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. While both systems are effective tools that commanders and their staff can use to solve problems, each system has strengths and limitations.

The Army problem solving, and the RDSP use measures to identify a problem. While the Army problem solving, process uses quantitative analytic tools in order to measure an effective outcome. By contrast, the RDSP uses running estimates (CCIR) which may include status of friendly forces, enemy forces, equipment, intelligence, movement, or fires.

Both systems require time to complete. Commanders’ use Army problem solving when the problem is the pressing issue, and time is secondary, staffs use this system to identify a problem or the root cause of the issue. Commanders and staff use the RDSP when time is the major factor” rapid” is the key. This process is used when mission variables have changed, or a course of action is no longer valid, or when an opportunity that can be exploited for decisive action.

Each system has a defined 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. 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 ...

... middle of paper ...

...ies 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 in 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.