The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments

[Dr. C]

None of those questions forces anyone to examine what best practice looks like. What you'll get is data free opinion, which is the primary source of most of the problem.
Moreover your questions supposes that most soldiers/officers actually know what best practice looks like. I submit history shows us that this is extremely unlikely.

The purpose of the inquiry to a core group isn't to discover "best practices" but to articulate ideas about the future. Collison and Parcell (2004) in their knowledge management book, Learning to Fly, regard best practices as commonly "not transferable and slavishly adopting that practice could, and has lead to, worse results" (p. 99).

The purpose of an Appreciative Inquiry approach is to appreciate and value the best of what is instead of identifying a problem. This is done through interviews and developing a protocol of questions, like the ones I listed. The approach involves envisioning what might be, instead of analyzing causes of the problems. It includes dialogue about what could be, instead of an analysis of possible solutions. It means innovating what will be, instead of just action planning. Those are some of the differences between AI and problem solving.

I can only speak to the written framework approach of the capstone. The rest of you are more subject matter experts on the content. I wouldn't attempt to provide feedback on the content.

I'm not sure what is meant by "data free opinion," since data also comes in the form of stories, which may include opinion.

[Schmedlap]

Collison and Parcell (2004) in their knowledge management book, Learning to Fly, regard best practices as commonly "not transferable and slavishly adopting that practice could, and has lead to, worse results" (p. 99).

I haven't read the book, so maybe I'm way off here, but I'm guessing that the reason that most "best practices" do not transfer well is because the people attempting to apply them do not understand the rationale behind them. A best practice generally works when the people applying it have the professional knowledge and skill to apply it to other situations.

Example: In 2005, in Iraq, one of my Soldiers asked me why we were doing "stand-to" at 0400. I responded, tongue-in-cheek "because that is when the French and Indians attack." Indeed, that is where the practice originates - at least in the US Army. My Soldier wisely pointed out two things: 1) we were not fighting the French or the Indians (so far as we know) and 2) the people whom we were fighting tended to attack at around 0600 or 0700, perhaps reflecting the Arab cultural aversion to punctuality. I had the same complaint, for the same reasons. Eventually, the chain of command went ahead and moved the stand-to time to 0600. It worked like a charm when the largest complex attack on our patrol base of the entire deployment occurred at around 0630 one day. By 0700 of that morning, our patrol base was littered with debris from VBIEDs, body parts of expended mujahideen, and brass casings, and there were no friendly casualties. Stand to - a best practice - worked. It transferred well because we knew how to apply it. Had we continued to apply it improperly, at 0400, then it would have done nothing for us.

[slapout9]

The purpose of an Appreciative Inquiry approach is to appreciate and value the best of what is instead of identifying a problem. This is done through interviews and developing a protocol of questions, like the ones I listed. The approach involves envisioning what might be, instead of analyzing causes of the problems. It includes dialogue about what could be, instead of an analysis of possible solutions. It means innovating what will be, instead of just action planning. Those are some of the differences between AI and problem solving.

Dr. C, some Strategic thinking going on here.....good job. Some times it is best to not solve problems but vigorously pursue opportunities and just starve the problem to death.

[William F. Owen]

The purpose of the inquiry to a core group isn't to discover "best practices" but to articulate ideas about the future. Collison and Parcell (2004) in their knowledge management book, Learning to Fly, regard best practices as commonly "not transferable and slavishly adopting that practice could, and has lead to, worse results" (p. 99).

Well my take on "best practice," is "stuff known to work". Vauban gathered and wrote down "best practice" in Siege Warfare. Given circumstances we can give specific advice. Given general conditions we can also give general advice as to successful approaches. Most/Some Armies seem to have emotional and cultural needs that prevent them capturing that. If the AI approach can identify the reasons why folks cannot solve the problem, I'm all for it.

I'm not sure what is meant by "data free opinion," since data also comes in the form of stories, which may include opinion.

Well if stories and opinions counts as data, that maybe part of the problem! . Does evidence free sound better?
Example: "Foot Drill creates discipline and teamwork" is often stated as fact, in the face of very little actual evidence.

[slapout9]

Well my take on "best practice," is "stuff known to work". Vauban gathered and wrote down "best practice" in Siege Warfare. Given circumstances we can give specific advice. Given general conditions we can also give general advice as to successful approaches. Most/Some Armies seem to have emotional and cultural needs that prevent them capturing that. If the AI approach can identify the reasons why folks cannot solve the problem, I'm all for it.

Because it is known is why it has little Strategic value. What were the best practices to build the Atom bomb? What were the best practices to build the first ICBM? What were the best practices for the Internet? There weren't any, they were invented first.....In short we seized the initiative and didn't worry about solving problems.

[jmm99]

there was a lot of problem solving in making the Atom Bomb, both in nuclear engineering and in machine shop techniques. So, initiative + problem solving was the general key to success.

Wilf's example intrigues some thoughts:

Example: "Foot Drill creates discipline and teamwork" is often stated as fact, in the face of very little actual evidence.

