The Army Problem Solving Model and The Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process

Compare and Contrast the Army Problem Solving Model (Process) with the Rapid Decision making and Synchronization Process. (C100)

The Army Problem Solving Model, and the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process (RDSP) are systems that commanders use to solve issues that may arise. Both systems require time to complete. Commanders use Army problem solving when the problem is the pressing issue, and time is secondary. Commanders and staff use the RDSP when time is the major factor rapid is the key.

Each system is a step-by-step process. Army problem solving has seven individual steps and normally completed in sequential order. While two steps (gather the information and develop the criteria) in Army problem solving are linked, they are still two separate steps. While conversely, the RDSP is a five-step process, it allows commanders to perform steps one and two concurrently or sequentially.

Both systems require a mental process; however, Army problem solving is more analytical, while the RDSP relies on experience and intuition. Staffs at all levels use these processes, nonetheless, Army problem solving provides a framework to help less-experienced officers, while the RDSP is more like a battle drill and staffs must practice it to become more proficient.

Both systems have an output. Army problem solving will publish guidance, or some type of formal implementing instructions, sometimes in the form of a memorandum of instruction, policy letter, or command directive. On the other hand, the RDSPs only output may be a verbal order or if time allows, a fragmentary order will follow to confirm those orders.

Compare and Contrast the National Defense Strategy (NDS) of the United States of America with the Nation...

... middle of paper ...

...ifies that it is a long and drawn- out process that by the time an acquisition is produced and fielded the technology has been surpassed. The Objectives Memo also identifies the need to reform this process not only for the reason stated in the QDR but also as part of good stewardship to the America public. The difference occurs how this change should happen. The QDR identifies that we must avoid sacrificing cost and scheduling for promises of improved performance. Sometimes off the shelf, technology now and cheap is better than waiting for the next war ender that may never come. By contrast, the Objectives Memo believes that both good stewardship and improvement of the acquisition process are achievable by implementing a management system. This system would provide information architecture to decision makers with timely, accurate, and efficient information.