Mapping the Relevant of Complex Decision Making to Canadian Forces Land Operations Lisa A. Rehak, Tamsen E. Taylor, Lora Bruyn Martin Humansystems® Incorporated 111 Farquhar St., Guelph, ON N1H 3N4 Project Manager: Lisa A. Rehak PWGSC Contract No.: W7711-098158/001/TOR Call-up 8158-02 Contract Scientific Authority: Jerzy Jarmasz 416-635-2000 The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the Contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada. Defence R&D Canada Contract Report DRDC Toronto CR 2011-079 March 2011
158
Embed
Mapping the Relevant of Complex Decision Making to ... · Mapping the Relevant of Complex Decision Making to Canadian Forces Land Operations . Lisa A. Rehak, Tamsen E. Taylor, Lora
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Mapping the Relevant of Complex Decision Making to Canadian Forces Land Operations
Lisa A. Rehak, Tamsen E. Taylor, Lora Bruyn Martin Humansystems® Incorporated 111 Farquhar St., Guelph, ON N1H 3N4 Project Manager: Lisa A. Rehak PWGSC Contract No.: W7711-098158/001/TOR Call-up 8158-02
Contract Scientific Authority: Jerzy Jarmasz 416-635-2000
The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the Contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada.
Defence R&D Canada
Contract Report DRDC Toronto CR 2011-079 March 2011
DRDC Toronto CR-2011-079
MAPPING THE RELEVANCE OF COMPLEX DECISION MAKING TO CANADIAN FORCES LAND OPERATIONS
by:
Lisa A. Rehak, Tamsen E. Taylor, Lora Bruyn Martin
Defence Research and Development Canada Toronto 1133 Sheppard Avenue West,
Toronto, ON, M3K 2C9
Contract Scientific Authority: Jerzy Jarmasz 416-635-2000
March 2011
Author
Original signed by Lisa Rehak
Lisa Rehak Humansystems® Incorporated
Approved by
Original signed by Jerzy Jarmasz
Jerzy Jarmasz Contract Scientific Authority
Approved for release by
Original signed by Dr. Stergios Stergiopoulos
Dr. Stergios Stergiopoulos Acting Chair, Knowledge and Information Management Committee
Acting Chief Scientist
The scientific or technical validity of this Contractor Report is entirely the responsibility of the contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D
Challengingcommonly of this projerelevant to research mimaking. Cointerdependactions of thto act at parcomplexityresearch is making diffthat were ncommunicarequire addCanadian Fencounter ttraining effdomestic da
ms® Incorpora
ract
g decision mabeing charactect was to detthe decision might be used tomplex decisident decisionshe decision mrticular time i
y literature didrequired to deficulty. Reseaot noted in thation. Other aditional educatForces personnhe highest lev
forts should pray-to-day fun
ted
aking environterized as “cotermine whethmaking actuato improve Caion making ens in a context
maker, and whin order to had appear to pletermine the rarch identifiedhe complexityareas which potion and trainnel who are evel of complerobably focus
here timing isve their intenay a strong rorelative role td additional c
y literature, inose significan
ning include pengaged in doexity in their ds on these ind
as those experesearchers (e.investigating
ced by Canadies education aare characteriboth autonom
s a key elemennded effect). Aole in Canadiathat these factchallenges facncluding challnt challenges planning and domestic and exdecision mak
dividuals rathe
rienced by theg., Grisogonocomplex dec
ian Forces peand training rized by requirmously and ant (e.g., decisAlthough factan Forces dectors play in inced by Canadlenges relatedto CF persondealing with rxpeditionary
king, and initiaer than indivi
e Canadian Foo, 2010). Theision makingrsonnel, and hrelated to deciring a series os a function o
sion makers mtors identifiedcision makingncreasing decian Forces pe
d to collaboratnnel, and that resource chaloperations apal education aiduals engage
Page i
orces are main goal is how that ision of of the may have d in the g, further cision ersonnel tion and appear to llenges. ppear to and ed in
Pa
R
LdéprutcocaséfodéfaimafdécacodésoFoprprco
age ii
Résum
es chercheursécisionnels dirojet avait poutile à la prise omment ces tranadiens en cérie de décisioonction des mécideurs peuvacteurs relevémportant dansfin de détermiécisions. Les anadiennes quompris des dééfis importanont notammenorces canadierendre les décrobablement vourantes au C
mé
s (dont Grisogifficiles commur but premiede décisions ravaux pourrae qui concernons interdépe
mesures que prvent devoir agés dans la docus le processusiner le rôle reétudes ont re
ui n’étaient paéfis liés à la cts aux membrnt la planificaennes affectéscisions les pluviser ce group
Canada.
gono, 2010) qme ceux dans er de déterminqui constitue aient servir à ne la prise de ndantes, dansrend le décidegir à un momeumentation su
s décisionnel delatif qu’exerclevé d’autres as mentionnéollaboration eres des FC et ation et les difs à des opératius complexespe de personn
qualifient génlesquels les F
ner si l’étude la réalité du paméliorer l’édécisions. Les un contexte eur et dont la ent en particuur la complexdes Forces cacent ces factedéfis auxques dans la docuet à la commudans lesquels
fficultés liées ions nationale, les premiersnes plutôt que
néralement de Forces canadide processus personnel des
éducation et l’es milieux décqui change à synchronisat
ulier afin d’obxité semblaienanadiennes, murs par rappo
els se heurte leumentation suunication. D’as une plus amaux ressourc
es et expéditis efforts d’édue les militaires
Human
« complexesiennes sont apdécisionnels
s Forces cana’instruction dcisionnels dif
à la fois de façtion est primobtenir l’effet snt effectiveme
mais d’autres éort à la difficue personnel dur les décisionautres secteur
mple formationces. Comme leonnaires semucation et d’ins qui exercen
nsystems® Incor
s » les milieuxppelées à servcomplexes se
adiennes, et des militaires fficiles exigençon autonomeordiale (p. ex.souhaité). Lesent exercer unétudes s’impoulté de la prisedes Forces ns complexesrs qui posent n semble nécees membres d
mblent être appnstruction dev
nt des fonction
rporated
x vir. Ce erait
nt une e et en , les s n rôle osent e de
s, y des essaire des pelés à vrait ns
Humansystem
Execu
MappingOperatio
Lisa A. ReDRDC Tor
Challengingare commocontemporadomains suapplied to tresearch invexperiencedCanadian F
rienced by thes. Researcherave been studifindings in thhis project wahe decision mrch might be king.
equiring a sera function of ect, we perforluence the difctors related t
one another i
r time. For exnothing; the reen actions an
iple objective
hieve because
in the enviroaker).
ntuitively idenations they hahether the fivecates that Canmplexity rese
ed by Canadis have to do wn organizationon making coould be underion making in
nadian Forc
ems Incorpo2011.
e Canadian Fos have proposied extensivelhese domains as to determin
making actualused to impro
ries of interdethe actions ofrmed a brief r
fficulty of decto complexity
in complicate
xample, the rate at which nd effects,
es which may
e they are too
onment that in
ntified as beinad experiencee complexity nadian Forcesearch.
an Forces perwith collaborans, or with otould be imprortaken to examn the Canadian
Page iii
ces Land
orated;
orces (CF) sed that ly in could be
ne whether ly ove
ependent f the review of cisions in y,
ed and
things
y not be all
vague,
nfluence it
ng ed factors
s
rsonnel. ating ther oved are mine n Forces,
Pa
anscopthdeda
age iv
nd interventiocenarios we eperations apphan those invoecision makinay-to-day fun
ons should bencountered, p
peared to encoolved in routinng should targnctions.
aimed at incrpersonnel whoounter noticeane functions. get personnel
reasing decisio were engagably higher leThis suggestinvolved in c
ion making pged in domestivels of compl
ts that initial econtingency o
Human
proficiency in ic and expedilexity in theirefforts to bettoperations rat
nsystems® Incor
those areas. Iitionary contir decision mater support cother than routi
rporated
In the ingency aking omplex ine
Humansystems® Incorporated Page v
Sommaire
Mappage de la pertinence de la prise de décisions complexes pour les opérations terrestres des Forces canadiennes Lisa A. Rehak, Tamsen E. Taylor and Lora Bruyn Martin, Humansystems Incorporated; DRDC Toronto CR2011-079; R&D pour la defense Canada – Toronto; mars 2011.
