Effects Based Operations (EBO) - is it valid?

[Ron Humphrey]

Ron,

It seems to me that we need to start stealing more ideas from business, a place where America excels in unconventional and quick thinking, and see if we can apply some of these methods to our warfighting. EBO seems to be just such an attempt.

Considering how much business has taken from Military school of thought throughout the years. I wrote a paper about that for at Baker, but the professor seemed non to enthused at the thought

[Ken White]

Every time someone's tried to apply business principles to the Army, it's been my observation that the troops take it in the shorts and the Officers are forced into ever more mind numbing contortions to justify esoteric efforts of small import.

Westinghouse errs building Swiffleglucks because there's really no market and they sell the flawed job at a discount, take a tax write off and produce a few more relays and capacitors. The Army errs with a business practice and somebody's gonna get killed.

Having worked for Hilton Hotels, Atlantic Research and Hughes; those guys have little to anything to offer that translates well. I have to disagree with Surferbeetle that business is a place where America excels at unconventional and quick thinking. That is almost certainly true at the medium size and smaller business levels, it is emphatically untrue, IMO, with the majors (with the possible exceptions of 3M and GE ). Unfortunately, our Army has far more in common with Microsoft and Delta than it does with Apple and Southwest.

[slapout9]

Westinghouse errs building Swiffleglucks

Uhh gotta picture of one of those?

[Ken White]

Uhh gotta picture of one of those?

It's a Solar Powered cocktail mixer for upscale backpackers. Didn't sell well. now, if they'd produced a solar powered wine chiller...

[Ron Humphrey]

It's a Solar Powered cocktail mixer for upscale backpackers. Didn't sell well. now, if they'd produced a solar powered wine chiller...

Would be great way to keep PDA's, etc Charged while on the run

[Cavguy]

Before the thread begins to die the natural SWC death of the "funny comments", I'd just like to say this one has been pretty informative. I'm much more confused than when I began!

[Surferbeetle]

!

[Ken White]

Knob creek will do. And as a reward for extreme valor in starting the thread, I'm sending you my cherished double-billed baseball cap embroidered "I'm their leader, take me to them"

Please, please -- no thanks necessary; least I could do after not contributing any value to the thread...

[slapout9]

Before the thread begins to die the natural SWC death of the "funny comments", I'd just like to say this one has been pretty informative. I'm much more confused than when I began!

Don't worry when I publish my SBW theory it will be easy to understand. It's kinda like Von Clauswitz could whip Che' Guevara's ass with Pet Rocks cause he hired a couple of mafia guys to advise him. I already have two or three lines written shouldn't be to much longer

[Bill Moore]

Eden, I think you have basically captured the essence of the problem with our military culture. Somehow, or for some reason, over the years we have managed to adopt more and more business models which are not always relevant to the situation. The comment that some businesses are very agile and quick to adapt is true, most of them are small businesses that have managed to flatten their organizations to the extent possible. I'm all for this model, and SF used to be very good at this. Unfortunately, since we now have outstanding C4I capabilities, it has enabled excessive top down management, but I think over time we''ll find the right balance again.

I agree that when a senior cdr or staff officer visits he normally wants a sound byte. Well sir, two weeks ago we had two IDF attacks a day, now we are down to one every three days. He responds, damn good work men, keep it up.

Does that metric really mean anything? It may, or it may not. Our enemy is constantly adjusting his strategy and means. He may have already achieved his desired effect (proving to the locals that the CF cannot defend themselves against him, so they better submit to his will). So why risk continued attacks? On the other hand, we may have captured or killed the IDF cell. That's a good news story, but only contributes in a small way to an overall victory. If it contributed in a major way, then we would have won by now.

My inner metrics is called intuition, and it is honed over time through education, training and foremost experience. Of course, intuition is not flawless, so form of metrics can be useful to keep ourselves honest, but like Ken said, we have to be very careful what we are measuring (because we're spending time and personnel capturing, measuring and presenting the data), and most importantly we have to be very, very careful what we attribute the change in the metric to.

I think we need to sit down and talk among ourselves more. It should be a conversation that sort of red cells ourselves. Why is the enemy acting this way? Why would I do it if I was him? What would I do next? Look at all the possibilities and focus our HUMINT on enemy motivations and strategies instead of finding so called HVIs. This will tell us more than metrics ever will. Then we develop a strategy that attacks his strategy, instead of simply chasing HVIs and druming up meaningless stats.

[Surferbeetle]

My inner metrics is called intuition, and it is honed over time through education, training and foremost experience. Of course, intuition is not flawless, so form of metrics can be useful to keep ourselves honest, but like Ken said, we have to be very careful what we are measuring (because we're spending time and personnel capturing, measuring and presenting the data), and most importantly we have to be very, very careful what we attribute the change in the metric to.

Keeping in mind that all of our efforts (them & us) are focused upon the population, I ran across a couple of interesting articles over the last few days on this subject.

The BCKS site, COIN section had a excellent AAR posted to it today that talks about fusing intuition and metrics on the battlefield. While catching up on my weekly Economist (there is also a free podcast from the Economist website and from iTunes) I ran across a rule of law article in the March 15-21st edition (Order in the Jungle, pg 83-85).

Pretty quickly, “governance”—political accountability and the quality of bureaucracy as well as the rule of law—became all the rage. Economists got busy calculating what it was, how well countries were doing it and what a difference it made. Mr Kaufmann and his colleague Aart Kraay worked out the “300% dividend”: in the long run, a country's income per head rises by roughly 300% if it improves its governance by one standard deviation. One standard deviation is roughly the gap between India's and Chile's rule-of-law scores, measured by the bank. As it happens, Chile is about 300% richer than India in purchasing-power terms. The same holds for South Africa and Spain, Morocco and Portugal, Botswana and Ireland. Economists have repeatedly found that the better the rule of law, the richer the nation. (The chart below shows the results of three studies, put on a comparable basis by Mr Kaufmann.) Every rich country with the arguable exceptions of Italy and Greece scores well on rule-of-law measures; most poor countries do not.

The article also covered World Bank metrics on Governance and anti-corruption.

The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project
reports aggregate and individual governance indicators for 212 countries and territories over the period 1996–2006, for six dimensions of governance:

Voice and Accountability

Political Stability and Absence of Violence

Government Effectiveness

Regulatory Quality

Rule of Law

Control of Corruption

The aggregate indicators combine the views of a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries. The individual data sources underlying the aggregate indicators are drawn from a diverse variety of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations.

My 'state' university business education included playing with a Harvard Business School software simulation which teaches one to use metrics in order to make business decisions. I believe this link to be the software, Managing Customers for Profits, Interactive Simulation (Corporate Version)

A CD-ROM-based interactive simulation (for Windows or Macintosh) that allows users to run TubePack, a supplier of industrial packaging products. Individual users decide how much the company should spend on sales force support, delivery service, customization, and other budget items. In addition, they determine pricing policy. Through five different market scenarios, users contend with fluctuating demand and increasing competition. In the process, they learn how to orchestrate the strategic levers that are key to increasing both profits and market share. Coaching segments, triggered by the individual user's decision-making, enrich and facilitate the learning experience.

Engineering-wise my formal university and OJT education has been fairly merciless about the importance of observing a situation, selecting an appropriate mathematical model, correctly modeling the situation in order to make predictions, developing a cost estimate and work plan that applies, and using a management controls system to build and maintain the project. Intuition certainly has a strong role in this process but 'metrics' (for want of a better word) are key. I find that the same approach works for me on the battlefield...this doesn't mean this process works for everyone but I submit the observations for your consideration and perhaps something in them will be useful to your situation.

[davidbfpo]

Good link to the Rules of the Jungle and I hope Rob Thornton catches this, as there is a seperate thread on SWC on the rule of law. For an Economist article it is surprisingly long and meanders a lot. That aside I remain wary of economists preaching, even more so when The Economist chimes in. Yes, the love of metrics and all safely gathered in when not in country.

Look at Zimbabwe briefly. The rule of law was maintained for many years after independence in 1980, although the police quickly became partisan. Now on the verge of change any new government will find the courts stacked against it, with ZANU-PF appointees. Then look wider, 3m Zimbabweans have left; on the BBC Radio 4 this morning most of them professionals, with doctors to the USA and nurses to the UK. How to get the professionals back to help reform Zimbabwe? (This paragraph copied to the Zimbabwe thread).

davidbfpo

[Bill Moore]

Keeping in mind that all of our efforts (them & us) are focused upon the population, I ran across a couple of interesting articles over the last few days on this subject.

Surferbeetle, excellent post, and I look forward to studying the links you sent. I agree our efforts should be focused on the population, but I think if you reviewed most of our metrics at the tactical/operational level, they are focused on the insurgents and us. The insurgents are only a % of population.

You also mentioned these metrics (for want of a better term) were obtained by surveying the population, e.g. metrics based on "their" perceptions, not ours (if I interpreted that correctly). I think we rely on counting observable, measurable events (number of attacks). That obviously has its place, but it rarely indicates if you successfully defeated the insurgent strategy.

One more thought on your post. A lot of the metrics (indicators) you mentioned are clearly at the strategic level. How do we nest this at the tactical/operational level? For example, if you have a rule of law metric, what do our ODAs and Platoons need to be looking for on the ground (or what questions do we ask) in order to collect and provide accurate data to higher that actually means something? I lied, one more point, neighborhood X may have rule of law, and neighborhood W is run by the militia (or the mob or a street gang, just like in the U.S.). The overall economy is still pretty robust in NYC and Los Angles despite pockets of lawlessness. I'll review the models you sent links for and hopefully they address this gray areas.

Excellent thread overall. I think a lot of it is sharing TTPs, and most agree that emerging doctrinal EBO procedures (i.e. the magic ONA which gives us the all seeing eye, therefore a silver bullet solution by tickling a couple of nodes, we achieve a preditctable effect) are deeply flawed, but that an EBA that is able flex rapidly in response to a constantly changing environment seems to have some merit.

[Surferbeetle]

Dated 14 March 2008, Order Code is RL 31339....picked it off of ako but having trouble finding a free link ( http://www.pennyhill.com/index.php )

Regional and International Diplomatic Efforts to Promote Iraq
Stability. The Iraqi government has received some diplomatic support, even though most of its neighbors, except Iran, resent the Shiite and Kurdish domination of the regime. There are about 50 foreign missions in Iraq, including most European and Arab countries. Jordan has appointed an ambassador and Kuwait has pledged to do so. Iran upgraded its representation to Ambassador in May 2006. Saudi Arabia, which considers the Shiite dominated government in Baghdad an affront to what it sees as rightful Sunni pre-eminence, told visiting Secretary of State Rice in August 2007 that the Kingdom will consider opening an embassy in Iraq, and it has begun steps to implement that pledge. On the other hand, some countries, such as Portugal in March 2007, have closed or reduced their embassies because of security concerns; there were attacks on diplomats from Bahrain, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and Russia in 2005 and 2006; Poland’s ambassador was seriously wounded in an attack in central Baghdad on October 3, 2007.

The United States has tried to build regional support for Iraq through an ongoing
“Expanded Ministerial Conference of Iraq’s Neighbors” process, consisting of Iraq’s
neighbors, the United States, all the Gulf monarchy states, Egypt, and the permanent
members of the United Nations Security Council). The first meeting was in Baghdad
on March 10, 2007. Iran and Syria attended, as did the United States. A follow-on
meeting in Egypt was held May 3 and 4, 2007, in concert with additional pledges of
aid for Iraq under an “International Compact for Iraq”, and agreement to establish
regional working groups on Iraq’s security, fuel supplies, and Iraqi refugees. Those
groups have each had several meetings. The latest ministerial meeting was held in
Istanbul on November 2, 2007, but that meeting was reportedly dominated by the
crisis between Turkey and Iraq over safe haven for the Turkish Kurdish opposition
PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), discussed further below. The November 2007
meeting did agree to create an institutional support mechanism for the process,
possibly run by UNAMI. The next regional meeting will be held in Kuwait. Bilateral
U.S.-Iran meetings on Iraq are discussed below.

Human Rights and Rule of Law. The State Department’s report on human
rights for 2007, released March 11, 2008, much as the previous year’s report, appears
to blame much of the human suffering in Iraq on the overall security environment,
the widescale presence of militias, partisans in the government and gangs, and not on
the Iraqi government writ large. It says that Iraq’s has the legal framework “for the
free exercise of human rights.” U.S. officials say Iraqis are freer than at any time in
the past 30 years, with a free press and the ability to organize politically. A State
Department report to Congress details how the FY2004 supplemental appropriation

[Bill Moore]

Engineering-wise my formal university and OJT education has been fairly merciless about the importance of observing a situation, selecting an appropriate mathematical model, correctly modeling the situation in order to make predictions, developing a cost estimate and work plan that applies, and using a management controls system to build and maintain the project.

