Quote Originally Posted by Dr Jack View Post
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.