Les chercheurs qualifient généralement de « complexes » les milieux décisionnels difficiles comme ceux dans lesquels les Forces canadiennes (FC) sont appelées à servir. Ils ont avancé que les opérations militaires modernes possèdent des caractéristiques qui ont fait l’objet de vastes études dans des domaines comme la chimie, la physique et la biologie, dont les résultats pourraient s’appliquer à l’étude de la prise de décisions dans les FC. Ce projet avait pour but premier de déterminer si l’étude de processus décisionnels complexes serait utile à la prise de décisions qui constitue la réalité du personnel des Forces canadiennes, et comment ces travaux pourraient servir à améliorer l’éducation et l’instruction des militaires canadiens en ce qui concerne la prise de décisions.
Les milieux décisionnels difficiles exigent une série de décisions interdépendantes, dans un contexte qui change à la fois de façon autonome et en fonction des mesures que prend le décideur et dont la synchronisation est primordiale. Dans le cadre du projet, nous avons examiné brièvement la documentation sur la complexité et relevé des éléments qui influencent la difficulté du processus décisionnel dans des milieux complexes. Le projet a porté principalement sur cinq de ces facteurs liés à la complexité, soit :
1) La connectivité : les facteurs environnementaux s’influencent mutuellement entre eux de manière complexe et imprévisible;
2) La dynamique : le système comporte des aspects qui évoluent. Par exemple, l’environnement change avec le temps même si l’on n’intervient pas; le rythme auquel les choses évoluent peut varier; il peut y avoir un décalage entre les gestes et les conséquences,
3) Buts conflictuels multiples : il est possible que l’on ait à atteindre de nombreux objectifs qui ne sont pas tous réalisables en même temps;
4) Buts imprécis : les buts peuvent être difficiles à atteindre parce qu’ils sont trop vagues;
5) Agents indépendants : il y a dans l’environnement des entités indépendantes qui l’influencent (leurs objectifs peuvent être différents de ceux du décideur).
Nous avons interrogé des membres du personnel des FC ayant vécu des expériences qualifiées intuitivement de complexes, puis nous avons élaboré des descriptions de situations décisionnelles qu’ils avaient dû affronter (des « scénarios »). Nous avons ensuite examiné les scénarios afin de déterminer si les cinq facteurs de complexité étaient présents. Les cinq facteurs étaient présents dans tous les cas, ce qui indique que les membres des Forces canadiennes affrontent effectivement les défis mentionnés dans les études sur la complexité.
plate for compplate for creatim-up challenm-up educatiral themes, de
ntial CF contexroles describe
plexity rating mple scenario m
er, Afghanistanario complexnario connectinario dynamicnario multiplenario under-spnario independom-up Analyom-up traininrlap between mes organizedanalysis .......
s
plexity factor ing complexitges template onal and trainefinitions, ovexts for knowled in knowledcriteria .........mapping ontoan) ................xity rating scoivity ratings ..cs ratings ......e conflicting gpecified goalsdent agents ra
ysis general thng suggestionchallenge anad by five com.....................
mapping to sty rating crite.....................ning suggestioerlap, and gapledge elicitatidge elicitation.....................
e recruited vianterviewed; oexamples of spentrating on (eo discuss examare listed belof SMEs recruit
Tabl
o Category
y-to-Day
s
y - Offensive
nalysis
enarios
ios were createneral descripe mentioned bver time were
he scenarios we, both in termwere reviewedewed all scename of the detm the scenarionsidered dur
ted
on sessions ints which werenments. The inSee the Meth.
a workshop mf these, two inpecific situatieither becausemples that couw in Table 7.ted for this pr
le 7: SME role
CoE Training
CoE Training
HF Engineer
Professional
PME Revital
Psychologica
Military Liais
Liaison Offic
National Sup
Chief of Staf
ted from the dption of the roby the DM as e pointed out a
were reviewedms of accuracyd by the SME arios, and thetails providedios themselvering decision
nvolved interve identified innterview tech
hod Section (S
members and tnterviews weions which ine they could nuld be sensitiv. Note that noroject.
es described in
g Development S
g Developer
r, Capital Acquis
Military Educati
ization Staff Me
al Operations (P
on and Advisor,
cer, Afghanistan
pport Element (N
ff, Strategic Advi
data collectedole of the SMplaying a largas dynamic ev
d several timey and that thewho was the
e scenarios wed were considees (and the repmaking. For
viewing SMEn the workshohnique used wSection 2.3) fo
their networkere not analysnvolved the conot rememberve). Of the fio SMEs with h
n knowledge e
Contex
Supervisor
sition
ion (PME) Revita
mber
PSYOPS) Trainin
International Ev
NSE) Officer, Afg
isory Team, Afgh
d during the SME (referred to
ge role in his vents are fund
es to ensure they did not come interviewee,ere also reviewered potentialport as a whoexample, whe
Es who had exops as likely rwas semi-strucfor an in-depth
ks of contacts.sed as the SMomplex decisir examples orinal list of 10 humanitarian
elicitation sess
xt (Role)
alization Superv
ng Program Dev
vent
ghanistan
hanistan
SME interviewo as the DM) or her decisi
damental to c
hat details prompromise sen one SME whwed by the Slly sensitive,
ole), but were en a large num
xperience in thepresenting cctured intervih overview of
. There were ME had difficu
ion making far because theySMEs, the roexperience w
sions
visor
veloper
ws. The scenaand a list of ton making. F
complex decis
ovided were nsitive informho was sensiticientific Authsome details still counted mber of facto
Page 21
he complex iews based f the
a total of ulty actors we y were oles were on the
arios the factors
Factors that sion
ation. The ive to the hority. were as factors
ors were
Pa
lisidth
Bprfa
3.
TA(CPrSepranrewnepa
Fa
Fa
TC
age 22
sted as being dentity of the hemselves we
Below is a segrovided in theactors provide
.4.1.1 Exam
he DM was aAfghanistan. ItCF) and the Arison, Borderervice). At thrison. This crnd part of the equired to liai
which was to oetwork”; he hart, and overs
actors which
The prof the changewell asKanda
There 3 gove
actors that un
The prthat ththe ANresponsecuritlevel ainform
The Dcommureasonchangechangeincreas
he full scenarComplexity.
considered inDM or the sit
ere not.
ment of the Le scenarios ined.
mple scena
assigned to act was the resp
Afghanistan Nr Security, andhe beginning oeated an atmoDM’s role w
ise with the reoccur approxihad to convincsee the proces
influenced th
rison break wsenior leaderse in personnes a re-evaluatahar;
was a quick ternors of Kan
nfolded over t
rison break leere was no C
NP could not nding to threatty organizatioand are not usmation change
M attempted unication equ
ns (e.g., culture (i.e., there se). This becamsingly hopele
rio description
n decision matuation, then t
Liaison Officen terms of the
ario: Liaison
ct as a liaison ponsibility of
National Armyd the Nationaof the DM’s dosphere of un
was to facilitatelevant partieimately 8 monce the relevanss.
