1 Attachment(s)
Tactical Agility:Linking the Cognitive and Physical using Networked Battle Command
Like the article on robotics, I tend to write about the things that I'm working on at the time - both to better understand them, and also to inform the greater community - in this case (early 2005) I wrote about about networked battle command - and how the FCS concept of battle command (BCOTM) was looking in comparison to existing digital battle command - it was published later in 2005. Also like the article on robots, some of what I wrote then has evolved based on new experiences and on new reflections earned through new PME, and just getting some distance. Its what the Army was paying me think about at the time. I think the basis of the article though - about the differences between the analytical and recognitional decision making, how staffs work or might work and about capabilities and limitations of technology to benefit or detract from effectiveness are still pretty sound. What I did not understand then, which a deployment to OIF helped inject (along with some time to consider it afterwards) was how large a role fog, friction and chance play in war.
I think the article will still help others get their arms around some of the ways technology might help us adapt and make decisions faster - while still pointing out that the key is really in the leader's ability to not only recognize changes, but to understand what it means. This link will take you to the Armor Magazine version which has graphics as well as some stock photos the magazine staff inserted. Since you must have AKO authorization to get in, I've also included a word copy of the text.
Best, Rob
Always seemed to me the IT folks would follow
the Signal corps pattern; in WW I, they manned all the radios due to then high tech demands -- and got some really smart people due to that factor. As the systems got more user friendly, the Signal corps mission effectively transmuted during WW II, they got less brainy folks and as the systems got automated and miniaturized, they eventually became not needed for battlefield comm.
That's a gross over simplification but I always figured the 'puters would follow the same pattern. Long way of a non-computer savvy country boy saying I'm absolutely sure you're right...
Now, as an aside, if we can just get rid of LTs as FOs, a process and system that has essentially followed the same pattern (but that final solution is stoutly resisted by the FA)... :D
Actually, I'm not at all afield.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Presley Cannady
Well, you're not that far afield, but the reasons why things didn't pan out that way is threefold:...
I was talking about end users. Given the proliferation of laptops and related devices to the Joe Tentpeg level, we're already there. The esoterics of design and software may still be somewhat problematical at echelons above reality but the end user phenomenon has already panned out... :wry: