Is Army 'Design' methodology over-designed? There are trust issues, too

By Richard
Buchanan

Best
Defense office of mission command

Currently
there is a raging debate in the Force over Army Design Methodology (ADM) which the field has shortened to simply
"Design." Design is being currently
taught to selected officers attending the School of Advanced Studies (SAMS), the War College, and in a general population
Design training course developed and taught by Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH). There
is currently not a single course teaching Design to NCOs and or Army Civilians
other than the course offered by BAH. There is as well a ongoing debate as to whether Design is strictly for
the Strategic and Operational levels and should not be used at the Tactical
level.

If one
researches ADM you will see it defined and explained in ADRP 5.0 in roughly
eight pages complete with terms and charts which attempt to describe the
process. In further research of ADRP 5.0 you will see that the discussion of
Design and military decision-making (MDMP) takes all of two paragraphs. If you
take the BAH course you will be struck by the sheer weight of terms and charts
(and a very large Powerpoint slide deck) all trying again to describe Design.
In ADRP 5.0 section 2-23 you will notice that by doctrine the Army now has a
total of three standalone planning methods all attempting to address the scope
of the problem the unit is facing, i.e. the Operational Environment (OE).

The result
of all of the above is that the Force now perceives Design to be complex,
highly technical (complicated terms and charts with its own language), and
Design can only be conducted by those who have attended the Design training
mentioned above and our Design doctrine has reinforced that perception.

If we look
at the core ADM requirements mentioned in the eight or so pages of ADRP 5.0 one
starts to see mentioned over and over; critical and creative thinking,
collaboration and dialogue, framing (another term for simply communication),
narrative construction, and visual modeling (simply another set of terms for
communication/whiteboarding).

Now the
over designing of Design kicks in -- if in fact the concept of Design demands
communication, dialogue, free flow of ideas, critical discourse -- are we not
suppose to be doing that already inside MDMP? Wait thoug,h as per paragraphs 2-61 and
2-62, Design is conducted independently, in parallel to or after MDMP by the
Commander and selected Staff all under the guise of helping the Commander
understand the OE. Literally a Catch-22 moment.

Just as we
often discuss the Army values and what it means to the Force, Design to has one
key critical element that is missing, just as it is missing in the Army Values.
That is, trust. Steven Covey in his book Speed of Trust wrote that:

There is one thing that is common to every
individual, relationship, team, family,
organization, nation, economy, and civilization
throughout the world-one thing which,
if removed, will destroy the most powerful
government, the most successful business, the
most thriving economy, the most influential leadership,
the greatest friendship, the
strongest character, the deepest love. On the other
hand, if developed and leveraged, that one thing has the potential to create
unparalleled success and prosperity in every dimension of life. Yet, it is the
least understood, most neglected, and most underestimated possibility of our
time.
That one thing is trust. . . . It under girds and
affects the quality of every relationship, every communication, every work
project, every business venture, every effort in which we are engaged.

Likewise,
Col. Tom Guthrie in his 2012 article said that, "If we intend to truly
embrace mission command, then we should do it to the fullest, and that will
require commitment to changing a culture from one of control and process to one
of decentralization and trust."

I think (as I said in my previous BD article) that we in fact do have a serious
issue in the Force -- namely a glaring lack of Trust at all levels and between
individuals.

If we look
at the argument that Design cannot be conducted at the Tactical level -- then we
really do need to ask ourselves why is it not in the MDMP planning cycle? My
answer is Design has always been in MDMP in multiple areas -- Mission Analysis,
COA Development/Decision, Wargaming, and even in the Rehearsal phase.

In Mission Command it is the "art of command" where
the responsibility rests for the commander to lead the development of teams
using Understanding, Visualization, Describe, Direct, Lead, and Assess UVDDLA).
If the Commander is responsible for team building then why is he, per doctrine,
supposed to lead Design independently, in parallel to or after MDMP? What staff
officers are to be pulled out of the MDMP process to focus on Design robbing
Staff sections of their own team leader, when is the Design plan to
resynchronize back to the MDMP process, and which plan has precedence -- the MDMP
plan or the Design plan?

If the commander as the team builder and leader does his job effectively as a leader
should -- that is, building trust, and creating an open dialogue free of fear which
automatically allows critical thinking/discourse -- then Design will occur on its
own and it is not a forced process full of terms and charts that no one seems
to understand.

Secondly,
the debate around Design has opened an interesting discussion -- namely if we
take a Command Post and or a Staff section, there will always be NCOs and/or
lower ranking subordinates. Not a single one of them have been taught MDMP nor
Design and yet they are handling data that has to be transformed into
Information/Understanding as per the doctrinal concept of the Cognitive
Hierarchy. Or they are substituting as reps to Working Group meetings where
MDMP is in progress or should be in progress or they are contributing to
running estimates which also feeds into the MDMP process.

I have often wondered while observing Command
Post operations, WG meetings, or Staff meetings, what do the NCOs/junior
subordinates think about during the ongoing discussions and do they really buy
into the decisions made during those meetings or do they simply nod north and south and go about their business?

Now, we are
having a Force discussion on whether Design does work or not work, what level
should it be used at, should Design planners be additionally trained, should
there be a separate Design planning Staff section, and the list goes on. To
me, these are examples of over engineering.

My opinion
is that Design is the way forward, especially when coupled with Mission Command,
but it must be taught together with
MDMP/Mission Command to all individuals
working in Staffs at all levels and in Command Posts at all levels. In reality,
they do a mini version of UVDDLA MDMP when performing their CP or Staff
functions.

If everyone
who works in a Staff section and/or in a Command Post fully understands MDMP,
fully understands Design/Mission Command and the commander has in fact built
his team using Trust in an open dialogue manner -- then Design/ MDMP/Mission
Command will be able to handle any future ill structured "wicked" problem set.
Until then the Force will continue to tread water.

Richard Buchanan is mission command training facilitator
with the JMTC/JMSC Grafenwoehr, Germany training staffs in the areas of mission
command, MDMP/NATO Planning Processes, MDMP/Design, and Command Post
Operations. The opinions here are his own and not those of U.S. Army Europe,
the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the U.S. government. But Bobby
Valentine does agree, we are guessing. How did the Red Sox go so wrong in
recent years?