Causal Link Diagram -- AFG Information

[Spud]

The purpose of design is to help you understand problems better. If this product helps you understand the problem better, then it is a good tool. Similarly, if it helps you explain what you understand to those who don't, it is a good tool.

If it just adds one more layer of complexity and confusion for those who are already confused and overwhelmed with complexity, then you missed the mark.


So, I guess my question would be if you brought this to me is, "in 4-5 points, tell me the 'so what,' what did you learn from building this product and what does it indicate we should be doing differently and why."

Sir

you've hit the nail on the head and pretty much summed up my issues with 'design' focus we're heading along where apparently it is more about the 'journey of discovery' than it is about any deliverable. More importantly the acty we're undertaking now is purposely not seeking any solutions (which just makes my head hurt) rather it is just looking to show the process (its a pilot program).

When I started this I immediately went one level down and started looking at things like expanding Rana FM into our AO or establishing our own variant of it IOT 'start the conversation' that is then reinforced through interaction etc. Apparently I was thinking like a planner and not a designer.

As for the 4-5 points ... the info fight is always going to be contested in a Coalition environment and the more effort we put into coordination the better (which we and most ISAF elements currently blow off)

We need less focus on the media and more on the organisations/people the media use as sources. The best we should be hoping for is balanced coverage rather than trying to achieve the exulted "positive media coverage" -- journo's 8 years in don't work that way.

Without decent evaluation of the information domain it is all for nought.

If we can enhance the perception of the AFG population towards our actions (not just through info activities) it will have a positive relationship towards increasing global perceptions.

[Bob's World]

Well, at the operator level, my recommendation for good messaging is to make this small tweak to MDMP:

During MA, have the entire team drill into the question of "what message do we want this operation to communicate?" Then, coming up with a proposal, provide it to the commander during the MA brief along with the intel dump and the proposed restated mission.

Then, when the commander gives his planning guidance, he needs to give his message guidance at the same time. As the ops guys work up COAs, they shape them to communicate that message; and as they build their COA comparison matrix, they include the criteria (and it should be weighted) of "COA communicates the desired Strat Com"

Then when you brief the COAs to the commander, the message is woven in, and is not a strap-on product that you had the PSYOP guys work up in a corner somewhere.

Key to remember is that good messaging is 80% what you do, and only 20% what you say. Build your message into what you do.

[MikeF]

Well, at the operator level, my recommendation for good messaging is to make this small tweak to MDMP:

During MA, have the entire team drill into the question of "what message do we want this operation to communicate?" Then, coming up with a proposal, provide it to the commander during the MA brief along with the intel dump and the proposed restated mission.

Then, when the commander gives his planning guidance, he needs to give his message guidance at the same time. As the ops guys work up COAs, they shape them to communicate that message; and as they build their COA comparison matrix, they include the criteria (and it should be weighted) of "COA communicates the desired Strat Com"

Then when you brief the COAs to the commander, the message is woven in, and is not a strap-on product that you had the PSYOP guys work up in a corner somewhere.

Key to remember is that good messaging is 80% what you do, and only 20% what you say. Build your message into what you do.

Jas' process is tied into the systems engineer approach to solving wicked problems. It's not that the process is bad; it's that it usually neglects to include the real issues.

One of these issues is what Col Jones asked, "So what?"

Another is what I initially asked, "How does this help us to go past Afghan xenophobia?"

v/r

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Spud and others,

When it comes to these issues (Info Ops) I always defer to this academic website, by Professor Philip Taylor, at Leeds University for help: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/index.cfm?outfit=pmt

davidbfpo

[Meh]

Ha! You may have tried hard to make my brain explode, but this still doesn't beat the infamous "spaghetti mind ####" designed by a USN aviator that's making the rounds in Kabul right now!

[Spud]

If anyone is all that interested ... here's what we came up with in the end.

Caveats

• It supports the design team's articulation of the problem and so may not make much sense to the rest of you.
• This is a breakout of one node on a larger "spaghetti mind ####" diagram built using MIDLIFE-S as a construct -- essentially it looks at establishing and maintaining the dominant narrative (a key node in the larger diagram). For those that aren’t aware the ‘Dominant Narrative” has become the new buzzword in aall of recent doctrine development. Everyone’s knows we need it but no one has ever really mapped out what that means.
• Is based at ISAF but from an Aussie perspective
• Is influenced heavily by a few bottles of 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon -- I suggest you probably need the same to appreciate its full utility

Jas

[burkestar]

Are system dynamics models, influence diagrams or concept maps actually used? I can definitely see the use for design (a picture speaks a thousand words), but how does this translate into planning?

I guess drilling-down on the subissues involved (like brainstorming approaches to busting xenophobia suggested by MikeF) is the next step. Would Col Jones's "so what?" translate into some form of action items? How would all this knowledge be captured?

v/r
- Dustin

[Hacksaw]

I know I'm late to the discussion and the product is briefed (ergo most likely OBE)...

Can't agree with BW more... and essentially I think the big missing node in your diagram is Coalition Operations (because as BW says, the nature of our actions has an information quality all their own... and is far more important) and unless the communications and operations planning/execution are intrinsicly linked and coherent... there is no amount of STRATCOM/Messaging/Perception Shaping you can do to overcome that incongruency...

I think that has been the real purpose of the COIN guidance that Petraeus and subsequently McCrystal and Odierno published...

Best of luck working with "Design"....