six Sigma as a set of techniques that promote variance reduction.

326-Jan-09

Six Sigma

Six Sigma projects are formalized and highly structured, making use of scientific approaches in the selection and management of projects.

Six Sigma projects use a DMAIC structure, considered by many practitioners to be the primary reason for Six Sigma’s success. DMAIC enforces a high degree of discipline and commonality in project organization, problem-solving tools, software, and terminology.

336-Jan-09

Six Sigma Processes

Six Sigma is the constant striving to take what you are doing today and improve it.

Can Six Sigma be used for improving security and emergency management? Yes it can.

One must start with the DMAIC process taught within Six Sigma as a disciplined approach to project management.

DMAIC stands for, Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control.

346-Jan-09

Lean Six Sigma

Lean Six Sigma encompasses many common features of Lean and Six Sigma, such as an emphasis on customer satisfaction, a culture of continuous improvement, the search for root causes, and comprehensive employee involvement.

In each case, a high degree of training and education takes place, from upper management to the Programmatic operations.

356-Jan-09

Lean Six Sigma Processes

366-Jan-09

LSS & Security Processes

376-Jan-09

HS&D & Cross Jurisdictional Coordination

Domestic preparedness relies on cross-jurisdictional and cross-professional cooperation and coordination between agencies, non-governmental private, and non-for-profit organizations, and levels of government that are not accustomed to working together.

386-Jan-09

HS&D & CS Coordination

HS&D and CS mission areas require detailed planning and interagency coordination to develop operational relationships with other federal departments and agencies.

In certain circumstances DOD’s dependence on non-DOD organizations, information, assets and infrastructures could be critical in the accomplishment of HD as well as CS mission areas.

396-Jan-09

406-Jan-09

PDD-56 Interagency Coordination Tools

Executive Committee (ExComm) provides unified planning guidance and improves day-to-day crisis management.

Political-Military Implementation Plan (Pol-Mil Plan) lays out a coordinated multi-dimensional strategy to achieve mission success.

Interagency Rehearsal refines mission area plans to achieve unity of effort.

Interagency After-Action Review assesses interagency planning efforts and captures lessons for dealing with future complex emergencies.

416-Jan-09

PDD-56 Interagency Coordination Tools

Interagency Training creates a cadre of officials familiar with improved interagency management and establishes working relationships among key offices across the interagency to strengthen overall interagency readiness.

426-Jan-09

Interagency Assessment Components

Collecting relevant information about what happened during the planning, execution, and transition phases of the operation

Analyzing the information and determining useful lessons to be learned distributing those lessons throughout the interagency

Integrating critical lessons into policies and procedures so they can help improve interagency operations during the next crisis.

436-Jan-09

Interagency Collaboration Practices

Agree on roles and responsibilities, including leadership.

Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries, including compatible standards and data systems, and communicate frequently to address such matters as cultural differences.

Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on the results of the collaborative effort.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0615.pdf

446-Jan-09

Interagency Collaboration Practices

Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when organizations act alone. Agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by engaging the following practices:

Define and articulate a common outcome.

Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies designed to help align activities, core processes, and resources to achieve a common outcome.

Identify and address needs by leveraging resources to support the common outcome and, where necessary, opportunities to leverage resources.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0615.pdf

456-Jan-09

Interagency Collaboration Practices

Reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts by using strategic and annual performance plans to establish complementary goals and strategies and by using performance reports to account for results.

Reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through performance management systems by identifying competencies related to collaboration and setting performance expectations for collaboration.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0615.pdf

466-Jan-09

Communication, Cooperation, Collaboration Relationships

Collaboration involves a group of independent individuals or organizations working together to achieve a common purpose directly or indirectly affecting output or outcomes or other goals.

This working together involves varying degrees of integration or sharing of functions and can be described according to the intensity of the relationships.

Collaboration requires each partner to give up some autonomy in the “interests of mutual gain or outcomes.

True collaboration involves actual changes in agency, group, or individual behavior to support collective goals or ideals.

(Corbett & Noyes, 2008)

476-Jan-09

MITRE Multi-Agency Full Readiness Model

486-Jan-09

MITRE Multi-Agency Full Readiness Model: Operational

Coordination

496-Jan-09

MITRE Multi-Agency Full Readiness Model: Operational

Cooperation

506-Jan-09

MITRE Multi-Agency Full Readiness Model: Operational

Collaboration

516-Jan-09

MITRE Activity Readiness Model

526-Jan-09

Module 4 Reading Requirement Instructor’s Module/Week 4 PPT presentation.

Kamien, D. (2006) the McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook. McGraw-Hill Publishing. New York, N.Y. Chapter 71,16,18 p. 283-296.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2008), Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2008–2013: One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland, Washington D.C. p. 26-28.

Six Sigma And The Security Plan, Jack Freson, Sigma Team Solutions, LLC Associate of: Six Sigma Security, Inc.

536-Jan-09

Module 4 Reading Requirement Perl, R. (2007) Combating Terrorism: The Challenge of

Measuring Effectiveness. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Washington D.C.

Mayleff, J. (2007) Improving Service Delivery in Government with Lean Six Sigma.

Freson, J. (2008), Six Sigma and the Security Plan, Sigma Team Solutions. Retrieved from website: www.sixsigmasecurity.us

546-Jan-09

Module 4 Reading Requirement Instructor’s Module/Week 4 PPT presentation.

Sowell, P., Reedy, M., Hailegiorghis, M. (2005) MITRE Technical Report: Application of a Readiness Model for Multi-Agency Interaction, Center for Enterprise Modernization, McLean, VA.

National Security Council (1997) Handbook for Interagency Management of Complex Contingency Operations, Washington D.C.

556-Jan-09

Team Assignment

Develop and establish a Benchmark for the Project recommendation and proposal.

Develop Key Performance Metrics to be used for evaluation.

Produce and submit PPT slide 7 (Benchmark & Key Performance Metrics) and submit into Blackboard Digital Drop Box.

566-Jan-09

Team Assignment Develop an implementation methodology that

defines how the proposed recommendation will be implemented into the overall process.

Develop an Evaluation and Measures of Success Criterion that describes how the proposed recommendation will be evaluated using the metrics, and measured to determine success criteria.

Produce and submit slides 8 (Implementation Methodology) and 9 (Evaluation and Measures of Success Criterion), and submit into Blackboard Digital Drop Box.

576-Jan-09

Individual Essay Questions

Individual Essay Question 1: Does the DHS Performance Management Framework provide a substantial enough methodology to measure effectiveness and success for today’s HS&D challenges?

586-Jan-09

Individual Essay Questions

Individual Essay Question 2: Discuss the necessity of Inter and Intra-agency Cooperation, Coordinate and Communication as a viable component of HS&D operations.

Does the Mitre Full Readiness Model for Multi-Agency Interaction provide a sound model for HS&D agencies to measure success for Cooperation, Coordination, and Communication?

Justify response.

Please Complete the Blackboard Requirements for This Module Before Moving

to Module Five