Let's talk about "design", and the death of the MDMP

[jenniferro10]

Could the Military Decisionmaking Process be dead? They seem to think so over in the Danger Room:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...ybrid-threats/

Who are these "little known" theorists advancing the "design" method of operations planning? We could probably debate the legitimacy of design for a while, but what I want to know is who can throw in some of the actual facts about the real changes we can see in the future. How will this affect the fact that culture is finally getting its due as a distinct and significant element in planning? Anyone?

[Bob's World]

Anyone pimping "design" who does not understand how it is an enhancement of MDMP, not a replacement to it, simply does not understand the essence of design.

Both are good tools, both can be abused, neither stands alone; and both can be "over-doctrinized."

[IntelTrooper]

From what I'm reading on current ops and strategy in Afghanistan, the net effect of the addition of the "design" phase is negligible. Either people do not understand it or it is being used at the wrong echelons.

[Ken White]

It will simplify some things and complicate others. As Bob said, both are good, complement each other and both -- or either -- is not a panacea. They're simply tools.

Among other things, adopting Design is an admission that the Army's training system doesn't work as well as anyone would like and that trying to break things down to the lowest common denominator is not a good plan for either understanding combat skills or teaching how to think versus what to think.

So the good news is that we're exploring design; the bad news is that the Army is still determined to put square pegs in round holes by trying to produce processes that can be learned to produce effective commanders and staffs.

Won't work; some can, some can't. All talents are not equal. A solution to do the best we can with what's available for a mobilizing large, draftee Army is a good and necessary thing -- but put it on the shelf until it's required and until then treat the smaller professional Army as what it is -- a small professional Army. Place the gifted and intuitive in command, there must be a way to convince Congress that's important, more important than trying to equalize outcomes...

[Rob Thornton]

Bob's World said:

Both are good tools, both can be abused, neither stands alone; and both can be "over-doctrinized."

Design helps you get the problem (more) right by supporting the establishment of a hypothesis (X is the problem) and from which a theory (e.g. if I take the following actions (Y) they will/may result in a range of possible outcomes (Z,Z1, and/or Z2, etc.). You can then explore that range of possible outcomes to develop an operational approach.

The goal is to figure out which conditions associated with the problem must change in order to bring about a desired or tolerable outcome (possibly for more participants than just your team), then figure out the actions or tasks which will bring about those conditions.

During the actual execution design is handy to look at how things are progressing, and/or how the introduction of new factors affect the desired outcome. This may cause you to "reframe" your problem.

It may be useful here to have a way to measure those changes in conditions to which you have designated tasks to see if you are doing the right things, and to measure the performance of those tasks to see if you are doing the right things well. This however is not part of design as I understand it, but is still prudent and useful as there are a number of things that may be changing or resisting changes.


Enter MDMP -

Sooner or later once a decision has been made to do something, physics become an issue. Analytic processes such as MDMP get to the nuts and bolts (details) of moving stuff around, synchronizing time tables, etc. MDMP is therefore a useful tool to get after the details and the mechanics - there is not much theory here, but there is allot of action

As Ken points out -

trying to break things down to the lowest common denominator is not a good plan for either understanding combat skills or teaching how to think versus what to think.

which I think leads to COL Jone's point about part of what leads to "over-doses of doctrine".

Both processes should remain descriptive as much as possible to allow for flexibility in execution. To chew on something till its bland enough for everyone may lead to something less than useful.

Best, Rob

[slapout9]

Rob, over at the COIN website we had a short discussion about design and I mentioned a guy.... he was a retired Col. I think Papa something??? he was doing some research and discovered that the US was the product of Operational Design....which is absolutley true, it is designed to work a specifc way and we violate that at our own peril!!! It seperates problem solving from solution planning (MDMP) two very distinct functions but they both go togather. To me it is EBO with a good dose of Army practicality thrown in,otherwise known as systems developement/thinking.

[jenniferro10]

Anyone pimping "design" who does not understand how it is an enhancement of MDMP, not a replacement to it, simply does not understand the essence of design.

Both are good tools, both can be abused, neither stands alone; and both can be "over-doctrinized."

I, too, was wondering why Danger Room seemed to think the two were mutually exclusive.

[Ken White]

overly enamored of using acronyms they didn't comprehend to show they were connected and on the inside -- even though they may be the former to a slight extent, they never are the latter to any extent (with rare exceptions) -- and were quick to applaud anything 'new' as a change from the old way of doing business -- even if, as is generally true, it is just a new name for old tricks. Unfortunately, it's a rare journalist today who really understands what he or she is writing or saying.

[jenniferro10]

Under the title "Design is..."
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/B...design-is.aspx

[William F. Owen]

Under the title "Design is..."
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/B...design-is.aspx

The problem here is one man. Shimon Naveh, a former IDF officer. He came up with SOD. By all accounts, the SOD he talked about with the US Army, is not the SOD he talked about with the IDF. Why is not entirely clear, but I've been looking into SOD for about 2 years now, and I see nothing of use to it. What is more, the IDF ditched SOD, for basically the same reason.

From talking to the few who actually study this area, it seems if you understand the campaign planning processes which were around in European Army's between about 1870 and 1929, there'll be little anyone else can teach you.