Design for military operations

[Bob's World]

I get concerned any time I see the military re-purposing a fairly well understood field of study and then referring back to internal military documents to support contention. The Air Force has produced some worthy documentation on systems analysis and design. I understand the scope of what is being attempted is further afield than simple mechanical, electrical, hydraulic systems. That does not mean the fairly well understood principles from engineering design will not serve.

It seems like two field of study are being mixed; design and decision science.

http://www.operationaldesign.net/default.html

“A key distinction is that the Cold War-era use of systems engineering to solve problems no longer works. In order to effectively deal with the increased levels of complexity that we are now faced with today, we need to adopt a more robust method for understanding our environment, with all the inherent relationships, tensions and barriers to security, so to develop well thought out, adaptive solutions to the complex problems that we face.”


BG (Retired)
Huba Wass de Czege
June 18, 2008


More about understanding a problem vs a more linear systems targeting process. Why something is vs how something is. I'll need to dig up a more official definition to help clarify.

[slapout9]

Also a lot of "Statistical Analysis' was portrayed as "Systems Analysis" during the Cold War and the two ain't the same thing.

[pvebber]

Unfortunately, it was not just in the Cold war era - we are still seeing a lot of it, at least on the Navy side. Statistical analysis confused with decision theory too.

Even worse is the idea that you can put number labels on subjective opinions, and then "do math on them" and get results that make sense. You can't average 5 "yes-no" questions, 5 "1-5 scale good to bad" questions, and 5 "agree - disagree 1-5" questions and get "a quantitative answer". We see that kind of thing all the time.

And then there is the numerical confusing of activity with progress - see that all the time with "averaging" MOPs to get the "quantitative" result of the MOE the MOPs are filed under. When the question is asked "how does the performance of those activies achieve the objective" the answer is usually "we briefed the MOEs and MOPs to the Commander and he didn't push back on it" And the "if these were really problems, the TTP would warn not to do that."

The Navy desperately needs a cadre of ORSA - specialty folks like the other services have.

[selil]

Unfortunately, it was not just in the Cold war era - we are still seeing a lot of it, at least on the Navy side. Statistical analysis confused with decision theory too.

When I teach decision science to my graduate students they expect a lot of statistics. When I start in on game theory on one end, and OODA loops on the other end their eyes get really wide. The MBA program was fairly horrified at the idea of game theory being used. I'm not really sure why. One MBA student kept muttering about alphas. On the other hand SIPDE, IPDE, OODA, and half a dozen other strategies were lapped up whole heartedly.

[J Wolfsberger]

“A key distinction is that the Cold War-era use of systems engineering to solve problems no longer works. In order to effectively deal with the increased levels of complexity that we are now faced with today, we need to adopt a more robust method for understanding our environment, with all the inherent relationships, tensions and barriers to security, so to develop well thought out, adaptive solutions to the complex problems that we face.”


BG (Retired)
Huba Wass de Czege
June 18, 2008

Would you know anything about where this quote came from? My initial response is extremely negative, but I'd like to know the full context and all the reasoning before I comment.

[slapout9]

Would you know anything about where this quote came from? My initial response is extremely negative, but I'd like to know the full context and all the reasoning before I comment.

Jay it is in this months issue of Military Review which has a couple of articles on design. You can link to it through SWJ rsearch links. but you probably already new that

[Ken White]

logical thinker. He hesitates to criticize the quote until he has full knowledge of the context. Admirable trait that. Seriously.

I, OTOH, read that and thought: "That systems engineering jazz never worked during the Cold War no matter how hard some tried to push it. Plus, the problems we face today are not more complex, they're just different."

I'd add we'd be much better off with some bright, intuitive solutions than with the well thought out adaptive solutions from a lot of really smart people that we've tried thus far...

[Ron Humphrey]

Considering the good BG(retired) is one of my favorites I usually find what he says pretty informative and thus I'm keepin hope alive that somebody talks him into taking the the new chair at the college.

I'd add we'd be much better off with some bright, intuitive solutions than with the well thought out adaptive solutions from a lot of really smart people that we've tried thus far...

I have actually heard that same thing from quite a few so at least there's hope that maybe it'll stick.

[Bob's World]

Huba is a great American. You don't need to agree with everything he says, but you're a fool if you don't listen. I think I gave the poor guy an ulcer during the week he tried to mentor me when I was tasked to lead a group in a SOD course.

I understood the concept, because it is basically how I think about things anyway; but the SOD material was so convaluted and complex in the way it was presented I was struggling to lead a team to do something "right" that none of us could figure out from the half day presentation we were given prior to being told to apply it. Huba is a patient man.

[William F. Owen]

Huba is a great American. You don't need to agree with everything he says, but you're a fool if you don't listen.

Shaken his hand, and talked with him for 10 mins in a taxi queue, but the one time I heard him speak publicly, he lost me.