he ability of th
as believed toship at the pril and a huge lion of many a
turnover in Adahar.
time:
d to a processommon Opereffectively gets; that the AN
ons; and that Aed to working
ed how the DM
to get the releuipment proviral differenceseemed to be ame more and ess that the C2
ns can be fou
aking, but thothe number o
er, Afghanistageneral descr
n Officer, Af
officer in thethe DM to ac
y (ANA), Afgal Directorate deployment, tncertainty abote an increases to increase nths later. Thent stakeholder
he DM to man
o be facilitateison were eithloss of confidassumptions h
fghan personn
s of informatirating Picture et informationNP could not Afghan securg at an operatM saw his goa
evant stakehoided by the Us), and felt tha “set point” imore frustrat
2 infrastructur
und in Annex
se factors wof factors were
an scenario deription of the
fghanistan
e operations coct as a liaison ghanistan Natof Security (N
there was a mout the level oe in security. Isecurity in pre DM was to rs that it was n
nage these pro
d by assistancher arrested odence in the pheld by CF pe
nel; for exam
ion gathering(COP) amon
n about threateffectively a
ity organizatitional or strateals and how t
olders to instaU.S. He found
at any intervein the environting as time wre would be a
B: Operation
Human
ould reveal tooe listed but th
escription, to DM’s role an
oordination cbetween the
tional Police (NDS; the Afg
massive escapeof security preIn particular, reparation forcreate a “Kannecessary, pe
ocesses inclu
ce from insidor fired. This crison system ersonnel abou
mple, within 9
. This processng Afghan sects; that the ANask for assistanions typicallyegic level. Ththey could be
all, maintain, this very diff
ention he triednment that wa
went on and thadequate to m
nal Scenarios t
nsystems® Incor
o much abouthe factors
illustrate whand examples o
centre in KandCanadian For(ANP), Kandghanistan Sece from the Kaesent in Kandthe DM was
r voter registrandahar city seersuade them
uded:
de the prison. caused a masand personne
ut security in
months there
s gradually recurity agencieNP had difficuance from othey work at a tachese pieces of accomplishe
train on, and ficult for mand did not resuas highly resihe DM grew
maintain secur
that Contain
rporated
t the
at is of the
dahar, rces ahar
cret andahar dahar,
ation ecurity to take
Many sive el, as
e were
evealed es; that ulty er ctical f ed;
use ny ult in stant to
rity.
Humansystem
3.4.2 Ma
One of the literature camapping froscenarios wprocess, see
Recall that,occurred in“MEDIUMof “LOW” absolute codiscussed hscenario coscenario) ca
Complexity Defini
Connectivity:
Things in the environment ione another incomplicated aunpredictable
Dynamics:
The system hthat unfold ovexample, the environment cover time evedo nothing; thwhich things cbe variable; th
ms® Incorpora
apping of fiv
main goals ofan be mappedom the scenar
were providede details in Se
, due to the ren this scenario
M” means that means that th
onclusions muhere. These gomponents ontan be found in
Factor and ition
nfluence n and ways
Hfcm
Ho
as aspects er time. For
changes n when you e rate at
change may here may be
Woupd
Hst
ted
ve complex
f this project d to experiencrios to the fiv
d for each of thection 2.4.2).
elative rating so to a relativel
this factor ochis factor occuust be interpreeneral criteriato the five con Table 9. Al
Tabl
Criteria
How many interrfactors have to bconsidered whenmaking decisions
How many 2nd anorder effects?
Were there examof situations thatunfolded over timprofoundly affectdecision making?
How many subsystems impathe decision-mak
xity factors t
was to determces of membeve key complehe factors (fo
scheme used,ly large extenccurred in thisurred in this seted cautiousla and ratings mplexity factl of the scena
le 8: Complex
related be n s?
nd 3rd
High
At leasconsid
At leaspotent
Mediu
At leasconsid
At leas(or pot
OR
Criterithat m
Low
No exafor a s
No exapotent
mples t me that ted ?
acted king
High
Seventime th
At leasbe shoculture
Mediu
Five o
to scenario
mine whether ers of the CF. exity factors wor more about
, a rating of “nt (i.e., relativs scenario to scenario to a rly as ratings acan be foundtors (for the Lario mappings
ity rating crit
Rating (High
st 1 example witdered for a single
st 1 example wittial effects) that c
um
st 1 example witdered for a single
st 1 example wittential effects) th
a for high and lomeets one but no
ample with moresingle decision
amples with motial effects) that c
n or more specifihat profoundly a
st 10 subsystemown to have diffees, rates of chan
um
or 6 specific exam
os
factors from To facilitate
was performet the developm
“HIGH” meanve to the otheran intermediarelatively smaare only relatid in Table 8, aLiaison Offices can be found
teria
h, Medium, Low
th 10 or more face decision
th 10 or more 2n
could result from
th between 5 ane decision
th between 5 anhat could result f
ow categories arot both high crite
e than 4 factors
re than 4 2nd andcould result from
ic examples of sffected decision
ms which impacteerent dynamics nge)
mples of situatio
the complexithis, an expli
ed. Examples ment of this a
ns that this far scenarios), aate extent, andall extent; howive to the 10 san example mer, Afghanistad in Annex C
w) and Justifica
ctors that have t
d and 3rd order em a single decisi
d 9 factors that h
d 9 2nd and 3rd ofrom a single de
re not met (e.g., ria)
that have to be c
d 3rd order effectm a single decisi
situations that un making
ed decision mak(timelines, proce
ons that unfolded
Page 23
ity cit from the
analysis
actor a rating of d a rating wever, any scenarios
mapping of an
C.
tion
to be
effects (or on
have to be
order effects ecision
any scenario
considered
ts (or on
nfolded over
king and can esses,
d over time
Pa
C
dean
It hieprthdyof
M
Hammat
Un
Goacto
In
Theneninf
age 24
Complexity FactDefinition
elays between and effects.
is important to nerarchical aspecresent (i.e., subsat have their owynamics which af the DM context
ultiple conflicting
aving to achieveultiple objectivesay not be all acht the same time
nder-specified g
oals may be diffchieve because o vague
dependent agen
here are indepenntities in the nvironment who fluence it (they m
tor and n
ctions
note cts if systems wn are part t).
conte
Weresubshiera(e.g.dyna
g goals:
e s which hievable
Are t
Are twith
Do thnece
Are twherconflwoulhave
oals:
ficult to they are
Are tare v
To wvagucompmaki
nts:
ndent
may
Wereindepwho maki
Did i
Criteria
ext?
e there systems that hadarchical aspects , their own
amics)?
there many goal
there problems goal prioritizatio
hese goals essarily conflict?
there situations re the goals ict even if they dn’t necessarily
e to?
there goals that vague?
what extent did thueness of goals plicate decision ng?
e there pendent agents impact decision ng?
ndependent
R
d
that profou
Five to 9 sshown to h
OR
Criteria forthat meets
Low
Four or fewprofoundly
Four or fewcan be sho
s?
n?
High
At least 6 d
At least 3 cissues whi
Medium
Four or 5 d
Two casesissues whi
OR
Criteria forthat meets
Low
Three or fe
One or no influenced
he
High
Three or mimpacted t
Medium
One or 2 gthe ability
Low
Goals wervaguenessdecisions
High
Eight or mdecision m
Six or morconflicted
Rating (High, Me
undly affected de
subsystems whichave different dy
r high and low cas one but not bot
wer examples ofy affected decisio
wer subsystemsown to have diffe
distinct goals
cases where theich influenced de
distinct goals
s where there waich influenced de
r high and low cas one but not bot
ewer distinct goa
cases where go decision makin
more goals that wthe ability of the
goals that were vof the DM to ma
re generally cleas did not appear
ore groups of inmaking
re examples of inor could interfer
Human
edium, Low) an
ecision making
ch impacted decynamics
ategories are noth high criteria)
f situations that on making
s which impactederent dynamics
ere was goal conecision making
as goal conflict oecision making
ategories are noth high criteria)
als
oal conflict or gog
were vague, whe DM to make de
vague, where theake decisions
ar (at least at a hr to impact the a
ndependent agen
ndependent agere with the DM’s
nsystems® Incor
nd Justification
cision making tha
ot met (e.g., any
unfolded over tim
d decision makin
nflict or goal prio
or goal prioritiza
ot met (e.g., any
oal prioritization i
ere the vaguenecisions
e vagueness im
high level), and bility of the DM t
nts who impacte
ents with goals th goals
rporated
at can be
scenario
me that
ng that
oritization
tion
scenario
ssues
ess
pacted
to make
ed
hat
Humansystem
Complexity Defini
have differentthe decision m
Table 9: E
Concept anDefinition
Connectivity:
Things in the environment influence one another in complicated aunpredictableways
ms® Incorpora
Factor and ition
t goals than maker)
acD
Dacatm
Example scena
nd n
and
Example
The prisprocess Picture (not effecdifficultyfor assissecurity used to informatbe acco
Cultural they cremany of
ted
Criteria
agents have goaconflicted with thDM’s goals?
Did independentagents have goaconflicted with onanother in such athat the DM’s demaking was affe
ario mapping
es of decisions w
son break led to gradually revea(COP) among Afctively get informy responding to tstance from othe organizations tyworking at an option changed howmplished;
differences betwated a lack of truf the DM’s decisi
Extremely highAfghanistan (eto Afghans is pfor example, aauthority to therelationships);
Differences in (e.g., people rwere not punisdestroyed trus
A difference inattendant resp
als that he
t als that ne a way
ecision cted?
Mediu
Five tomakin
Three conflic
OR
Criterithat m
Low
Less tmakin
Two oconflic
onto the five
Concept Exam
which involved in
a process of infoaled that there wafghan security a
mation about threhreats; that the A
er security organypically work at aperational or straw the DM saw h
ween Afghanistaust and difficultyions. Factors inc
h emphasis on ie.g., the importaparamount). Thiauthority based oe Afghans (obed
the legal systemresponsible for thshed as they coust);
n the idea of whaponsibility (e.g., a
Rating (High
um
o 7 groups of indg
to 5 examples octed with or could
a for high and lomeets one but no
than 5 groups of g
or fewer examplected with or could
complexity fa
mples
nterrelated facto
ormation gatherias no Common
agencies; that theeats; that the ANANP could not e
nizations; and thaa tactical level aategic level. The
his goals and how
an and Canada ay with coordinatiocluded:
nterpersonal relance of personal s has profound on position alonedience is based
m and widespreahe prison break uld pay to be rel
at it is to have a a police officer t
h, Medium, Low
dependent agen
of independent ad interfere with t
ow categories arot both high crite
f independent ag
es of independend interfere with t
actors (Liaison
ors included:
ing. This Operating e ANP could
NP had effectively ask at Afghan nd are not
ese pieces of w they could
are profound; on, affecting
ationships in relationships implications; e is not “real” on personal
ad corruption probably leased, which
job and the threw away
w) and Justifica
ts who impacted
agents with goalthe DM’s goals
re not met (e.g., ria)
gents who impac
nt agents with gothe DM’s goals
n Officer, Afgh
Concept ImpScenario (Hig
Low) and Ju
High
Many factors thinterrelated andto be consideremaking decisiothere were 15 icultural effects implications whinfluenced the decisions)
Examples of 2n
order effects (ehaving to work culture involvedadditional deciseffects)
Page 25
tion
d decision
s that
any scenario
cted decision
oals that
hanistan)
portance for gh, Medium, ustification
hat are d that have ed when ons (e.g., important and hich DM’s
nd and 3rd e.g., the DM in a different d at least 15 sions or
Pa
Dy
ThasunFoenchtimyoththmthdeacef
It noas(i.thow
age 26
Concept and Definition
ynamics:
he system has spects that nfold over time. or example, the nvironment hanges over me even when ou do nothing; e rate at which ings change ay be variable; ere may be elays between ctions and ffects.
is important to ote hierarchical spects if presente., subsystems at have their wn dynamics
hisevco
ThhahacoAfpo
Diof reunpr
Litrecwo
Laeqfaceqthe
AgAfmo
t
Situations thmaking inclu
There was ato be run by was used fovolunteered the ANP invothe ANP wo(an unpredicANP, for obtcivilians;
The prison bprocess gradPicture (COPnot effectivedifficulty resfor assistancsecurity orgaused to workinformation cbe accompli
Con
s phone becauseven though that woming to);
he Afghans appead little control ovappen”), whereasontrol over eventfghans were not ossible event and
fferent social sta any Afghan he wlationships were
nderstand what tivy to how famili
teracy is so low cords are kept, would help assess
ack of appreciatioquipment was givction of the ANAquipment in the oe DM);
ge is more of a fafghanistan. The Dore respect if he
hat unfolded oveuded:
a 911 system tha the ANP but ther the 911 calls a to take over theolved as the opeuld be contactedctable) windows taining intelligen
break led to a produally revealed tP) among Afghaly get informatioponding to threace from other seanizations typicaking at an operachanged how theshed;
ncept Examples
e he was gettingwas the only pho
eared to have thever events (e.g.,s Canadians typts. This had impl used to the cond were resistant
andards (e.g., thworked with). Th
e important, but wthe relationshipses were interrela
in Afghanistan thwhich means das resource and tr
on for resourcesven to the releva
A changed locatioold location unat
actor in creatingDM felt that he w
e had been older
r time that profo
at was implemene chief of police as he found it ince 911 function; therations room wod to answer them of opportunity foce, and for facili
ocess of informathat there was n
an security agencon about threats;ats; that the ANPcurity organizati
ally work at a tactional or strategie DM saw his go
s
g too many 911 cone the calls we
e perspective th, “what Allah willpically feel they dications; for exacept of practicin to such training
e DM never methe DM knew thatwas not able to as were as he wasated through ma
hat usually no wata is not availabraining requirem
s (e.g., communiant stakeholdersons but left the ttended without n
a sense of authwould have recer;
undly affected d
nted; this was sudiscarded the ph
convenient. The his became a tooould receive the m. This created aor collaboration wtating relationsh
ation gathering. To Common Opecies; that the AN; that the ANP haP could not effecons; and that Af
ctical level and aic level. These poals and how the
Human
CoSc
L
calls, re
at they s will
do have ample, the g for a
t the wife t social actually s not arriage;
written ble that ments;
ications s; one
notifying
hority in eived
decision
upposed hone that DM ol to get calls but additional with the
hips with
This erating NP could ad
ctively ask fghan
are not pieces of ey could
Me
Thrsituoveaffe
Sixsomdyndec
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importacenario (High, MLow) and Justifi
dium
ree specific examuations that unfoer time that profoected decision m
x subsystems witmewhat differentnamics which imcision making
rporated
ance for Medium, ication
mples of olded oundly making
th t
mpacted
Humansystem
Concept anDefinition
which are parthe DM contex
Multiple conflicting goa
Having to achmultiple objectives whmay not be alachievable at same time
Under-specifiegoals:
Goals may bedifficult to achbecause they too vague
ms® Incorpora
nd n
rt of xt).
The DMmaintainthe U.S.differencchange was highfrustratinthat the
There wcontext.
The ANA
The ANP
Kandaha
The CF;
Civilians
The ope
Canadiaa relativeorganizaproceduchange,
als:
hieve
ich l the
The goa
Creating
BuildingANP, Ka
There wthese goadversawas diffiexamplehe proviinvestedin stakeh
ed
e hieve are
Example
The goasuperficof the cu
ted
attempted to gen, train on, and u He found this vces), and felt tha(i.e., there seemhly resistant to cng as time went C2 infrastructure
were subsystems These included
A;
P
ar prison person
s;
erations centre in
an and other foreely fast rate of cations (e.g., longres), with an exc with higher turn
als of the DM inc
g an effective Ka
and maintainingandahar prison p
were some casesoals. One exampries that the DMcult to meet both
e is that the DM ded to trainees w
d (i.e., too much holders withdraw
es of underspeci
al of creating an ially clear but whurrent system wa
Concept Exam
et the relevant stuse communicatvery difficult for mat any interventiomed to be a “set change). This be on and the DM ge would be adeq
s which had their:
nnel;
n which the DM w
eign military orgachange compareger time to train, ception being in nover in the Afgh
cluded:
andahar city secu
g relationships wpersonnel, Borde
s in which it was ple was that the
M was trying to geh of their needs had to balance twith allowing the negative feedbawing from the tra
ified goals includ
effective Kandahhat was actually as only revealed
mples
takeholders to inion equipment p
many reasons (eon he tried did npoint” in the env
ecame more andgrew increasingquate to maintain
r own dynamics
was working.
anizations appeaed to the Afghan longer time to c the rate of pershan organization
urity network
with members of er Security, and
difficult to achie ANP and ANA wet to work togeth and expectationthe feedback acem to save face ack would likely aining).
ded:
har city security required and th
d over time.
nstall, provided by e.g., cultural ot result in
vironment that d more ly hopeless n security.
in this
ared to have
change onnel
ns.
f the ANA, the NDS.
eve all of were her, and it ns. Another curacy that and remain have resulted
network was e poor state
Concept ImpScenario (Hig
Low) and Ju
Medium
There were a nimportant goalsconflicted in difin different situdistinct goals)
Two examples conflict
Primary difficulproblems with gstakeholder buparticipation ragoals conflictin
Medium
One example ogoal that impacability of the DMdecisions
Goals at a highfairly clear, the challenge was
Page 27
portance for gh, Medium, ustification
number of s that fferent ways ations (6
of goal
ty due to getting y-in and
ather than g
of a vague cted the M to make
h level were main to determine
Pa
Inag
Thindeneninfmdifthm
Fudi
3
Bqu
3.
Tdethwscnora
ManIn
age 28
Concept and Definition
dependent gents:
here are dependent ntities in the nvironment who fluence it (they ay have fferent goals an the decision aker)
urther analyseiscussed in th
.4.3 Challe
Both top-downuantify decisi
.4.3.1 Top-
he top-down etermine whehe complexity
were totalled tocenario), and oted (e.g., whating scores an
Scenario
ilitary Liaison nd Advisor, ternational
Independent
The CF;
The ANA (di
The ANP;
Kandahar prprison break
Border secu
NDS;
IEC (Indepe
Mentors.
Large problestakeholdersone wanted
Large probleparticipationdidn’t want t
es were conduhe next section
enges Anal
n and bottom-ion making ch
-down chal
challenges anether differenty ratings wereo get an overathen the scen
hat types of scnd the ordere
Rat
ConnectivityDynamics Multiple conUnder-spec
Con
t agents who inf
idn’t like working
rison personnel k);
rity;
ndent Electoral
ems due to interps (e.g., ANA and to work with the
ems related to ge; this partially a o cooperate with
ucted based on.
yses
-up analyses whallenges.
llenges anal
nalysis quantit scenario type scored (“HIGall complexity
narios were orcenarios apped list of scena
Table 10: Sc
ting Type
y
nflicting goals ified goals
ncept Examples
luenced decision
g with the ANP a
(not trusted; mo
Commission) – r
personal conflictd ANP didn’t wane Kandahar priso
etting stakeholdecultural problemh the DM’s traini
on these mapp
were applied t
lysis
ifies the mapppes appeared tGH” = 2, “MEy score (the hrdered based oared to be higarios by comp
cenario comple
R
HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
s
n making include
and vice versa);
st were new afte
required protect
ts between differnt to work togethon personnel)
er buy-in and adm (e.g., all Afghan
ng plans)
pings, includi
to the data co
pings done (into differ on thEDIUM” = 1
higher the scoon their overaghest in compplexity are pr
exity rating sc
Rating
Human
CoSc
L
curand
ed:
er the
ion;
rent her; no
dequate ni groups
Hig
Eigwhoma
SevindegoacouDM
ing the Challe
ollected in ord
n Section 3.4.heir overall le, and “LOW”
ore, the more call complexityplexity). Overresented in Ta
cores
ComplexityTotal /10
10
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importacenario (High, MLow) and Justifi
rrent security situd needs
gh
ght independento impacted decisking
ven examples ofependent agentsals that conflicteduld interfere with
M’s goals
enges Analyse
der to identify
.2 above). Tovel of comple” = 0), the scocomplex the y and patternsrall complexitable 10.
making contexhat these situahallenges notehallenges are hallenges in gomains.
econd, there domplex decisiend to have hif scenarios (pustify making
However, it caor the five facverall compleomplexity facomplex on allve factors, adverall than do
.4.3.2 Bott
he bottom-upeing challengst of challeng
Annex D). Onc
cenario
nd Advisor, Inter
hanistan
fghanistan
veloper
ategic Advisory T
n Supervisor
velopment Super
n Staff Member
pital Procuremen
g Program Deve
challenges anseveral concl
xts in which thations were ched here do indfrequently ex
general could
does seem to ion making chigher complex
particularly thmany conclu
an be noted froctors individuexity rankingsctors. Rather, l five factors, dding support omestic day-to
tom-up cha
p challenges aging about theges and educace the list was
Table 15: Scen
Ind
national HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MED
Team, MED
MED
rvisor MED
MED
nt LOW
loper LOW
nalysis uses onlusions can bhey had experhallenging. Thdeed make dexperienced byimprove CF
be a pattern ihallenges thanxity than day-at there is onl
usions about wom comparinally that the os of the scenait appears thaand those thato the conclu
o-day scenari
llenges ana
analysis was be decisions theation and trains compiled, th
nario indepen
dependent AgeRating
H
H
H
DIUM
DIUM
DIUM
DIUM
DIUM
W
W
nly a comparie made. Mostrienced the fivhus, it seems ecision makiny CF personneinstruction re
in which certan others. Ope-to-day domely one domeswhy one type ng the overall order of the scarios are not bat scenarios that tend to be lusion that opeios.
