Design for military operations

[DaveDoyle]

At the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) at Fort Leavenworth, KS, 96 SAMS students, faculty and contractors recently finished a six week experimentation period using “design” to approach military operations. Students from the US Armed Forces, USAID, FBI and international militaries applied design theory to future scenarios templated in CENTCOM, EUCOM, PACOM, and NORTHCOM. The design principles concentrated the student’s efforts not on solving “the” problem, but first on defining the “correct” problem set and developing a methodology to manage the environment through application of all elements of national power. The most recent experiment took the design efforts and focused on producing information to be used by planners. The interface for designers and planners in this case was a campaign directive.

If the GWOT is a problem set, and we have been dealing with it as a government for nearly eight years, perhaps design is a useful approach for military leaders.

I would like to hear from the SWJ community, many with experience in developing campaign plans, about what might be a useful product for planners from a design team. I would also appreciate engaging in a dialogue about the utility of design in general. Links to two recent Military Review articles about design are posted below.

Thanks,
Dave

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...430_art015.pdf

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...430_art016.pdf

[Surferbeetle]

These are very interesting papers, thanks for posting the links.

From a USAR perspective accessibility to this type of training, availability of infrastructure (hardware and software) needed to bring this back to the unit so that geographically dispersed staff/units can use it (cloud computing - ako based?), and structured real world case studies/training packages for 'train the trainer' type situations are the first things that come to my mind.

Effective operationalization of these concepts will require that active and reserve military (officers/warrant officers/ncos) and our other DIME partners have access (I noted that the 1st article mentioned that DIME personnel to include contractors attend SAMS).

I enjoy many of the CALL products due to their practicality, accessibility, and teach-ability: Battalion Planning Process (No. 07-3) and others seem to reflect a familiarity with some Operations Research concepts. Perhaps CALL would be a vehicle for some of the products from this proposed process?

[Ron Humphrey]

At the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) at Fort Leavenworth, KS, 96 SAMS students, faculty and contractors recently finished a six week experimentation period using “design” to approach military operations. Students from the US Armed Forces, USAID, FBI and international militaries applied design theory to future scenarios templated in CENTCOM, EUCOM, PACOM, and NORTHCOM. The design principles concentrated the student’s efforts not on solving “the” problem, but first on defining the “correct” problem set and developing a methodology to manage the environment through application of all elements of national power. The most recent experiment took the design efforts and focused on producing information to be used by planners. The interface for designers and planners in this case was a campaign directive.

If the GWOT is a problem set, and we have been dealing with it as a government for nearly eight years, perhaps design is a useful approach for military leaders.

I would like to hear from the SWJ community, many with experience in developing campaign plans, about what might be a useful product for planners from a design team. I would also appreciate engaging in a dialogue about the utility of design in general. Links to two recent Military Review articles about design are posted below.

Thanks,
Dave

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...430_art015.pdf

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...430_art016.pdf

My initial response was -yipeeee
unfortunately followed by the realization that I have absolutely no idea what it would actually equate to by the time it works its way through all the levels required to really utilize it on a larger scale.

I have the greatest confidence that those serving in todays military would be able to do amazing things if given the chance to really design COA' s and look at operational environments in a learning environment such as presented.

The question that's still eating at me is can we actually get ourselves or those in the political realm to let the reigns that loose. Although it might not seem that risky up front; when those at the top start getting the kind of input that would result it may seem a lot less controlled (or perhaps better stated- risk averse than they might be comfortable with)

IMHO it is where we really need to be but having spent a lot of time trying to look at it from every angle its likely to have some big fans and some pretty important leaders not so excited about it.

Finger's crossed/ Ducking for cover

[Bob's World]

We've actually been applying design at USSOCOM for about a year now in the Strategy Division, and not only is the command allowing us tremendous freedom of intellectual maneuver, the products that we have developed are having a major impact far outside out Command. The Chairman, other GCCs, Key Partner Nations, throughout the interagency community.

Not everyone agrees with everything, but that is the point. It is driving new discourse, and breaking down some of the long held, misconceptions of what we are dealing with and how to move forward from here.

