More handpicked essays just for you.
Features of argumentative essay
Reading and writing for argumentative essays
Features of argumentative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In today’s operational environments, the U.S. Army is facing a range of problems and mission sets that are arguably more complex than previously encountered. Forces face an array of demands that encompass geo-political, social, cultural, and military factors that interact in unpredictable ways. The inherent complexity of today’s operations has underscored the need for the Army to expand beyond its traditional approach to operational planning. In March 2010 in FM 5-0: The Operations
Process, the Army incorporated the concept of Design into doctrine. The term design was eventually replaced with Army Design Methodology (ADM) with the publication of Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 5-0, The Operations Process. This addition emphasized the importance of developing a deep and nuanced appreciation of complex problems and visualizing ways to solve them, prior to conducting detailed planning. So what is ADM?
ADM offers Commanders and planning staff a tool for the conceptual component of an integrated planning process. The goal is to provide the commander with a cognitive tool that he can use to understand the logic of the system. Design is non-linear in thought and application. Its methodology clari¬fies guidance in the consideration of operational environment, and the current system is understood within existing limitations. The design team pro¬duces an environmental frame, an initial problem statement, and an initial theory of action. As the teams’ understanding increases and the nature of the problem begins to take form, the team explores in greater detail aspects of the environment that appear relevant to the problem. Here choices are made about boundaries and areas for possible inter¬vention. From this deeper understanding, the des...
... middle of paper ...
...y. New York: Free Press, 1985.
Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. NY: Architectural Press, 1980, 2007. Massachusetts: NECSI Knowledge Press, 2004.
SAMS Design Student Text, v. 2.0.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline. Revised edition. New York: Currency Books, Doubleday, a Division of Random House, 2006.
Government Publications
US Army. Field Manual 5-0 The Operations Process March 2010. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 2010.
___. Army Doctrine Publication The Operations Process May 2012. Washington DC:
Government Printing Office, 2012.
___. Army Doctrine Reference Publication The Operations Process May 2012. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 2012.
Effective planning is impossible without first understanding the problem. Commanders rely on personal observations, experiences, and input from others to develop understanding. They also prioritize information requests and incorporate additional information as those requests are answered. A complete understanding of the problem and environment builds the foundation for the operational process and ...
Compare and Contrast the Army Problem Solving Model (Process) with the Rapid Decision making and Synchronization Process. (C100)
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, Joint Publication 1 (Washington DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 25, 2013), V-17.
US, Army Training and Doctrine Command. (2008). Field Manual 3-11.21: MULTISERVICE TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, AND NUCLEAR, CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT. Fort Monroe, Virginia: US, Army Training and Doctrine Command.
HQs, Department of the Army. Field Manual 5-0, The Operations Process. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010.
LM06, Strategic Planning Student Guide. (2013). Maxwell-Gunter AFB. Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education (AETC).
There is a general discord among stakeholders on the definition of irregular warfare and where the term and concept fits within the joint and the individual services’ doctrine. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review report uses the term “irregular” only once in its one hundred and five pages and only in terms of a focus on building the joint force’s capability and capacity to deal with irregular warfare while maintaining a clear conventional and nuclear global superiority. Currently, the definition is ambiguous and results in conflict or duplication of efforts across Department of Defense stakeholders. For the purposes of this paper, the stakeholders discussed are the Army and the Marine Corps. Stakeholders must reach a consensus and clearly define irregular warfare in order to establish comprehensive irregular war policy and strategy.
The LAP is designed to improve and sustain the readiness of materiel systems and logistics support. It assists commanders with logistics problems affecting materiel readiness that are beyond their capability or organic resources. The LAP does not relieve the commander of logistics readiness responsibilities. However, The LAP acts as an early detection and resolution mechanism addressing readiness shortfalls and systemic logistics problems. It provides a means to collect, correlate, assess, and disseminate logistics information required to respond to problems from the materiel
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Joint Warfare Armed with numerous studies, and intensive public hearings, Congress mandated far-reaching changes in DOD organization and responsibilities under the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This landmark legislation significantly expanded the authority and responsibility of the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Included in this expanded authority and responsibility was the requirement for the chairman to develop a doctrine for the joint employment of armed forces. As operations Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm have vividly demonstrated, the realities of armed conflict in today's world make the integration of individual service capabilities a matter of success or failure, life or death. Furthermore, the operation Desert One demonstrated the need for a strengthened Joint Warfare Doctrine and the consequent change in Joint Warfare Employment.
Wicked Problems in Design Thinking Author(s): Richard Buchanan Source: Design Issues, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 5-21 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/
The United States (1988). Army Field Manual 100-1, Washington, DC: Headquarters. Dept.
Army forces conduct offensive and defensive operations appropriate to the mission and environment. Intelligence supports the commander’s effort to perform decisive action. Intelligence allows the commander to visualize threats and characteristics of the operational environment. This support assists the commander and staff in deciding when and where to focus adequate combat power to defeat the threat while minimizing risk. Commanders and staffs at all levels coordinate intelligence with the other warfighting functions to increase their ability to visualize the operational environment and interrupt or dislocate the threat throughout the AO. Information collection activities are continuously assessed and updated during operations. (ADRP 2-0, Chapter 1 paragraphs 8-9)
Due to the rather small size of their elements the CRD is not able to support Find, Fix, Finish, Exploit, Analyze, Disseminate (F3EAD), a key SF tactic, for four battalions while also supporting the Exploitation Analysis Center (EAC) (Redesign Concept). Most CRDs can only provide 4 personnel per Special Operations Task Force (SOTF). This causes a huge problem when most SOTFs have up to 18 ODAs that need support. However, these gaps have caused the military and the SOFs to consider a redesignation program in order to facilitate continuous operations (Redesign
7th edition. London: Pearson Longman, ed. Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. and Lawson, S. (2009) Introduction to Politics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Design thinking process has eight generation stages: observation or analysis, framework, imperative or facts, solutions or alternatives, alternative evaluation and concept selection, implementation, construction, and post occupancy evaluation.