alysis
based upon they had to makning suggestiohe challenges
ndent agents r
ents
Domest
Expedit
Expedit
Domest
Expedit
Domest
Domest
Domest
DomestProcure
Domest
ison within tht SMEs had live complexityreasonable to
ng more difficel. Therefore,elated to decis
ain types of scerations, whetestic functionsstic operations
of scenario iscomplexity scenarios rema
being driven bhat tend to beless complex erational scen
hings that the ke in the scenons were coms were examin
Human
ratings
Scenar
tic Operations
tionary Operatio
tionary Operatio
tic Day-to-Day (T
tionary Operatio
tic Day-to-Day (T
tic Day-to-Day (T
tic Day-to-Day (T
tic Day-to-Day (ement)
tic Day-to-Day (T
he set of 10 scittle trouble dy factors, and
o conclude thacult, and also, addressing thsion making i
cenarios tendther domestics. Because of s scenario), its more compl
scores to the cains fairly conby one or twoe very completend to be lesarios tend to
SMEs explicnario they wermpiled into a sned to determ
nsystems® Incor
rio Type
ns
ns
Training)
ns
Training)
Training)
Training)
Equipment
Training)
cenarios devedescribing decd generally inat the complethat the comphese types of in complex
d to have morec or expeditionf the limited nt is difficult tolex than othercomplexity scnstant. That is of the five
ex tend to be ss complex onbe more com
itly mentionere describing.spreadsheet (s
mine if there wrporated
eloped cision
ndicated exity plexity f
e nary,
number o rs.
cores s, the
n all mplex
ed as . The see
were
Humansystem
broader theDescriptionthe themes,and educatistated by thmultiple thesuggestions
General Theme
Authority
Collaboration
Communicatio
ms® Incorpora
emes and subtns of the gene, the scenario ion and traininhe SMEs had emes as appros noted by the
Descripti
Challengesrelated to tpower hierarchy
Challengesrelated to having to wwith others
on Challengesrelated to exchanginginformation
ted
themes preseneral themes ar
types in whicng suggestionmultiple comopriate. Theree SMEs.
Table 16:
ion
s the
Subcomto when when to having esituationcontrol wauthority
s
work s
Subcomto flexibiinsufficiehave joinwith peomisundecollaboracollaborachange rhidden ahigh turncollaborachallengshare infmorale aa high lecollaboracoordinaintelligenskills, hawork, incexperienand deadifferenc
s
g n
Subcomto inadeqwhen cowhen co
nt. These themre provided bech the challenns found relat
mponents; these were a total
Bottom-up A
Subcompo
ponents include people overstep call upon higher
enough authority, and having to d
when passing any
ponents includelity requirements
ent lead time, thent training, havinople with difficult erstandings abouators, a lack of kators, co-locationresistance of colagendas, adversnover, low motivaation difficulties es to credibility, formation, knowand stress, mainevel of interdepeators, difficulty mating work, requince, requiring goaving the proper cluding people wnce, giving creditling with collaboces
ponents includequate communic
ollaborators use dommunication is
mes were thenelow in Tablenges were fouted to the themse challenges of 304 challe
Analysis genera
onents
e challenges relap their authority, r authority, not
y to influence a deal with a loss
n issue on to hig
e challenges relas, having e requirement tong to collaborate personalities, ut the roles of knowledge amonn (or lack thereollaborators, distr
sarial relationshipation, effects of on workload, need to effectiv
wing the team, ntaining leadershendence with mentoring, ring high emotio
ood negotiation people involved
with diverse t to collaborators
orators’ individua
e challenges relacation proceduredifferent jargon, not clear and
n summarizede 16, along wiund, and the nme. Note thatwere duplica
enges and edu
al themes
ScenaType
Represe
ated
of her
Domestionly (i.e.noted in expeditiooperation
Some operationsome daday
ated
o e
ng of), rust, ps,
vely
hip,
onal
d in
s, al
All
ated es,
All
d in the spreadith subcompo
number of chat some challenated and enterucation and tr
ario es ented
NuChall
EducatSug
c ., not onary ns)
nal, ay-to-
6
90
17
Page 33
dsheet. onents of allenges nges as red in raining
umber of enges and tion/Training ggestions
Pa
Cu
Di
Ev
Ex
Go
In
age 34
General Theme
ulture
irection
valuation
xperience
oal conflict
formation
Description
with others
Challenges related to cultural differences
Challenges related to understanding command intent or other instructions
Challenges related to determining if goals have been accomplished
Challenges related to the skills and knowledge possessed by DMs
Challenges related to having multiplegoals that can conflict
Challenges related to the information available to theDM (not meantto include challenges related to communicating
honest, inadinfrastructurefor communiplace, when timely, or nocommunicatcivilians than
Subcomponelanguages, ladifferences idifferent belidifferent socrates, and th
Subcomponedirection, hacommand, bimpossible ta
Subcomponebaseline avabeing difficulrequired, a lunpredictabi
ponents includen the right job, nhority, effects of g independence
ponents includeg, having the righ time, dealing wi
previous similar et assumptions, st planning, procered information, ig components, lor points, adaptingh rate of chang by outside forcerequiring update
ng needs early, rmelines, lack of cvailable resourceg planning, usingulnerable to the uctability
ponents includenication infrastructure, lack of eq
g, need to achieves, having a fundtent expectation
s in available resuences, uncertainrtation, availabilitng, balancing, shment, sleep anion
components note
onents
eal world
e security nditions, and lack
e having the rightnetworking, deali being Type A, a
ong lead times, ung plans, backupge, changes es, resource ed information, requiring flexibili
control, high stakes, requirement fg go/no go criterunexpected, and
e budget concerncture, power
quipment, timelinve multiple ding review,
ns, time limitationsources and nty, roads, ty in general,
staff, location, d rest, and
ed
ScenaType
Represe
k of All
t ing and
All
at ng a nty,
lack e of use p
ity, kes, for ria, d
All
ns,
ne,
ns,
All
Domestiday-to-dand expeditio
ario es ented
NuChall
EducatSug
6
5
50
43
c ay
onary
7
Page 35
umber of enges and tion/Training ggestions
Pa
Stiss
Topapchto“Sinsith
HlaLdetosido
3.
TidgewcoT
age 36
General Theme
trategic sues
here were sevperations, domppeared only hallenges appo-day and expStrategic issundicate that thituations, and hese challenge
However, althoarge number wocation, Persecision makino improve howituations. Theocumented in
.4.3.3 Bott
he bottom-updentified relateneral to com
was used to suommunicationable 17 for th
Description
DM’s role or the role of trainees is important
Challenges related to the strategic level of operation (e.g., governmental directives; considering strategic implications of actions)
veral types ofmestic day-toin domestic s
peared only inpeditionary sces”). Because
here are differdifferent typ
es are present
ough there wewere (Collaboonality, Plannng difficult acw these challee importance on previous res
tom-up edu
p analysis wasted to the gen
mbine closely rmmarize the n is clear” and
he list of botto
No subcomp
f challenges tho-day functionscenarios (“An expeditionarcenarios, but ne these challenrent types of des of instructit to an equal e
ere some chaloration, Commning, and Rescross contextsenges are hanof teamwork, earch also (e.
ucation and
s examined aneral themes. Arelated suggespecific SMEd “Need to wom-up educat
Subcomponen
ponents noted
hat did not apns, and exped
Authority”, “Evry scenarios, anot in domestnges did not adecision makiion may be reextent in all sc
llenge types tmunication, Dsources). Thiss. Therefore, dndled and this
collaboration.g., see Thom
training su
nd specific edAs appropriatestions. For exE suggestions
work on gettingtion and traini
nts
ppear in all typitionary operavaluation”, anand some thetic operations appear acrossing challengeequired. Of cocenario types
that were not Direction, Goas suggests thadecision makinstruction w
n and commumson, Adams,
uggestions
ducation and tte, specific suxample, “Mak“Comes dowg everyone sping suggestion
Human
Scenario Types
Represented
Domestic day-to-day and expeditionary
pes of scenariations). Severnd “Experienmes appeared(“Role justif
s all scenario es that are fouourse, it is alss, and were sim
found across al conflict, In
at there are chking instructiowould be helpunication to C
Hall, Brown,
training sugguggestions weke sure comm
wn to making peaking the sans.