I understood the concept, because it is basically how I think about things anyway; but the SOD material was so convaluted and complex in the way it was presented I was struggling to lead a team to do something "right" that none of us could figure out from the half day presentation we were given prior to being told to apply it. Huba is a patient man.

SOD is flawed. It briefs well, but it doesn't stand up to real world conditions. In war on the simple survives! - and SOD is, as you point out, bizarrely complex.

[Ken White]

Huba is a great American. You don't need to agree with everything he says, but you're a fool if you don't listen...

He says a lot I agree with and I always listen -- but I have no problem telling the world when I do not agree with him or anyone else if there is or seems to me to be a reason to do so.

In this case, I'm pointing out that I was a participant as we tried a number of systems engineering ideas in the 1949-95 era with virtually no success.

Further, I am stating that in my opinion none of the 'problems' we face today are more complex or dangerous than were many of our earlier 'problems' though they are undeniably different.

I made the comment because I'm firmly convinced based on observation in peace and war that our many efforts to make all commanders, leaders and managers equal through 'systems engineering' do not work and can give a false sense of security. Such a sense is dangerous and inimical to a smoothly functioning and competent armed force. It also prolongs an unsustainable quest for total fairness in promotions and assignments which cannot happen and which puts many wrong people in the wrong position at the wrong time. I can name and have named persons who are examples of that.

I also wanted to point out that complexity of problems is in the eye of the beholder and that belief that one's problems are unique is an invitation to the strategic miscalculation you often mention here. As you have said, history is a broad guide and we ignore it at some peril. I know Huba is aware of that and I also know that he writes for a mass audience -- unfortunately, in doing that he can inadvertently write things he does not mean to be taken literally and without context some statements can be misconstrued (Hat Tip to J. Wolfsberger). Thus I was just providing my own 'context' to his statement on 'problems.'

We've been in worse shape, economically, politically, geostrategically, militarily and even educationally. Maybe not in media competence or domestic automobile quality, tho'...

[William F. Owen]

"That systems engineering jazz never worked during the Cold War no matter how hard some tried to push it. Plus, the problems we face today are not more complex, they're just different."

Right! The COIN avant-garde seem to keep using the word "complex" to cover for "ignorance". Nothing we see today is new. We just haven't seen it for a while , or we haven't seen it around "here".

To paraphrase a senior civilian instructor at the IDF staff collage "we need less systems theory and more military history."

I'd add we'd be much better off with some bright, intuitive solutions than with the well thought out adaptive solutions from a lot of really smart people that we've tried thus far...

I am very much for the bright intuitive stuff if it stands up to examination. A lot of the really smart stuff is falling apart faster than chocolate breech blocks, once the shooting starts.

EG: As much as I like and respect Frank Hoffman, I still can't see why "Hybrid" is deemed useful or even an accurate description of the phenomena it seeks to describe.

[J Wolfsberger]

“A key distinction is that the Cold War-era use of systems engineering to solve problems no longer works. In order to effectively deal with the increased levels of complexity that we are now faced with today, we need to adopt a more robust method for understanding our environment, with all the inherent relationships, tensions and barriers to security, so to develop well thought out, adaptive solutions to the complex problems that we face.”


BG (Retired)
Huba Wass de Czege
June 18, 2008

System Engineering, Operations Research and Systems Analysis are highly structured, formal processes for problem definition and system development. Having read through his paper Systemic Operational Design: Learning and Adapting in Complex Missions (and thanks for the pointer, Slapout), I agree with his thinking completely. In fact, I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could have thought this would be a good idea.

However, when he states "use of systems engineering to solve problems no longer works," it should be understood the type of problem he is referring to. I very much doubt he intended the statement to apply to material development. Referring back to an earlier post from selil: "I get concerned any time I see the military re-purposing a fairly well understood field of study and then referring back to internal military documents to support contention. " Absolutely. Using System Engineering to develop operational plans, knowing that the "system" is human centric, which makes it a messy system, that the problems are all wicked, well ... that's just wrong.

[slapout9]

What I found confusing was the concept that somehow Design had become separated from systems analysis or systems engineering!!! It used to be called Brain Storming (I think) but it was the first step and progressed through planning and engineering to make sure it was feasible. Anyhow here is the entire process that Colonel Warden teaches for over 10 years now. Design is the first and hadest step.

Short version: is Design-Target-Campaign-Finish.

Long Version: is Design The Future-Target for Success-Campaign to Win-Finish with Finesse.

[Bob's World]

Maybe some of this helps (From a briefing on SOD):

Strategic Appreciation and Design is a New Approach
Relies on an open-ended critical method.
Strategic Appreciation generates an improved understanding of the larger system in any situation with any scope or depth.
Design is concerned with creation of systems-of-actions designed to exploit identified tendencies and potentials, in order to change existing situations in desired directions.

