1 / 25

Assessing the transmission of Commander’s Intent

Assessing the transmission of Commander’s Intent. Ian Whitworth & Geoff Hone Department of Information Systems Defence College of Management and Technology Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom

nyx
Télécharger la présentation

Assessing the transmission of Commander’s Intent

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing the transmission ofCommander’s Intent Ian Whitworth&Geoff Hone Department of Information SystemsDefence College of Management and TechnologyCranfield University at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom Whitworth:i.r.whitworth@cranfield.ac.ukHone:ghone.cu@defenceacademy.mod.uk KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  2. The Plan Introduction Command structures The proposed methodology The assessment tool The experimental plan Potential uses Conclusion KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  3. Introduction Orders are fundamental to any military operation They pass down the command hierarchy in several forms: Warning CONOPS Confirming BUT – Losing the original Commander’s Intent is a good way toward a failed operation … KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  4. Assessing Transmission The basic problem is: how to assess transmission of the original orders. Do they convey exactly what was in the original orders ? or Have they lost such things as urgency, timings, interoperability details, and some of those details that sum to the spirit and INTENT of the originals orders? KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  5. Command structures For most Army and Marine forces these are hierarchical The details, and ranks involved, may changeWe may talk of a few men, or a full brigade There will usually be a Commander Two or three subordinates These in turn have two, three or four subordinates Only at Platoon and below can a Commander give instructions direct to all ranks. KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  6. The British Battle-group These are formed from a mix of Infantry and ArmourTypically two Battle-groups form one Brigade BDE BG BG SQDN COY COY SQDN PLN PLN PLN KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  7. Now we can identify levels Level 1 CMD (Brig) Level 2 SUB 1 (Lt Col) SUB 2 (Maj, Capt) Level 3 Level 4 (Lt) KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  8. Multi-level Assessment • There are now three points to consider: • What can be assessed? • Where can it be assessed? • Who can assessit? KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  9. What can be assessed? • A commander is the best person to judge if his intent has been properly transmitted down the command structure. • Two levels of assessment are possible: • An overall rating • A detailed rating • Our aim is to minimise constraints on the commander’s judgements. KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  10. Where can it be assessed? • In practical terms, assessments are possible: • Two levels down • Three levels down • This takes the notional (Brigade) commander as the reference KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  11. Who can assess it? Top level Brigade orders BdeCmd Level 1 Orders BGCmd Two levels from top Level 2 Orders CoyCmd Two levels from level 1 Three levels from top Level 3 Orders PlnCmd KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  12. What can be checked? AN OVERALL VIEW The Commander’s opinion of the 2nd and 3rd level orders, as they reflect the original intent. A DETAILED EXAMINATION The same set of specific points are examined for each of the 2nd and 3rd level orders KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  13. Detailed assessment needs a specific framework The (the 5-Paragraph Model) for orders is standard This is common to UK, US and NATO. It has five main heads: SITUATION MISSION EXECUTION SERVICE SUPPORT COMMAND & SIGNAL Command Intent features strongly in the first three KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  14. The detailed question set We aim to establish a generic question set(8-10 questions), which can be applied to any set of orders by a commander. Such features as (but not limited to):- Urgency - Deconfliction - Timeliness - Clear Bounds - Locations - Use of assetsmust feature in the question set. Only a Commander (as SME) can help to establish the necessary questions KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  15. The Assessment Tool Based on the Osgood Semantic Differential Asks a question with an indeterminate answer A continuum links two extreme descriptors The respondent marks a position between them This is a NO-POINT scale – and there are no fine shades of opinion to choose from We have moved this from paper to computer KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  16. How well did these orders convey your intent ? Minimally Totally The Tool Appearance OK KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  17. The Hidden Tool Behind the line is a 100-point scale, which can be:- used as numerical data - grouped into as many points as needed - grouped into asymmetric divisions Practical Features include Auto-save Auto-move to next Question Data export in standard format But it must be usable in the field KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  18. How well did these orders convey your intent? Lap-tops are small KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  19. How well did these orders convey your intent PDAs are smaller KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  20. The Experimental Plan This requires a Commander in either:- a Simulator/Command Post exercise - a Field Training Exercise Commander does the simple (single) assessment on all 2nd and 3rd level Orders first. Commander then does the detailed assessment on the same Orders. Responses are then analysed and correlated KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  21. Validation Validation of the question set is by reference to, and correlation with, the first question. Content of the question set can be modified in the light of any comments made by Commanders. KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  22. Potential Uses: • This work is aimed at the transmission of intent; • It can help to establish measures to determine the merit of any set of orders (identifying problems) • It can be used as a tool in Command Trainin • It can be used upward (by Junior Commanders) to act as a possible Risk Assessment tool • It may identify measures to help reduce fratricide KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  23. Conclusion The tool principle has already been tested. The use of PDAs in field environments must be confirmed as practicable. This work has reached the point where the concept must be tested in a genuine command situation. The question-set must have military approval. In a single-service / single-nation case, this presents no problem With a coalition environment, the question-set may change, and direct comparison with the single-service / nation case may be difficult KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  24. KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

  25. Extras National differences: US & UK have strongly hierarchical command structures (especially land forces) Other countries (eg Sweden) have much flatter structures KSCO 2007 Waltham, MA

More Related