I have thought about your post for the past couple of days. On the surface it appears logical, but then when I tried to think of practical applications the idea of predictive model based on math fell apart.

Predictive models work for simple systems; however, they are difficult (if not impossible) to apply to complex social systems. Human behavior in a social environment is impacted by several variables, so a model; however complex, will normally fail to be a useful guide in predicting behavior, especially in a culture that is alien to us.

The economic metrics (and to be fair you questioned the term metrics) you posted were not cause and effect, but rather correlations. There could, and probably is, another factor(s) that beyond rule of law that influences economic status. Furthermore, is that relevant to COIN? The whole issue to begin with is to re-establish control (rule of law), so there are obviously some situational based sub effects that must be achieved to get to the end state?

Not only for surferbeetle, but for the collective audience, is anyone aware of where EBO was effectively applied in a counterinsurgency? What metrics did they use? How did they help? What nodes did they influence to create a predictable behavior? Hopefully this isn't coming across as too harsh, because EBO may still have some value even if there is no historical evidence of it. To set the record straight, if you review some of my older posts, you'll find I was one of the few fans of EBO on the SWJ council initially, but after attending EBO training and then attempting to use the JFCOM version of EBO I found serious flaws with either the system or my training (or the student ). I still like the concept, and think that the son of EBO (if he isn't born with seven fingers) could be a very worthwhile tool for the force, but we're not there yet.

Bill

[Tom Odom]

Not only for surferbeetle, but for the collective audience, is anyone aware of where EBO was effectively applied in a counterinsurgency? What metrics did they use? How did they help? What nodes did they influence to create a predictable behavior?

Bill

If used as I have described it here and as it is applied in targeting it works as an approach with associated TTPs. But agaion it is not the rigid version that you have seen, rather it is a loose framework of TTPs applied along lines of operation toward a common end state.

Best

Tom

[selil]

Predictive models work for simple systems; however, they are difficult (if not impossible) to apply to complex social systems. Human behavior in a social environment is impacted by several variables, so a model; however complex, will normally fail to be a useful guide in predicting behavior, especially in a culture that is alien to us.

The entire sciences of sociology and psychology just collapsed under this withering critique. Entire academic faculty departments have been tossed into the abyss. May they rest in peace.

Considering both sociology and psychology are heavily weighted towards statistical analysis. One could argue I suppose statistics are not mathematics, and that mathematics are not probabilities.

Now if we could only chuck the historians and anthropologists into the abyss us engineers could be safe.

[Bill Moore]

The entire sciences of sociology and psychology just collapsed under this withering critique. Entire academic faculty departments have been tossed into the abyss. May they rest in peace.

These sciences are largely based on correlation (thus speculation) with the exception of physical or chemical inbalances that lead to predictable behavior. Several leaders in the field have stated as much. Social and psychological theories are in one year and out the next.

Selil, since you're jumping up and down defending the science behind this, show us where it is. I agree there is correlation (i.e. statitistics), but not necessarily a direct tie between cause and effect. So please post a couple of relevant "laws" (not theories) from these sciences. Ideally show us a law from psychology or sociology that allows to predict the behavior of a tribal group in country X based on tickling node W. Then list the desired effect, the node, the action, and how we measure it and why this approach is value added. I have seen a lot of very smart folks try, but have yet seen a successful example.

Again don't misinterpret my intent, I like an effects based approach, but I think the JFCOM model with the ONA, objective, subordinate effects (this is functional, and it is superior to task and purpose), then identifying key nodes (still functional, but not as simple as depicted in some of texts I have read), then actions to influence those nodes (could be functional, but usually actions are portrayed as physical actions that should result in an immediate, measurable effect), then measure it (dysfunctional), and measure how well the action is being performed (dysfunctional). Trend analysis is one thing, but that isn't what MOE is.

If used as I have described it here and as it is applied in targeting it works as an approach with associated TTPs. But again it is not the rigid version that you have seen, rather it is a loose framework of TTPs applied along lines of operation toward a common end state. Tom

Tom, I concur, and I have no issue whatsoever with EBA. An EBA can provide an umbrella type strategy that allows subordinates to take appropriate actions based on desired effects. This allows subordinates to synch their actions at the local level with higher.

