Renamed Thread: Operational Design Discussion

[William F. Owen]

"Planning consists of two separate, but closely related components: a conceptual component, represented by the cognitive application of design, and a detailed component, which introduces specificity through a formal planning process, such as the military decision making process. During planning, these components overlap—no clear delineation exists between them. As commanders conceptualize the operation, their vision guides the staff through design and into detailed planning. Like planning, design is continuous—it evolves with increased understanding and drives the operations process. It underpins the exercise of battle command, guiding the iterative and often cyclic application of understanding, visualizing, and describing."

So planning now takes longer and is a less well defined process? If design is really SOD by the back door, then planning is going to become more complex, less effective, take longer, and allow people not to be held accountable for poor decisions.

[Dr Jack]

Well, let me address each element –

So planning now takes longer and is a less well defined process?

Well, actually the process is more defined – planning has two components: 1) a conceptual thinking component about how to address the problem (design) and 2) a detailed component that goes into the nuts and bolts (MDMP or JOPP). It won’t necessarily take more or less time – but the process is more defined with design.

If design is really SOD by the back door...

There certainly are components of SOD in design, but it’s not SOD (or EBO) sneaking in by the back door. Design actually gets to certain “outcomes” that are not evident in SOD, such as a problem statement, the initial commander’s intent (purpose and end state), the mission narrative, and planning guidance (that includes the operational approach).

...planning is going to become more complex, less effective, take longer, and allow people not to be held accountable for poor decisions.

More complex? Perhaps, because design is normally applied for complex, ill-structured problems – but it’s still a commander-centric process – the commander is assisted by the staff (as always) but still accountable and responsible with design. The commander's decisions should be more effective if design is used properly – because the commander has stepped back, not relied solely on intuition, and considered the essence of his problem using design:

What’s really going on (what’s the problem?)… where do we want to take this situation (what are the desired future conditions?)… how do we bridge the gap between what we have now and what we want (what's the broad operational approach?)… who else needs to be involved in understanding of the problem (dialog and collaboration?)… and a willingness to step back periodically to assess the changes in the problem (reframing).

Design, in this context, is intended to provide a common sense methodology that good commanders have always used - and to provide tools to assist in the process of thinking about a problem before delving into the details.

[William F. Owen]

What’s really going on (what’s the problem?)… where do we want to take this situation (what are the desired future conditions?)… how do we bridge the gap between what we have now and what we want (what's the broad operational approach?)… who else needs to be involved in understanding of the problem (dialog and collaboration?)… and a willingness to step back periodically to assess the changes in the problem (reframing).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you plan the mission given to you. That mission should be expressed in clear simple and unambiguous terms. What's different about campaigns?
If what "Design" is trying to say is "let's give subordinates better missions" then OK, but I've never seen that said - especially in SOD. Does it actually mean, "Mission analysis" applied to the campaign level?
What "ill-structured" problems are the military faced with that are actually new? Does "ill structured" actually mean folks don't understand the problem?

Design, in this context, is intended to provide a common sense methodology that good commanders have always used - and to provide tools to assist in the process of thinking about a problem before delving into the details.

If that's the case, why didn't someone just say "let's get better at planning." If it's someone that is common sense and commanders have always done, then it's a product of training and command experience. Separating the plan from the problem is nonsensical.

[Jedburgh]

See Nash, Nagl, Gurney, Vego, or Gavrilis for further authorship on this subject.....

I just got off a conference call....have you looked into SAMS's COE project on OD?

See Bard O'Neill for further leadership on this issue...

Check out what SAMS and TRADOC is doing to help push creative design. BGEN McMaster is a good POC on this - I'm sure he has some publications out. Check with NDU Press - I'm pretty sure he published an article recently on this subject....

Rachel,

Instead of just throwing out names and suggestions, please try to post actual links to the sources you are mentioning, or at least try to discuss them in a more substantive manner. People should not have to PM you for details about everything......

[HumanCOGRachel]

Noted Jedburgh, will do... Sometimes only insiders would be able to access information, so I point people to the location. But only that's only the case sometimes. My apologies.