The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments

[marct]

Hi Rob,

Are there going to be any specific qualifications of functions the Army wants its leaders of a given rank or position to be capable of doing? Are we going to see for example what the Army wants out of a DIV CDR or MG? Will we be able to walk that back through one or more developmental paths and look at what possible assignments or experiences might produce that leader?

I do not claim to be all things TRADOC and do not know the answers to your many excellent questions. What I say here is only the view from my foxhole. But, I can tell you that the ALDS is a base document that will have annexes that should help answer at least some of your questions.

This is, of course, one of the most crucial things. I've already emailed Bill with a suggested POC from the CF who has done that for us (shoot me an email if you want same ).

The ALDS is, from what I can see, a political document - a strategy for competing in the bureaucratic battlespace. The appendices - and why is TRADOC using the French Annexes (?!) - should contain the actualities of it. Personally, I would hope that they have a good theoretical model of leader development, but I doubt they do which, BTW, is not a slam at TRADOC. The best ones I've seen, coming out of both the CF and the management literature, are still pretty sparse in terms of really thinking through implications and connections and they are, IMO, based on demonstrably false metaphysical and ontological models.

My musings at this point in time lean towards the idea that what TRADOC should seriously consider doing is to develop such a theoretical model using a variant of red teaming with an extremely interdisciplinary crowd of people before they produce cast in stone operational outlines. The analogy I like to use is that you would want to plan out a campaign until you had a map of the battlespace, so why are you doing so in this instance?

What bugs me is that there actually are a decent collection of methodological techniques for developing such a model, but they don't appear to be used. Building a map of the campaign territory isn't that hard, but it is complex and requires some very odd ways of looking at things (e.g. imagine trying to design mapping conventions for a terrain that is constantly changing; you know how much fun that is ).

[Bill Jakola]

ALCON: the TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference (TSLC) is next week 9-11 March 2010 at Williamsburg, VA. This is an important venue for continuing the discussion from the last TSLC in August.

The conference will bring together many of the Army’s senior professionals to discuss ways to improve the training and education of America’s Soldiers under the theme, “Our Army’s Campaign of Learning.” The recently published Army Capstone Concept (ACC) describes the broad capabilities the Army will require to fight in the future, and provides the common language and conceptual foundation for an ongoing campaign of learning and analysis. The prioritized capabilities that emerge from the ACC and the other, more detailed Warfighter Function (WfF) and Operating concepts will guide changes across DOTMLPF.

The Army of the future will learn differently, build leaders differently, train differently and redesign itself more quickly. And the capstone concept serves as our “line of departure” for building that Army.

During Day 1 of the conference, our Centers of Excellence will have their first opportunity to backbrief the implications of the ACC to their WfFs and the associated 1st Order Required Capabilities.

During Day 2, we will focus on developing some tangible solutions to assist in developing a new learning concept for our Army. We recognize we live in an increasingly competitive world. The important corollary of this is that we live in a competitive learning environment. In this environment, the nation and its military that learn the fastest, and the best, are going to prevail. To that end, we are developing a new learning concept to provide the basis for building an Army education system adapted to the learning styles and information needs of its learners, while ensuring we still deliver the high-quality content our Soldiers need and deserve.

Also at TSLC, we will have military bloggers as well as traditional media covering this conference so you can all be part of the ongoing conversation.

Bill Jakola

[marct]

Hi Bill,

I'm certainly glad to hear that the conversation will be continuing . Do you have a list of the bloggers, yet, who will be there?

Cheers,

Marc

[Bill Jakola]

Hi Bill,

I'm certainly glad to hear that the conversation will be continuing . Do you have a list of the bloggers, yet, who will be there?

Cheers,

Marc

Bouhammer and Jimbo are confirmed.

[marct]

Hi Bill,

Bouhammer and Jimbo are confirmed.

Sounds good. Toss up the URLs just before they start up as a way of reminding people here that we call all get some input.

Cheers,

Marc

[Bill Jakola]

Hi Bill,



Sounds good. Toss up the URLs just before they start up as a way of reminding people here that we call all get some input.