My concern remains with EBO, and I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water with EBO, because there has been some good work, but we have been using it now for a few years (at least three), so in theory we should have some lessons learned. Or, do we just keep replicating this staff behavior regardless of the results?

I do disagree with Selil and others on the models. Until I see a sound argument (not an emotional reaction) indicating otherwise, I do not think that we can predict social behavior accurately by nesting human systems into engineering like models. Maybe in a few more years we will be able to do so when our knowledge increases, but that is not the case now.

Bill

[selil]

Selil, since you're jumping up and down defending the science behind this, show us where it is. I agree there is correlation (i.e. statitistics), but not necessarily a direct tie between cause and effect. So please post a couple of relevant "laws" (not theories) from these sciences. Ideally show us a law from psychology or sociology that allows to predict the behavior of a tribal group in country X based on tickling node W. Then list the desired effect, the node, the action, and how we measure it and why this approach is value added. I have seen a lot of very smart folks try, but have yet seen a successful example.

Interesting take, if skewed, on science. Cause and effect for proof is only one small part of epistemology and process of science. Proofs, and or relevant laws, are outputs of science not the make up of it. Science is the act of seeking knowledge not proving or disproving it. The principles of epistemology are in fact about inquisitiveness which are the principles behind science.

Whether you're a fan of Karl Popper, Kuhn, or Socrates the questions are where you find the science not the answers. So, attempting to stuff a law based science approach however misguided is a relatively 18th century construction. Never mind all of the scientific laws that have been proven to be wrong (read Bill Bryson for a lively catalog of scientific error "A history of everything").

Accept social science or not (and I'm an technologist not a social (ick) scientist), the fact remains they are engaging in scientific method. The entirety of your existence as a human being has been effected/described by social science whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not. You're method of acquiring resources and expending them are the principles developed by Keynes an economist. The way you think and construct political thought are in tension between Marx and Durkeim (among many).

What it appears that you are doing is trying to reject social networking (systems) theory which is just about darn silly. Whether it is a tobacco company paying suffragettes to walk down Madison avenue smoking for freedom in the 40's, a social network graph looking at formal/informal connections of gang principles, it all exists as science. The fiasco every four years known as a presidential election uses social theory extensively to pander to the population. I guess we'll have to toss the advertising industry along with sociology, anthropology, and political science into the abyss.

Sure you can try to take a scientific theory and find inadequacies in the principles in a made up situation, but the science remains as a method of explaining the resultant evidence. You might argue that the tool is inadequate to the purpose, or that a box-wrench will not work where pliers are needed. But, the existence of the tools shouldn't be argued in abeyance of their use.

Don't forget it is the "Theory of Evolution", and it is the "Theory of Relativity". They are unprovable as to their existence though evidence may exist. Each theory has proponents and detractors. I don't think anybody is going to say Einstein wasn't doing science. Never mind all the zoologists and biologists.

[Ron Humphrey]

Interesting take, if skewed, on science. Cause and effect for proof is only one small part of epistemology and process of science. Proofs, and or relevant laws, are outputs of science not the make up of it. Science is the act of seeking knowledge not proving or disproving it. The principles of epistemology are in fact about inquisitiveness which are the principles behind science.

Whether you're a fan of Karl Popper, Kuhn, or Socrates the questions are where you find the science not the answers. So, attempting to stuff a law based science approach however misguided is a relatively 18th century construction. Never mind all of the scientific laws that have been proven to be wrong (read Bill Bryson for a lively catalog of scientific error "A history of everything").

In this I have to whole heartedly agree. EBA is excellent for bringing pieces of the puzzle together in such a manner as to create the umbrella under which any actual targeting/ action/inaction would take place with common goals.

EBO really should come down to finding the right questions to get something with which to work towards the results you aim for. As far as probabilities not being effective indicators I would point out that it is always easier to figure out how a group will react to something then it is to accurately portray what each individual within that groups reaction would be. Is that because there's any magic formula no, but rather because 7 out of Ten would always be better then none out of one. We to often take the fact that individuals are so rarely predictable for a variety of reasons and misapply it to a sum of various individuals with expectation for the same lack of predictability.

Would you say there is no difference between mass psychology and individual psychology.