nsystems® Incor
d
NumbeChalleng
Education/Sugges
y
3
ios (domesticral challenge
nce”), “Culturd in domesticfication” and types, this ma
und in differenso possible thmply not dete
all scenario tnformation, hallenges that on could be utpful in a great CF success has, Flear, 2011)
estions were ere made a bitmunication is
sure all ame language
rporated
er of es and /Training stions
c types
re” day-
ay nt
hat ected.
types, a
make tilized many
s been ).
t more clear”
e”. See
Humansystem
General The
Authority
Collaboration
Communicatio
Culture
Direction
Evaluation
ms® Incorpora
me Descri
Challengerelated topower hie
Challengerelated toto work wothers
on Challengerelated toexchangininformatioothers
Challengerelated tocultural difference
Challengerelated tounderstancommandor other instruction
Challengerelated todeterminigoals hav
ted
Table 17
ption
es o the erarchy
Be sutime
es o having with
Bringmeetidecisneeds
Effeccommcreatetrust
CF penegotbuild
Knowtype oteam
Build
Coordnotify
Take
es o ng on with
Make
Make
es o
es
Makediffere
es o nding d intent
ns
Make
Needfor th
es o ng if
ve been
Needidentivalid that it
7: Bottom-up
General Educa
ure to engage yo
all required peoings to solve proions as a team, s, etc.
tive collaboratiomon understandie a network of p
ersonnel must htiation skills, inte relationships
w your team – whof knowledge, th players
and use a perso
dinate involvemey early when you
care of group co
e sure communic
e sure you get al
e sure you underences and their
e sure you have
d to ensure that te task
d to compare plaify what worked – this needs to bt is used
training sugg
ation/Training S
our higher autho
ople together foroblems, coordina understand peo
n requires instruing between org
personal relation
ave good emotioerpersonal skills,
ho is on the teamheir personality,
onal network of
ent of collaboratu want groups inv
ohesion, keep p
cation is clear
l required inform
rstand the exten impact on your
clear intent and
the command st
an to actual steps and whether asbe done in an ac
gestions
Suggestions
ority at the prope
r face-to-face ate, make ople’s views and
uction to evolve aanizations and tships and build
onal intelligence, and be able to
m, their level andwhether they ar
relationships
tors – get buy-involved
people engaged
mation
t of cultural mission
that it is recorde
tructure is suitab
s taken and sumptions wereccessible way so
NumbSpec
EducationSugge
er 1
43
a to
e,
d re
,
5
1
ed 8
ble
e o
4
Page 37
ber of cific n/Training estions
Pa
G
Ex
Go
In
Lo
Pe
Pl
Re
age 38
General Theme
xperience
oal conflict
formation
ocation
ersonality
lanning
esources
Descriptio
accomplished
Challenges related to the skills and knowledge possessed byDMs
Challenges related to havmultiple goalsthat can confl
Challenges related to the information available to thDM (not meanto include challenges related to communicatinwith individua
Challenges related to whethe scenario took place
Challenges related to the personality ofthe DM
Challenges related to creating or modifying pla
Challenges related to managing or finding adequresources
n Gen
d Use empion experi
y
Need the recent exyou need
ving s ict
Need to cdecisions
he nt
ng als)
Should enupdated i
Be carefu
“Real wor
ere No educachallenge
f
Need to hhow you hindepend
ns
Need to b
Need to bplanning
Need to u(e.g., how
Use planntrigger po
uate
If possiblepools to a
Time resoresources
neral Education
irical evidence wence and intuitio
right person in txperience – get p (e.g., SMEs)
carefully consides with conflicting
nsure that you hnformation
ul about data acc
rld” information i
ation or training se.
have the right pehandle lack of auence, ability to e
be able to see w
be flexible and a
understand how w much detail, ho
ning techniques oints, OPP vs. IP
e, try to take advachieve multiple
ource acquisitions can be used
n/Training Sugg
when available aon if you don’t ha
the right job – prpeople with the e
er pros and cons goals
ave access to re
curacy
s often better th
suggestions for t
ersonality for theuthority, how yoestablish relation
hen plans need
ble to handle am
much planning iow far in advanc
as required (go/PP)
vantage of relate goals
n properly relativ
Human
gestions
and don’t rely ave to
roper and experience
s of possible
ecently
an instruction
this
e job (e.g., u handle nships)
to change
mbiguity in
is required ce)
/no go points,
ed resource
ve to when
nsystems® Incor
Number oSpecific
Education/TraSuggestio
5
2
4
0
5
11
2
rporated
of c aining
ons
Humansystem
General The
Role justificat
Strategic issu
As can be sthe SMEs, asuggestionsindicating t
3.4.4 Co
Mapping thappear to banalyses, detwo remain
1. Wma
2. Wan
3.4.4.1 E
Once the bodetermine tidentified frexperience additional weducation a
To determinexamples rerelated to o
ms® Incorpora
me Descri
ion Challengerelated toto convincothers thaDM’s rolerole of trais importa
es Challengerelated tostrategic operationgovernmedirectivesconsiderinstrategic implicatioactions)
seen from Taband much oves than Generathat this is an
ollective Ana
he five main ce relevant to tescribed in Se
ning important
hat is the degain challengeshat are the gad training sup
Examining o
ottom-up chalthe extent to wfrom the compof CF person
ways of preseand training.
ne whether thelated to eachne of the five
ted
ption
es o having ce at the e or the ainees ant
Need
es o the level of
n (e.g., ental s; ng
ons of
Try toaspec
ble 17, there werlap (as indic
al ones). Mostarea where C
alyses
complexity fathe experiencection 2.4.4) wt questions. T
gree of overlaps that we examaps in the compporting decis
overlap betw
llenges analywhich they coplexity literatunnel can be efenting informa
he general theh theme were e main comple
General Educa
d to be able to jus
o be sensitive to cts of planning
were many (9cated by the ft suggestions
CF instruction
actors to the scces of the SMwere perform
These question
p between themined from th
mplexity literasion making?
ween compl
sis was perfoontained compure review. T
ffectively descation about ch
eme overlappeexamined. If exity factors,
ation/Training S
stify your role
potential strateg
96) education fact that usualwere related
n should be im
cenarios showMEs. The collemed to integra
ns were:
e challenges ihe complexityature that hav?
lexity resea
ormed, the genponents of the
This was donecribed using challenges wou
ed with the cof an example c
it was provid
Suggestions
gic issues in all
and training lly there are mto enhancing
mproved.
wed that the cective analyseate the previou
identified by y literature?
ve to be addre
arch and SM
neral themes we five main co
e to determinecomplexity iduld be require
omplexity catcould be founded and taken
NumbSpec
EducationSugge
4
1
suggestions omany more Spg collaboration
complexity faes (overlap anus analyses an
SMEs and th
ssed in CF ed
ME experien
were examineomplexity face whether the deas, or whethed to facilitate
tegory, the spnd which appen as evidence
Page 39
ber of cific n/Training estions
offered by pecific n, possibly
actors nd gap nd answer
e five
ducation
nce
ed to ctors actual
her e
pecific eared to be for
Pa
ovwtoobpr
Au
Co
Co
age 40
verlap betweewas obviously o not overlap btained in thiresented in Ta
General Theme
uthority
ollaboration
ommunication
en the generalrelated to onwith the coms project). Thable 18.
