Quote Originally Posted by Spud View Post
We used to have the mantra that if it was an information engagement within the AO it was a PSYOP task and if it was outside the AO it was a PA task ... that can no longer hold true in the current and future GIE. So where does that leave me?

Personally I think it results in more emphasis on the IO team's…coordination and deconfliction role.
Yes, the current GIE makes global communications “local” to us all, regardless of where we are. Military PA organizations can no longer draw definitive lines in the sand when it comes to what they will or won’t do. So I agree with placing more emphasis on the role of the “IO team” for coordination and deconfliction…which is what it was meant to do in the first place.

Quote Originally Posted by Spud View Post
IO team sets the objective. IOWG develops the tasks and selects the best element to achieve the task, IO team adjudicates, coordinates and then integrates with the wider plan.
First, the term “IO Team” is important because it suggests a mutually supported relationship among different organizations and activities. (It is also important to note here that this “team” model is applicable not only in the military, but in government, civil society, and corporate cultures as well). It is not uncommon for individual activities to operate in virtual bubbles and vacuums, fearing that cross-pollination with other related activities will somehow cheapen their work efforts. But in order for true success to be realized in any kind of organization there MUST communication among its members and management of coordination efforts (i.e. IO/IOWG). It is difficult for any organization to influence target audiences, consumers, clients, foreign governments, etc, without internal cooperation.