The sentence would be more true if one said "Foot Drill creates discipline and teamwork in Foot Drill" - or more generally, "A Drill creates discipline and teamwork in that Drill". But, what of "A Drill creates discipline and teamwork which is transferrable to a very similar drill." Probably true, but you'd have do some experimenting, with trial and error, to know why that is true. Similar to the first Atom Bomb.

I suppose the scientific and engineering process is useful in preparation for war, but will the "Drill" work in combat ? The first Atom Bomb could have been a fizzle rather than a mushroom.

[slapout9]

there was a lot of problem solving in making the Atom Bomb, both in nuclear engineering and in machine shop techniques. So, initiative + problem solving was the general key to success.

jmm, I disagree they were not solving problems with best practices they were inventing solutions.......they were creating/inventing knowlege.

[William F. Owen]

Because it is known is why it has little Strategic value. What were the best practices to build the Atom bomb? What were the best practices to build the first ICBM? What were the best practices for the Internet? There weren't any, they were invented first.....In short we seized the initiative and didn't worry about solving problems.

Err... not sure what you mean. Best practice is highly context specific. It merely refers to the use of ways and means to gain ends. That is an enduring phenomenon in Warfare. That has nothing/little to do with technological innovation. Actually, most technology does build on existing knowledge of how to do things, even if that existing knowledge comes from experimentation.

The sentence would be more true if one said "Foot Drill creates discipline and teamwork in Foot Drill" - or more generally, "A Drill creates discipline and teamwork in that Drill". But, what of "A Drill creates discipline and teamwork which is transferrable to a very similar drill."

Heresy! Heresy! Foot drill is sacred and we must maketh up much sayings and twaddle to support it!! Doth thou want to just create orderly movement of men in it's place? Heresy I say!

....and in 1917, German recruit instruction specified that only as much foot drill as was necessary to march from "the rail head to the support trench," was to be taught.

[Fuchs]

....and in 1917, German recruit instruction specified that only as much foot drill as was necessary to march from "the rail head to the support trench," was to be taught.

Orderly lock step marches had the purpose of improving road capacity for foot marches. That was an obsolete function in Europe by 1944 (automotive transport and aerial threat against tightly packed march columns).

[Tom Odom]

Err... not sure what you mean. Best practice is highly context specific. It merely refers to the use of ways and means to gain ends. That is an enduring phenomenon in Warfare. That has nothing/little to do with technological innovation. Actually, most technology does build on existing knowledge of how to do things, even if that existing knowledge comes from experimentation.

Agree somewhat as a historian and a lessons learned guy. The which comes first, doctrine or technology, question is a favorite for orals at CGSC. It is deliberately a chicken or egg question, the real point of which is that one without the other is an incomplete solution.

Heresy! Heresy! Foot drill is sacred and we must maketh up much sayings and twaddle to support it!! Doth thou want to just create orderly movement of men in it's place? Heresy I say!

Agreed but add that foot drill as we know it and you as a Brit refer to it was originally a battle drill, rendered tactically obsolete by advances in technology and accompanying doctrine.

....and in 1917, German recruit instruction specified that only as much foot drill as was necessary to march from "the rail head to the support trench," was to be taught.

Yes because at that stage, the habits ingrained in standard drill were guaranteed to get you killed.

The US Army in WWII went in with an infantry doctrine that stilll in its roots adhered to linear battle drills. The infantry paid a heavy price. An excellent analysis of all of this is on CSI's web page at

Secret of Future Victories, Paul F. Gorman, General, U.S. Army, Retired.

We have by no means cured ourselves of this phenomenon; it is rather like tactical kudzoo, choking thought with ever-tightening sinews. I have seen it when units go into a "stack" and then move down a street at a the CTC. You also see it downrange as whatever gets by in training gets imprinted like a baby duck following a dog it sees as its Momma.

My comment on this capstone document is but one:

I don't really care about the buzzwords, fuziness, or even the art of predicting the future. As long as the center-piece of the doctrine is thinking adaptation, the soldiers and the leaders will get it right when the time comes. As soon as someone says doctrine requires rigid application, the soldier and the leader alike get screwed.

Best
Tom

[William F. Owen]

Hey Tom,

I don't really care about the buzzwords, fuziness, or even the art of predicting the future. As long as the center-piece of the doctrine is thinking adaptation, the soldiers and the leaders will get it right when the time comes. As soon as someone says doctrine requires rigid application, the soldier and the leader alike get screwed.

Agreed, and my point would be that Doctrine has to have the central tenet to teach "Why" and not "how". To some extent, "How" does have to be set up as the Thesis, but it must be held to rigour with WHY.

How something is done, rapidly becomes THE WAY to do things - and that is important IF the context of it being done is very well understood. Context usually provides a very good insight into WHY.

I know I sound like stuck record on this, but WHY is mostly missing in this stuff. - WHY have a Capstone Concept?