We do not follow some rigid doctrinal approach to design, but have combined elements of a variety of proposed processess out there. In simplest terms it insert a step in the front end of Mission Analysys that takes a holistic look at what exactly the problem is that you have been asked to address, and how it really functions, and then through that understanding being able to better see second and third order effects from various COAs, and also to be able to better advise the commander.

Takes MDMP out of the hands of the intel guys focusing the effort on a very threat-centric approach right up front. That part doesn't go away, it just has a better context to understand how that "threat" fits into the larger system. Often the solution lies somewhere other than by targeting the "threat" directly.

We met with a couple of the SAMS seminars and left some products with them to help them grasp this new concept. They were getting a lot of "you have to always bring the Commander answers." With Design, often you bring him questions as well. And that's a good thing.

[William F. Owen]

The question that's still eating at me is can we actually get ourselves or those in the political realm to let the reigns that loose. Although it might not seem that risky up front; when those at the top start getting the kind of input that would result it may seem a lot less controlled (or perhaps better stated- risk averse than they might be comfortable with)

IMHO it is where we really need to be but having spent a lot of time trying to look at it from every angle its likely to have some big fans and some pretty important leaders not so excited about it.

Good point. Some old Prussian General actually wrote about this a good deal. Can't remember his name, but he produced a book that dealt with this very issue. Carl something, I think...

[DaveDoyle]

Bob's World posted - We've actually been applying design at USSOCOM for about a year now in the Strategy Division, and not only is the command allowing us tremendous freedom of intellectual maneuver, the products that we have developed are having a major impact far outside out Command.

Where does the Strategy Division fit within the staff and how often do you interact with planners?

Also, when you say "outside the command" are you referring to IA partners? Are they finding design opportunities more acceptable than JOPP and MDMP planning tools?

Thanks,

Dave

[Bob's World]

Bob's World posted - We've actually been applying design at USSOCOM for about a year now in the Strategy Division, and not only is the command allowing us tremendous freedom of intellectual maneuver, the products that we have developed are having a major impact far outside out Command.

Where does the Strategy Division fit within the staff and how often do you interact with planners?

Also, when you say "outside the command" are you referring to IA partners? Are they finding design opportunities more acceptable than JOPP and MDMP planning tools?

Thanks,

Dave

We are quickly becoming the foundation for everything the command does, and probably work with the planner as much as anyone. They have been using design as well within their shop as they attack revisions on the various plans we work.

As to interaction with the interagency community, they really like our products, we don't spend a lot of time talking about the process that got us there. I think you'll find that Army planners even withing the military are way more wrapped around the axel on process than other military planners (did you do it right over did you get a good result), and civilian planners much less so again.

My one fear as TRADOC works to codify this "art" of war process, that they inadvertantly squeeze the life out of it in converting it to a repeatable "science." Guard against that, please. This is definitely something where it is far more important to apply some broad concepts than to rigidly execute a specific process.

[J Wolfsberger]

From the stand point of Systems Analysis/System Engineering, I've got some problems with the papers cited. It could simply be the way concepts are expressed/presented, but I don't think so. As an example, in the second paper, the concept of "Reframing" is discussed:

"Reframing is an intellectual activity to identify new opportunities and overcome obstacles to progress when interactions with the real world situation or new sources of information reveal issues with a current problem. Reframing shifts attention from trying to solve the current problem right to asking whether the right problem is being solved. It is a way for designers to pull back and reassess the operational environment, allowing them to challenge their situational understanding and review expectations of actor behavior against the evidence.12 When operators consciously and critically select theories and hypotheses that help to structure their view of reality, they gain the freedom to operate beyond the limitations of any single perspective." (Emphasis added.)

Asking whether your tackling the right problem should be done at the beginning. (That's pretty much old school SE 101.) If you wait until you're trying to implement a solution, or in trouble, you're already screwed.

The intent is solid. But there look to be some serious tweaks needed in the implementation. I'd suggest a DTIC search on "Missions and Means Framework." I think it will give a much more solid starting point, and one that dovetails with some other activities.

