Figure 3. Sample Pairwise Ranking Matrix Tool (Sorted by Determined Priority)
Source: Author
only prioritizing the items in pairs and prioritizing every possible pairing combination. The priority is determined by how many “wins” an option has against the other options. The key advantages of this decision-making tool are that it can accommodate long lists, the results are numerical, and this method mimics how people make decisions in real life, making it more intuitive to participate in the ranking and to interpret the results 4 . I listed our 40 options in a matrix such as the ones above and scheduled a meeting with the leads of all the functional areas and the program leadership, a total of about 10 people. This was the first time anyone on the team had used this methodology for decision-making, but it didn’t take long for everyone to catch on. The time was spent debating the various pairings, with the most time spent around the items that would end up ranking closest to the cut-line, though we did not realize this as we were discussing. The final result was a nontrivial priority ranking which achieved a consensus. All opinions were considered and debated fairly, and the breadth of discussions benefitted greatly from having the perspective of each functional area in the room. A decision on the initial approach had been made. Now it was time to communicate the plan. The new plan needed a name that could be referred to easily, so we called it the “Austerity Measures.” We commu- nicated relevant parts of the final rankings to the various stakeholders and it was met with some clarifications but no push-back. It was hard deferring $45M in work to an uncertain time in the future, but since we had been transparent about the issues the program was facing and the approach we took to address them, the stakeholders felt that their equities and concerns had been accounted for. Cutbacks began immediately, and progress against the new plan was reported regularly and frequently. The status updates kept all parties accountable for their responsibilities in the new plan and facilitated deviations when oppor- tunities arose. For example, as we started to execute the Austerity Measures, the prime came to find that some of the estimates they provided were higher than their actuals. The regular revisiting of the plan allowed the program to be agile and quickly re-initiate lower priority items that didn’t make the cut originally, further mitigating risk to the program. The communication, relationships, and positive momentum we fostered would pay additional dividends. Eight months later, after much back-and-forth at the highest levels of the DoD, the program was directed to either renegotiate our CPIF
May-June 2025 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION
47
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker