In the study of considerations of various military operations the phrase “Flexibility” comes up often. The word assumes greater importance as it is a critical feature when we discuss offensive or defensive operations, counter insurgency or logistics & administration. In execution of any of these, the key is flexibility for a favorable result. The limitations in warfare are multifold complex and, in some ways, complicated when compared to writing concepts, even logical ones. People involved in defense force know that in hierarchical organisations like the services, flow of info, orders and authority is linear. Most documents and execution follow the waterfall concept where steps are sequential and quantified.
One would expect military organisations to be nimble and adaptive, for the simple reason that they plan for variable situations including the one which is least likely as a contingency. In the execution phase, these ‘set plans’ bring in a realm of order enabling ‘control’ and ‘predictability’ of successive phases. This attribute of planning actually changes the ‘design flexibility’ to a ‘constrained flexibility’.
We continue to evolve our concepts of operations by reeling in perspectives from the Age of Information. The ever-evolving technology in this age and its applications, plus connectivity, have evolved from the limited access to cross-linked information-based decision support systems.
The challenges of the 21st Century like HADR, Non-State Actors, Nationless Corporations, Asymmetric Warfare & even Rogue States, are problems beyond the ability of any single actor or even a small set of very capable actors. For a successful handling of these challenges, the solution must involve a large, heterogeneous collective of entities working together. This collective is itself, complex and dynamic.
A more reasonable label for today’s world is the ‘Age of Interactions’. The Compounding technologies that layer above the framework of networks have given us unimaginable real-time interactions. Resultantly, events that may once have had isolated consequences, now generate consequences that have ripple effects and can quickly spin out of control. The viral nature of today’s interactions requires changes considering uncertainties and risks associated with complex endeavors. They cannot be reduced to manageable modules. What is needed is, both, a new mindset and problem-solving strategy. The most promising approach is to increase Agility. While agility is going to be an existential capability in the Age of Interactions, it is not an end unto itself and thus not a capability that should be maximized. Reasonable agility that can be sustainably scaled is the balance point between agile and traditional approaches.
Militaries seek hybrid structures and yet constrain the evolution with ‘command & control’. The word "control" does not describe it best because it indicates the philosophy that complex situations can be controlled; a sort of checklist giving options & actions to counter any emerging situations. This is a dangerous oversimplification. In the emerging multi-dimensional battlefield, the best that one can do is to create a set of conditions that improve the probability that a desirable outcome will occur and to change the condition when what is expected is not occurring. “Control” therefore is an emergent property, not an option to be selected.
Mapping from Scrum values, it appears that Focus & Convergence are more reasonable versions of Command and Control. They capture the essential aspects of command and control. They can also easily be understood by individuals without any prior knowledge of, or experience in the same. It appears more reasonable in situations of rapid grouping / regrouping of modular combat entities in maneuver warfare or any other entity that will be self-organizing as the operations progress. These words do not carry any preconceived notions of how to achieve objectives. The focus hints directly at what is to be accomplished while being independent to the existence of someone in charge. Similarly, convergence denotes what the phrase “control” is meant to achieve without asserting the sequence / path.
Incorporating agility cannot be a task. Change for change’s sake is not Agility. Agility implies effectiveness. An entity’s capabilities and behaviors cannot be agile unless they enable the entity to maintain or improve it’s measures of value. Being agile requires responsiveness. In order to be responsive, an entity must be able to recognize, in a timely manner, potentially significant changes in the external macro and microenvironment (read an adversary, or to itself). It should be able to recognize what would be a proportionate response. An appropriate response would include timely acting. In the context of military, agility will always be uniquely defined as per the threats & the capacities or the enablers & impediments exclusive to us. Given this, within the framework, how do we ingrain agility?
The first key to agility is “People”. To have an agile force, scrumming needs to be done on this resource, to etch agile practices. The upgrade to an agile manpower to the military is a complex problem. HR teams will need to continuously deliver on this. It’s a military force; there can be no down time to process the changes. It might be easy to change the way people work but extremely difficult to change the way people think. Militaries are virtually living microcosms drilled in battle procedures, which are exact opposite of agile. There are existing aspects that can be leveraged for easing in agility, for example hierarchy. In making organizational level changes, like theaterisation & joint commands, frameworks like Scrum (a modified version customized for target teams focused on envisaged desired structures) can be gradually incorporated in the hierarchy. This could be done on manageable collectives to eventually cover the entire services. This would be beneficial as these hierarchies are grouped to train, operate & deliver as units.
We are a successful military with sound principles. Why do we need to incorporate organisation-wide changes that are so radical to our fundamentals?
This is not a call for change. It is a case for adapting, improving and getting prepared to avoid a ‘future shock’. It may appear to be a conceptual journey across the landscape. It comprises of Complexity with variables of people, networks and the nature of command & control. In the end no structural or functional change in a military organisation can be called sustainable if it is not agile enough for mitigating continuous change. The exchequer would prefer Adaptive Organisations for Effect Based Operations. These aren’t possible while using world war constructs and yet this is not something out of the blue. Special Forces are the ready examples of an agile outfit. They place Individuals and interactions over processes, mission success over milestones, resource collaboration beyond designated tasks & responding to change over following a plan.
That’s an agile military manifesto.
No comments:
Post a Comment