Cheers,

Marc

Will do Marc; thanks for the guidance. As you know, we do pay attention to the blogs, as they provide an invaluable source of independent viewpoints.

Bill Jakola

[selil]

Bouhammer and Jimbo are confirmed.

Any academics with education theory backgrounds going to be attending?

[Bill Jakola]

Any academics with education theory backgrounds going to be attending?

Yes, we plan to have Tony Wagner, an educator who wrote "The Global Achievement Gap". Also, we will have many educators from within the Army; and although they may not have specific backgrounds in education theory, they will have much practical experience.

Bill Jakola

[Bill Jakola]

The new FM 5.0 is out; here is the link and forward: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/FM50/
"The environment in which we conduct operations is characterized by four clear trends: growing uncertainty, rapid change, increased competitiveness, and greater decentralization. Given these trends, our leaders must expect and be prepared to confront a variety of complex problems, most of which will include myriad interdependent variables and all of which will include a human dimension.

With the publication of FM 5-0, The Operations Process, and the introduction of design into our doctrine, we highlight the importance of understanding complex problems more fully before we seek to solve them through our traditional planning processes.

Design is neither a process nor a checklist. It is a critical and creative thinking methodology to help commanders understand the environment, analyze problems, and consider potential approaches so they can exploit opportunities, identify vulnerabilities, and anticipate transitions during a campaign.

Commanders apply design to understand before entering the visualize, describe, direct, lead, and assess cycle. Einstein once said, “If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it.” Combining design with the military decision making process provides Army leaders with a more comprehensive approach to problem solving under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. The mission narrative produced through design enables leaders to articulate the context in which they operate to both subordinates and superiors alike.

In addition to the introduction of design, this revision of FM 5-0 builds on and expands the body of doctrine associated with full spectrum operations described in the 2008 edition of FM 3-0, Operations. Moving beyond planning and orders production, this manual holistically addresses planning, preparation, execution, and assessment in the continuous learning cycle of the operations process. It reinforces the central role of commanders in the operations process through battle command—applying the art and science of understanding, visualizing, describing, directing, leading, and assessing operations—in exercising effective command and control. The intent of FM 5-0 is to encourage greater flexibility through critical thought, action, and initiative. Army leaders must not only develop effective plans, they must be able to convert those plans into timely action while maintaining the capability to reframe and adapt as the situation changes in an increasingly dynamic operational environment. "

Bill Jakola

[PhilR]

The new FM 5.0 is out; here is the link and forward: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/FM50/

Commanders apply design to understand before entering the visualize, describe, direct, lead, and assess cycle. Einstein once said, “If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it.” Combining design with the military decision making process provides Army leaders with a more comprehensive approach to problem solving under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. The mission narrative produced through design enables leaders to articulate the context in which they operate to both subordinates and superiors alike.

Bill Jakola

The more I think about Design, and its implications as it moves into broader use at multiple levels in the chain of command, I'm struck by the potential effects of having each level conducting Design. As you work your way down from a theater level to a battalion, let's say, guidance to subordinates will need to be clear enough to ensure that the subordinates Design is fully nested and supportive of the higher's purpose/intent. While on the face, this is no different from the current thinking behind mission orders, etc. Design strikes me as emphasizing higher guidance as merely a basis to start from and being less concretely directive as it has previously been interpreted.

Each level tends to seek to maximize success at its level. This is a general good. However, there are many instances where supporting or subordinate efforts cannot be allowed to "maximize" because it will hurt the overall mission. Here is where a subordinates Design must fully account for his mission in the perspective of his boss's mission. Once again, none of this is new, but the local emphasis of COIN tends to support solutions that may work locally, but cause problems in knitting together a larger solution (favoring one tribe in an area because they can provide security, but that creates larger political divisions in the province, etc.).
s/f
Phil Ridderhof
USMC

[William F. Owen]

Sorry Bill, I've really tried to understand this, but I cannot.

