全球智库信息集成服务系统

Analytic Approaches to Articulating the Effects of Funding Infrastructure Below Stated Requirements

• A project scorecard approach is easy to understand and implement, but the mission impact of some projects may be uncertain, this approach may involve an overwhelming amount of information, and it tends to focus on the near term.
• A mission outcome metrics approach involves building logic and mathematical models to link and quantify the effects of infrastructure funding on mission outcomes. Such an approach can provide interesting insights and can express long-term impacts, but mission outcome models can be costly to develop, and not all missions may be amenable to this kind of analysis.
• The composite risk metrics approach entails gathering and synthesizing data about infrastructure performance (using metrics like condition and functionality), applying performance thresholds based on user needs, then translating those ratings to some kind of holistic risk framework. This approach takes advantage of the Air Force's current information systems and can express long-term impacts, but this is the most abstract of the three approaches, and it requires fully populating the Air Force's data systems.
• All three approaches may have a place in the Air Force as it transitions away from the status quo, though choosing a path ahead will require more thought and collaboration with infrastructure users and Air Force decisionmakers, and implementing that approach will likely require gathering more information.
• Infrastructure-to-mission mapping exercises appear to have several potential side benefits.
• Solid risk analysis and communication are necessary, but not sufficient, for successful advocacy for infrastructure funding in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) process.