[Murph]

At the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) at Fort Leavenworth, KS, 96 SAMS students, faculty and contractors recently finished a six week experimentation period using “design” to approach military operations. Students from the US Armed Forces, USAID, FBI and international militaries applied design theory to future scenarios templated in CENTCOM, EUCOM, PACOM, and NORTHCOM. The design principles concentrated the student’s efforts not on solving “the” problem, but first on defining the “correct” problem set and developing a methodology to manage the environment through application of all elements of national power. The most recent experiment took the design efforts and focused on producing information to be used by planners. The interface for designers and planners in this case was a campaign directive.

If the GWOT is a problem set, and we have been dealing with it as a government for nearly eight years, perhaps design is a useful approach for military leaders.

I would like to hear from the SWJ community, many with experience in developing campaign plans, about what might be a useful product for planners from a design team. I would also appreciate engaging in a dialogue about the utility of design in general. Links to two recent Military Review articles about design are posted below.

Thanks,
Dave

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...430_art015.pdf

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...430_art016.pdf

Although my experience with design is limited to the context of an academic setting, I have had the opportunity to read and discuss design with several military & interagency partners; a step up (perhaps) from having stayed at a Holiday Inn. The attached pdf contains my thoughts regarding its utility.

While I’m aware of, and have observed, some systems frames created by command-level staffs, I’d like to echo Dave’s thoughts in soliciting feedback from strategists/planners who are currently engaged in design efforts to address contemporary issues. What has been your experience? Is design being embraced, accepted, discussed, shunned… Is their practical utility?
v/r

Murph

[Bob's World]

Although my experience with design is limited to the context of an academic setting, I have had the opportunity to read and discuss design with several military & interagency partners; a step up (perhaps) from having stayed at a Holiday Inn. The attached pdf contains my thoughts regarding its utility.

While I’m aware of, and have observed, some systems frames created by command-level staffs, I’d like to echo Dave’s thoughts in soliciting feedback from strategists/planners who are currently engaged in design efforts to address contemporary issues. What has been your experience? Is design being embraced, accepted, discussed, shunned… Is their practical utility?
v/r

Murph

Just the SOCOM framing of the the global environment alone drew great interest and provided leaders with a fresh perspective. Since then the "big ideas" that have come from that in the Strategy Development process are producing concepts that are generating a great deal of interest across a wide range of disciplines as well. From this new perspective we are going to go back in and re-frame the original Strategic Appreciation, and take the whole process to the next level.

Meanwhile we (and be "we" I mean everyone from the President on down) get the same old stuff from the intel guys: AQ here and everywhere, look out for these big scary cold war states, etc. No big ideas there, just old thinking applied to the latest information. Sadly so much of what we do is based on these lame intel products. I will remain a harsh critic of the intel community until they evolve. Not because I don't like them, but simply because they deserve it.

[Ken White]

however, I'll also defend them by pointing out that risk aversion is a bureaucratic side effect.

Their risk aversion is part and parcel of that affecting all of DoD and the majority of the Armed Forces -- that is, regrettably, unlikely to be changed and is a function of the same phenomenon affecting society worldwide. It is most noticeable in western democracies and is likely to get worse instead of better.

The solution for that phenomenon in nature is death and new birth. Except for a few things that have developed the capacity to regenerate...

They always told me that doing the same thing over and over and achieving the same result was not smart and that if I discovered an obstacle, bypassing or flanking was better than a frontal assault. So it seems to me if the designated organization isn't doing the job, it should be flanked...

[Bob's World]

They always told me that doing the same thing over and over and achieving the same result was not smart and that if I discovered an obstacle, bypassing or flanking was better than a frontal assault. So it seems to me if the designated organization isn't doing the job, it should be flanked...

We're leaving bread crumbs for them to follow.

Actually to be fair and expand a bit on what they can't seem to grasp: The guy with stars on his chest/collar in the rear doesn't need the same tactical lay down that the guy actually on the ground with oak leaves or bars. Raise your game. How about some strategic analysis and perspective??? And that does not mean simply providing world wide tactical info.