Why is Strategic Appreciation and Design needed?
We often act before we understand our situation well enough.
As a result, we define our problems incorrectly, which leads us to apply the wrong solutions.
Ill-conceived solutions for ill-defined problems actually create greater problems.
This new approach encourages the free movement of good ideas and makes the reasoning of our actions more transparent, helping us to see how to improve what we are doing.

What is different about Strategic Appreciation and Design?
Challenges and improves our normal thought processes and decision procedures.
Focuses on a more robust form of intellectual leadership defined as the ability for an organization to move good ideas around.

Before, during, and after imposing solutions to solve problems.
Strategic Appreciation and Design is time intensive, and works best when considering future action. It is also a sound method for assessing current operations, and evaluating past actions.

The goal of Design is the creation of more favorable, self-sustaining situations.
Assessment shifts away from learning about any single action to a focus on monitoring transformation of the system itself and sustaining sensitivity to the need to make adjustments by reframing both system understanding and operational approaches to better deal with emerging conditions.

As the diagram shows (I know, what diagram? If I can figure out how to paste it in I will), reframing can occur at any point where new knowledge is developed that challenges existing understanding of the system.
As understanding increases, formulate actions to transform the system to meet our aims; identify potentials, opportunities, risks to these actions; identify how to ensure self-regulation of system after our inject in the system.
Pay attention to the creation of a learning structure to enable observation of the system during action.

[Bob's World]

Design Diagram.jpg

[J Wolfsberger]

What I found confusing was the concept that somehow Design had become separated from systems analysis or systems engineering!!! It used to be called Brain Storming (I think) but it was the first step and progressed through planning and engineering to make sure it was feasible. Anyhow here is the entire process that Colonel Warden teaches for over 10 years now. Design is the first and hadest step.

Short version: is Design-Target-Campaign-Finish.

Long Version: is Design The Future-Target for Success-Campaign to Win-Finish with Finesse.

In the 1970s, I was taught that the first step in addressing a problem was "qualitative system analysis." (The text I was given to get a handle on the technique was On Thermonuclear War by Herman Kahn.) The process consisted of expanding the problem as given to include "the whole world." After doing so, you began to shrink it back down. The purpose of the exercise was:

1. Make sure you were solving the right problem. On several occasions the SA/SE group would be tasked with optimizing X, only to come back with the answer that "X" wasn't the issue.
2. Account for the non-quantifiable dimensions of the problem. It's possible to come up with a count of victims of the Rwanda Genocide. But the event and aftermath are governed by the hate of the perpetrators and the anger and grief of the survivors. Those are thing that cannot be quantified, but they will dominate any attempt at resolution. Failure to do this leads to such stupidity as suggesting the survivors should "just get over it," which actively and strongly prevents resolution.
3. Ensure you've accounted for everything. That goes beyond declaring something relevant, to explicitly determining what isn't relevant with an explanation as to why. I know of at least one combat system (actually a subsystem) under development today that will never see production because the proponents and developer refuse to account for the fact it will be used in combat. (Yes, it really is that bad.)

I think the paper you attached as well as the paper by BG Czege are advocating exactly this kind of approach. I'm really glad to see people getting back to it.

[William F. Owen]

http://www.operationaldesign.net/default.html

OK, I dl'd that link, read it, (twice) and I can't understand what the article is about. It just leaves me confused. Can anyone explain it to me?

The goal of Design is the creation of more favorable, self-sustaining situations.
Assessment shifts away from learning about any single action to a focus on monitoring transformation of the system itself and sustaining sensitivity to the need to make adjustments by reframing both system understanding and operational approaches to better deal with emerging conditions.

...and while we are about it, I don't understand this either. It doesn't even seem to be good English.

[Hacksaw]

To be clear... I'm not exactly a proponent or critic of Design... Always thought I did design to support my commander's understanding of the situation so that he could provide adequate guidance, but if it helps some from jumping to solutions before they understand the situation/problem... I can live with another construct for what I consider common sense...

translation of text in question...

Adopt approaches that create conditions on the ground that allow military forces to conclude full spectrum operations and what remains is an environment that is self governing (as in self regulating system) that Coalition members can live with...'

or

leave a situation that doesn't necessarily smell like a bouqet of roses, but doesn't smell like a heaping pile of pig turds

Live well and row

PS: I'm in the midst of an exercise design to, in part, determine the applicability of design in a time constrained tactical environment... I think its nuts

[Ken White]

...PS: I'm in the midst of an exercise design to, in part, determine the applicability of design in a time constrained tactical environment... I think its nuts

However, I know you'll try to adapt it to the, umm -- faster moving? Er, yeah, those are okay words; faster moving -- No. More rapidly evolving, tactical situations.

I truly wish you success...