Col. Jones,

I will need to mull this over for a while (I'm a slow thinker), but here are some initial impressions:

As a generic model, it makes sense. However, the example used to demonstrate the model is problematic and rests on a few questionable assumptions, so "operationalizing" the model is where I see problems:

The biggest flaw begins with this: "In other words, they are systemically prevented from being able to agree on virtually anything." That condition is the completely normal result of independent bureaucracies with independent resources and independent agendas. Your example first assumes they are all working on "COIN" and further assumes they can be brought together in the context of that COIN work towards a common objective. Then there is the assumption that this can be accomplished simply by "showing them the light" on what the principle concern in the area is.

That is wishful thinking IMO. First of all, it's not obvious that they are actually working toward "COIN" despite what they main believe/claim. Secondly, independent organizations cannot be made to reliably work together without some kind of unified command with the authority to force competing bureaucracies and interests to play nice. Third, independent organizations are not going to work together based on a survey, no matter how comprehensive and rigorous. In short, you can't assume that those organizations will see things your way and rearrange their priorities toward the goal you've identified as central in priority.


Equally important, the shared assessment and collective plan for achieving it was sitting the desk's of all of their respective bosses, creating enhanced synergy at the highest levels, as well as down at the operator level.
To summarize my argument, how are you going to keep those bosses from putting the plan in the circular file?

I like the model, but, like any model, one must consider if can be reasonably implemented in a given set of circumstances.