Case Study

Deployment Schedule Optimization

Washington, D.C.

Disruptions to asset deployment schedules are a reality. Developing a resilient asset deployment schedule requires foresight and flexibility.

For many of SPA’s clients, especially the U.S. Navy, deployment cycles must balance the schedule for fielding a set number of assets/platforms with sufficient time for personnel training and asset maintenance, including unplanned (schedule-disrupting) maintenance. Robust and flexible deployment schedules are needed to hedge against the unexpected.

Responding to this resource challenge, SPA developed the Coordinated Optimization and Simulation Model for Operational Scheduling (COSMOS) tool to investigate the ability and likelihood that a force can meet deployment requirements given a defined set of assets/platforms, deployment locations, maintenance and training requirements, procurement and decommissioning plans, etc. COSMOS combines mathematical optimization and Monte Carlo simulation to create deployment schedules that make high-level estimates about force availability and mission accomplishment.

Using Operations Research techniques, COSMOS enables decision makers to examine and understand the impact of operational changes and disruptions on mission planning for low density, high-demand assets.

COSMOS Highlights

Quantified impact of service disruptions

In one instance using historical patrol data as inputs, COSMOS accounted for real-world scheduling difficulties to simulate the length and frequency of regular and long-term service disruptions and quantify the impact to platform availability.

Helped establish requirements for next-generation platforms

To support a next-generation capability, COSMOS modeled fleet operations to inform strategy on geographic operational areas, weapon range, force structure, training, concept of operations, and maintenance requirements.

Identified point of diminishing returns for equipment upgrades

COSMOS quantitatively assessed the effect of potential equipment upgrades on the location of operations, length of operations, and maintenance cycles for naval assets. The model identified the point at which equipment upgrades offered no additional benefit in fulfilling mission objectives.