Design is neither a process nor a checklist. It is a critical and creative thinking methodology to help commanders understand the environment, analyze problems, and consider potential approaches so they can exploit opportunities, identify vulnerabilities, and anticipate transitions during a campaign.

How is that different from planning done by skilled people?

The mission narrative produced through design enables leaders to articulate the context in which they operate to both subordinates and superiors alike.

Mission narrative? Commanders need to state the mission as clearly and simply as possible. That's it. What else is there?

How is a mission statement prepared by "design" different from one prepared done by skilled and competent folk.

Any chance someone without an AKO can get hold of this?

[Hacksaw]

Can a man get an Amen from the congregation...

I've read the draft doctrine...

I've heard the rationales and anecdotes...

It has been made clear to me that if I don't see the difference between competent planning and design, then perhaps I'm just too dense...

I don't think I'm that thick...

(Edit to include) Snake Oil...


Live well and row

[wm]

Can a man get an Amen from the congregation...

I've read the draft doctrine...

I've heard the rationales and anecdotes...

It has been made clear to me that if I don't see the difference between competent planning and design, then perhaps I'm just too dense...

I don't think I'm that thick...

(Edit to include) Snake Oil...

Or, Injun Joe's Slo-Motion Potion--good for trifles, snifles, and carbine rifles, zits, fits, and sagging ####.

Only 15 bucks a bottle through this special offer. But wait! There's more if you act now. We'll also throw in a free copy of FM5.01(R), COIN by Design. When you order , don't forget to include that R (for ridiculous)

[Bill Jakola]

Sorry Bill, I've really tried to understand this, but I cannot.

How is that different from planning done by skilled people?
Mission narrative? Commanders need to state the mission as clearly and simply as possible. That's it. What else is there?

How is a mission statement prepared by "design" different from one prepared done by skilled and competent folk.

Any chance someone without an AKO can get hold of this?

William,

I am not the 5.0 expert and although it seems to make sense to me; I have forwarded your questions to the doctrine people to help find answers to your qustions. Also, I asked about getting access without ako.

Bill

[selil]

William,

I am not the 5.0 expert and although it seems to make sense to me; I have forwarded your questions to the doctrine people to help find answers to your qustions. Also, I asked about getting access without ako.

Bill

Bill I don't have AKO access. I do however teach Design. In fact I teach architectural design and analysis of networks. Though information technology is woefully far afield of waging war (though some would say they are the same).

There are a host of design methodologies and decision making techniques. From the ubiquitous and flawed waterfall model (stuff roles down hill), to the Boehm (and others) spiral models of iterative processes (also used by ISO/ANSI and others).

Planning on the other hand can use the same techniques, and other strategies such as structured analysis. I will say if you really want to screw up design and analysis you will have to ask the Air Force for their expertise. In my view design is an umbrella for planning but we're likely just making word salad anyways.

Not that I expect this to happen.

If TRADOC wants to officially ask me to review the document (FM for Design), release the document to me, and acknowledge that release. I will provide a synopsis of my findings. <- Why that? Stupid people making threats about professors getting FOUO info when they disagreed with the findings. And, heck I won't even charge them $15K that they pay others

[marct]

In my view design is an umbrella for planning but we're likely just making word salad anyways.

"Design" is more of a power word than "plan"; it conveys more of a "God like" height .

More seriously, I think it reflects the extreme engineering orientation of a lot of military doctrine. Not that that is bad per se, but it can have certain, hmmm, let's say "epistemological limitations" when it comes to dealing with lived reality.

Selil, you mentioned ISO. Did you ever look at the old ISO 9004? It's an intriguing example of how fuzzy "design" has to get once you add nasty people into it (like the "enemy") who insist on doing things their own way.

If TRADOC wants to officially ask me to review the document (FM for Design), release the document to me, and acknowledge that release. I will provide a synopsis of my findings. <- Why that? Stupid people making threats about professors getting FOUO info when they disagreed with the findings. And, heck I won't even charge them $15K that they pay others

15k?!?!?! Drat!