Causal Link Diagram -- AFG Information

[Spud]

Hi Guys

we're head down in 'design' problem at the moment and I had to map the Info element of the current AFG mission as best I could. In our intial work we identified info as a key leverage point and the boss wanted us to expand on that. It's pretty rudimentary (needs to be UNCLAS) and may also be an Aussie view of things but is there anything blindingly obvious I've missed?

Comments appreciated as my weekend is going to be spent looking at this.

Jas

[davidbfpo]

Spud,

From this faraway "armchair" I'd have a look at the commentary on: http://blog.freerangeinternational.com/ and add a box on what the Afghans use as information sources now. With the caveat that literacy is low; importance of the oral tradition and non-Western ways of communicating e.g. songs.

[pakphile]

I am not sure of the context for this diagram, but it does seem to be either very inwardly ISAF focused or has a lot going on inside the Afg Pop Percep box that is not visible. Perception of what? ISAF? or Karzai? IMHO Afg views are only marginally influenced by 'strat com' initiatives. Afg perception is largely influenced by how closely related you are to the opinion giver. Bloodlines need to be factored in. It is not enough to have 'cultural understanding' way up in the far right quadrant. Culture itself should be front and center because it drives everyone's view of who is good and who is bad, irrespective of what they may do or say.

[MikeF]

Jas,

Your link diagram made me dizzy. It is a great product for a western engineer using the military decision making process to find a rational solution, but what does it have to do with influencing the average afghani?

More to the point, how does this help overcome the fact that most afghani's are xenophobic and have a long history of resisting foreign armies? Sorry to be pessimistic. I wish that I had an alternate solution for you.

Mike

[Bob's World]

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."

[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.