[slapout9]

Err... not sure what you mean. Best practice is highly context specific. It merely refers to the use of ways and means to gain ends. That is an enduring phenomenon in Warfare. That has nothing/little to do with technological innovation. Actually, most technology does build on existing knowledge of how to do things, even if that existing knowledge comes from experimentation.

So I will start over. I think the main concept should be this.

Instead of solving our own problems I think we should be concentrating on creating problems........ for the enemy.


Tom's thinking adaption might do it?

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Well if stories and opinions counts as data, that maybe part of the problem! . Does evidence free sound better?
Example: "Foot Drill creates discipline and teamwork" is often stated as fact, in the face of very little actual evidence.

LOL - one of the things that most people forget, if they ever knew , is that the word "fact" comes from the Latin factum - "made" or "created". "Facts" are constructs; abstracted sensory data where "meaning" is latter applied based on interpretation via some type of model (theory, culture, etc.).

Both stories and opinions count as fact. On the latter, that is a large part of what constructs the entire area of market research. As to the former, that's folklore, mythology, organizational symbolism, etc.... aka, my field. The "problem" isn't that they count as facts, the problem is that they are mistaken for "Truth" (in a transcendent sense) because an inappropriate model is used to interpret them.

Let's take your foot drill example....

We know where it comes from (tactical necessities from ~1585 to, roughly 1865 or so. In order to communicate it to new members of the military as a survival trait, it was hammered in as "Truth". Those same people, however, lasted long after foot drill was rendered pretty much useless, and it survived as a meme (saying, cultural "truth") long after.

So, how to interpret it? Well, it gives us some insights into how "rigid" an organizational culture is. Also, exactly how it is talked about gives us some insights into the organizational meaning structures that will be applied elsewhere. For example, if "foot drill" is used to describe "building teamwork" by a lot of people in the organization (it's a frequency distribution sort of thing), then the organization will tend to conceive of "teamwork" in a fairly rigid form that is based on predictability of actions. It will also tend to privilege "the Book" over the actual effect. as such, we could predict, with a lesser degree of accuracy, that the field movements of members of that organization are predictable and, hence, their own manuals can be used for targeting information and setting up ambushes.

Notice how I am using that meme of "Foot Drill creates discipline and teamwork". I am not accepting the actual statement as "True", I am accepting it as indicative of an organizational cultural attitude.

[William F. Owen]

Both stories and opinions count as fact. On the latter, that is a large part of what constructs the entire area of market research. As to the former, that's folklore, mythology, organizational symbolism, etc.... aka, my field. The "problem" isn't that they count as facts, the problem is that they are mistaken for "Truth" (in a transcendent sense) because an inappropriate model is used to interpret them.

Well then we at least we need to recognise that large portions of current military thought and doctrine are not held to rigour, in terms of passing several simple tests of evidence. In "fact", the less evidence the better!

The more I think about it, the heart of all my complaints are about evidence and rigour.

I am accepting it as indicative of an organizational cultural attitude.

My experience is that "cultural attitudes" are the biggest roach in the schwarma. The Manoeuvre Warfare diddly is a product of culture, as is the deification of snipers.

How did "a mobile field gun clad in armour" - as JFC Fuller described the tank - become an icon of Land Warfare power and the inheritor of the myths of Cavalry and the Armoured Knight? - instead of fire support platform to create freedom of action for the infantry.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Well then we at least we need to recognise that large portions of current military thought and doctrine are not held to rigour, in terms of passing several simple tests of evidence. In "fact", the less evidence the better!

The more I think about it, the heart of all my complaints are about evidence and rigour.

Most of mine are, too . My real problem is with the selection of interpretive schemas, and I see the wrong (in the sense of poor predictive validity from the specific problem at hand) schema being chosen time and time again. Since schemas define what is and is not considered as "data" ("facts"), that inevitably leads to all sorts of mess ups even, or especially, when they are applied with rigour.

My experience is that "cultural attitudes" are the biggest roach in the schwarma. The Manoeuvre Warfare diddly is a product of culture, as is the deification of snipers.

How did "a mobile field gun clad in armour" - as JFC Fuller described the tank - become an icon of Land Warfare power and the inheritor of the myths of Cavalry and the Armoured Knight? - instead of fire support platform to create freedom of action for the infantry.

'cause it "worked" at the time . Personally, I always wanted to see a joust between a couple of Centurion VII's !!!!!

[William F. Owen]

I always wanted to see a joust between a couple of Centurion VII's !!!!!

Ahhh... Centurions VIIs! Well I'd go for the L7 variants mysefl, but you are a class act Sir! The most beautiful tank ever made. Just looking at one makes me want to say "woof" in an extremely loud voice! - how's that for an expression of culture!

[marct]

Ahhh... Centurions VIIs! Well I'd go for the L7 variants mysefl, but you are a class act Sir! The most beautiful tank ever made. Just looking at one makes me want to say "woof" in an extremely loud voice! - how's that for an expression of culture!

LOL - works for me ! I'm just glad that none of the pictures from my summer camp survived; we used to have jousts using canoes !

Hmm, sort of like this (but I'm not in THAT picture )