Renamed Thread: Operational Design Discussion

[William F. Owen]

.... and has a lot to say about operational design and Human COG.

• What is "Operational Design"
• What is "Human COG?"

Thanks.

[HumanCOGRachel]

In this context, operational design is decribed by McMaster to be a "creative approach" to solving challenges in planning for operations. Rather than following a checklist of items to match with the conditions on the ground and targeting tactics to support those criteria, McMaster talks about focusing on a problem statement, one that is centered around a human/population problem, and planning your solution around resolving the human/population problem. It's a very simplistic explanation, but McMaster, if he attends, will probably discuss this in detail, and I'm sure he has written in Parameters or other journals on that topic....

Human COG refers to center of gravity, meaning that the environment and subsequent effects are dependant on the psychology or actions/behaviors of targeted humans (the capacity to execute is dependant on this core). See Nash, Nagl, Gurney, Vego, or Gavrilis for further authorship on this subject.

Cheers,
Rach

(HOOAH)

[William F. Owen]

In this context, operational design is decribed by McMaster to be a "creative approach" to solving challenges in planning for operations.

Let me guess. JP-3.0?

Human COG refers to center of gravity, meaning that the environment and subsequent effects are dependant on the psychology or actions/behaviors of targeted humans (the capacity to execute is dependant on this core).

I'm not sure I get this. A COG is "The most effective target for a blow," - IMO, the JP-3.0 definition never says this, so basically misses the point.
So, if you are saying kill or capture the right people, then I can go along with that.
If it doesn't then I'm getting pretty sceptical.

[HumanCOGRachel]

Hi William,

When working on counterinsurgency definition with the Pentagon, we were looking at various thought leaders in preparing 3.24.2 (December 2006 revision). The idea with Human COG is to redefine the term to understanding the motivators and drivers of humans in the OE, and then understanding that those motivators (and human actors obviously) are what drive battlefield changes, whether of kinetic or non-kinetic effect. This is not a new idea, and has been floating around for some time now, and used in discussion amongst TRADOC, overall force transformation folks.

Please PM me if you want to talk about this further.

Cheers,
Rach

(HOOAH)

[Dr Jack]

Here's how we're defining "design" in the new FM 5-0 draft chapter 3:

"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."

"Design is a methodology for applying critical and creative thinking to understand, visualize, and describe complex problems and develop approaches to solve them. Critical thinking captures the reflective and continuous learning essential to design. Creative thinking involves thinking in new, innovative ways while capitalizing on imagination, insight, and novel ideas. Design is a way of organizing conceptual work within an organization to assist commanders in understanding, visualizing, and describing the operational environment and to develop approaches to solving complex, ill-structured problems. Design occurs throughout the operations process before and during detailed planning, through preparation, and during execution and assessment."

[jmm99]

is an interesting term. So, HumanCOGRachel are you using that in the context of the Political Struggle, or in the context of the Military Struggle ?

And, in any event, how are they "targeted" - in your construct ?

I should suppose that "kill, capture or convert" would be three possible end states for the "targeted human" - which in CORDS-Phoenix ran about 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 (the general term used was "neutralize").

[IntelTrooper]

Creative thinking involves thinking in new, innovative ways while capitalizing on imagination, insight, and novel ideas.

Oh, so that's creative thinking.

I don't mean to be a jerk (though I often am anyway) but does this really need to be said? And if so, is this going to provide some epiphany to an otherwise un-creative thinker, or someone who is unable to recognize it? And even then, how is the institution going to be re-structured to encourage such "creative thinking" without just calling it "insubordinate"?

[William F. Owen]

When working on counterinsurgency definition with the Pentagon, we were looking at various thought leaders in preparing 3.24.2 (December 2006 revision).

How and why did the definition change?

The idea with Human COG is to redefine the term to understanding the motivators and drivers of humans in the OE, and then understanding that those motivators (and human actors obviously) are what drive battlefield changes, whether of kinetic or non-kinetic effect.

The COG is something you strike. The JP3 definition is wrong, and less it explicitly makes that point or unless it wants to invent a new term.
What I think you are saying is the HumanCOG is the motivation that cause people to act. Correct?

The targeted humans part simply meant as an identified group of persons, who range from non-involved to highly invested actors.

Does this mean, trying to understand what everyone wants?

Counterinsurgency assumes that insurgency involves political AND military struggles (two-pronged) -

So an insurgency is exactly the same as any other type of warfare.

[HumanCOGRachel]

Jack,

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

JMM,

The targeted humans part simply meant as an identified group of persons, who range from non-involved to highly invested actors. Counterinsurgency assumes that insurgency involves political AND military struggles (two-pronged) - See Bard O'Neill for further leadership on this issue...

PM me for more details....

Have a great day,
Rach

(Hooah!)

[Dr Jack]

Jack,

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

Cheers,
Rach

(hooah!)

Rach - roger; much of the great SAMS work provided the foundation for the integration of design into FM 5-0. Working closely with SAMS on the development of the concept...(hooah!)

[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.

[Mark O'Neill]

In this context, operational design is decribed by McMaster to be a "creative approach" to solving challenges in planning for operations. Rather than following a checklist of items to match with the conditions on the ground and targeting tactics to support those criteria, McMaster talks about focusing on a problem statement, one that is centered around a human/population problem, and planning your solution around resolving the human/population problem. It's a very simplistic explanation, but McMaster, if he attends, will probably discuss this in detail, and I'm sure he has written in Parameters or other journals on that topic....

Human COG refers to center of gravity, meaning that the environment and subsequent effects are dependant on the psychology or actions/behaviors of targeted humans (the capacity to execute is dependant on this core). See Nash, Nagl, Gurney, Vego, or Gavrilis for further authorship on this subject.

Cheers,
Rach

(HOOAH)

George Orwell once wrote that one of the things a writer must ask is "Have I written anything unnecessarily ugly?"

I am not sure if you have, because I understand neither your prose or context.

Could you humour me( and maybe some of the other members) and explain what your point is, and why you are making it.


Thanks

Mark

PS I would prefer in without any postmodern expression.

PPS 'Hooah' means what as an emphasis for whatever point you were trying to make?

[HumanCOGRachel]

Mark,

Dr. Jack and W. Owen did a great job of explaining OD/OPP and human COG, as well as provide some historical context, so have a look above.

With regards to Hooah, I usually use it in an affectionate manner, when showing approval or excitement or gearing up to go do something fun. Hooah can also mean "yes" and a number of other different things. I just love my Army...

Be advised that Hooah in the US Army takes a different meaning than OORAAHH in the Marine Corps - they use it more specifically when given a task/mission and it is more of a response that the task is understood and let's go get 'em!

Cheers,
Rach

[William F. Owen]

Dr. Jack and W. Owen did a great job of explaining OD/OPP and human COG, as well as provide some historical context, so have a look above.

Well that's very kind, but I'm not sure I did. (Cannot speak for Dr. Jack)

My extrapolation of what you said was that the "Human COG" was the primary cause or motivation, and that some effort is made to try and understand this. If so, then that is not a COG, as in "Centre of Gravity" unless TRADOC is arbitrarily inventing some new meaning that is different from that which Clausewitz intended.

As concerns "Operational Design," I remain a sceptic. It seems to have no clear and concise definition and like EBO seems to alter and morph when confronted by criticism. Manoeuvre Warfare may have been founded on ignorance, but it stayed consistent.