Description
Challenges related to the power hierarchy
Challenges related to having to workwith others
Challenges related to exchanging information with others
l theme and the of the five cplexity factor
he description
Table 18: Ove
Subc
Subcomponchallenges rpeople overauthority, whhigher authoenough autha situation, e
k
Subcomponchallenges rlocation (or change resicollaboratoragendas, et
Subcomponcollaboratorjargon, wheprocedures information when commvague, etc.
he complexitycomplexity far (although it
n of the overla
erlap between
components
nents include related to when rstep their hen to call uponority, not having hority to influencetc.
nents include related to co-lack thereof), stance of
rs, distrust, hiddetc.
nents include whrs use different n necessary for communicatwere not in plac
munication was
y factor. If noactors, then thcould be that
ap between th
n challenge an
ce
Contains eto engagetime), mulresolution maintaininindependeoverstepp
There weror undersp
en
Contains eleaders in identified atraining. Twith organpossibility and createmeeting refavourably(e.g., delicand helpfudemotivattried to mestakeholdemore and different wpeople weprotective
en
ing ce,
Contains eexisted foorganizatiproblem ainformatioconductingCanadian quickly in of riots), amembers informatio
There werconflicting
Human
o example couhat general thet this informathe two challen
alyses
Ove
elements of dyne higher authorityltiple conflicting g by engaging hig
ng control of decent agents (e.g.,ping their range o
re no obvious expecified goals.
elements of con collaborating orand invited to at
This would resultnizations, peopley for on-going coe an embedded equests were rey over time), mucate balance betul feedback and ted), underspecifeet demands forers kept coming for information t
ways), and indepere highly motivae).
elements of conr communicatingons (e.g., RCMP
as it was illegal toon from CF assetg surveillance of soil), dynamics the Afghan popuand independent did not appropri
on to the DM in a
re no obvious exg goals or unders
nsystems® Incor
uld be found eme was cons
ation was simpnge analyses i
rlap
amics (e.g., maky at proper pointgoals (e.g., gettigher authority vscision making), a, stakeholders wof authority).
xamples of conn
nectivity (e.g., urganizations shottend CF educatt in building famie, and jargon, crollaborative exerc liaison), dynami
esponded to lessltiple conflicting tween giving acc making people fied goals (e.g., r requirements b
g back and askinto be presented pendent agents (ated to be self-
nectivity (e.g., ng CF intelligenceP) and this was ao communicate ts that had to dof Canadians on (e.g., news canulation, adding tt agents (e.g., soiately communic
a timely way).
xamples of multispecified goals.
rporated
that sidered ply not is
king sure ts in ing s. and were
nectivity
upcoming ould be ion and iliarity reate the cises, ics (e.g.,
s goals curate
the DM but ng for in (e.g.,
no nexus e to other a serious
o with
travel to the risk ome team cate
ple
Humansystem
General Theme
Culture
Direction
Evaluation
Experience
Goal conflict
ms® Incorpora
Descript
Challengerelated to cultural differences
Challengerelated to understandcommand intent or otinstruction
Challengerelated to determiningoals havebeen accomplish
Challengerelated to tskills and knowledgepossessedDMs
Challengerelated to having mugoals that conflict
ted
tion S
s
s
Subcomspeakinlack of cunderstathe lega
s
ding ther s
Subcomgetting can unclebeing asimpossi
s
ng if e
hed
Subcomdelays, objectivdifficult,
s the
e d by
Subcommaking is in theintuitionexperien
s
ultiple can
Subcomconsideand achconflicti
Subcomponents
mponents includeg different langucommon anding, differenc
al system, etc.
mponents includeclear direction, hear chain of comsked to perform ble task, etc.
mponents includeno baseline avae assessment b etc.
mponents include sure the right pe
e right job, using , needing relevance, etc.
mponents includeering multiple fachieving multiple ng objectives
s
e uages,
ces in
Contaliteracwrittenthere
Theremultip
e having mmand, an
Contacoordcommneedemultipfrom hfunds be a pconcreagentsuperresult
There
e time ailable, being
Contaanalysactuaassumfeedbrespo
Thereconflic
e erson ant
Contaknow servagoals the fethat precen
Thereunder
e ctors
Contahave will alpositivbalanconflicgivingpeople(e.g., consu
O
ains elements of cy rate in Afghann records), and is a high level o
e were no obviouple conflicting go
ains elements of inate as much a
mand (e.g., CANOed to form educaple conflicting gohigher command available), undeproblem that Gerete and clear intts (e.g., requestsriors about priorit in clear directio
e were no obviou
ains elements of se steps taken, l operation, iden
mptions), dynamback), and indepeond unpredictably
e were no obvioucting goals or un
ains elements of how Ottawa wonts, procuremen (e.g., need to b
ence”), and indeppeople creating et experience).
e were no obviourspecified goals.
ains elements of multiple conflictimost inevitably avely and negativce short-term ancting goals (e.g.g accurate and he demotivated), changes to progultation with a lar
Overlap
f connectivity (e.gnistan so there aindependent agef corruption in A
us examples of doals, or underspe
f connectivity (e.gas possible with OSCOM) to get ation and trainingoals (e.g., given d to do things wierspecified goalsnerals don’t givetent), and indepes for clarificationtization of progran).
us examples of d
f connectivity (e.gOPP used, com
ntify what workedmics (e.g., lack of
endent agents (ey to events).
us examples of mnderspecified go
f connectivity (e.grks, dealing with
nt, etc.), multiplee able to “walk bpendent agents exercises have p
rsh Contains eenvironmefrequent), large impaand indeptraining couniform).
There werconflicting
ng Contains eestablish r(e.g., can’CoE positthe militar
There wermultiple co
f
Contains eprison breand manydynamics because tconflictingof biddersthe end thgoals (e.gcontractin(true sustaleading to
et,
Contains eget travellvehicles a(e.g., beca
Human
Ove
elements).
re no obvious excified goals.
elements of cong involve many i (e.g., unpredicta
on exchange (sile), and independetance to including factors).
re no obvious exg goals or unders
elements of conental effects mak dynamics (e.g.,act on flexibility tpendent agents (ourse location to
re no obvious exg goals or unders
elements of conrelationships), a’t have type-A petions because thry).
re no obvious exonflicting goals,
elements of coneak there was a y assumptions w (e.g., training cathe rate of changg goals (strategies focussed on gehere were too mag., deliverables kg was difficult), aainment was not
o lack of planning
elements of coners back to the c
and poor passabause of a short p
nsystems® Incor
rlap
xamples of
nectivity (e.g., pinterrelated factoable response aence or many ment agents (e.g.,
ng testing for all
xamples of multispecified goals.
nectivity (e.g., thke maintenance, location of confto replenish reso(e.g., demand byo not have traine
xamples of multispecified goals.
nectivity (e.g., nand independent ersonalities in fu
hey may butt hea
xamples of dyna or underspecifie
nectivity (e.g., adistrust of prison
were reassessed)annot rely on temge is too high), mes for controllingetting more biddeany), underspec
kept changing soand independent practiced by thg information).
nectivity (e.g., dcompound due t
bility of roads), dyplanning timeline
rporated
proposals ors), after more
, there important
ple
he more flict had ources), y the ees in
ple
need to agents
ull-time ads with
amics, ed goals.
after the n staff ), mplates multiple g number ers so in
cified o nt agents e BG,
difficult to to lack of ynamics e
Humansystem
General Theme
Role justification
Strategic issu
As can be shave signifialthough th“Goal conflclose conneway that theducation, aduring educ
Another wafive comple
ms® Incorpora
Descript
adequate resources
Challengerelated to having to convince others thatDM’s role the role of trainees isimportant
es Challengerelated to tstrategic leof operatio
seen from Tabficant overlap here is significflict” and the cection betweeese challengeas CF personncation and tra
ay of looking exity factors.
ted
tion S
etc.
s
t the or
No subc
s the evel on
No subc
ble 18, most owith the five
cant overlap, complexity faen how the SMes are presentenel should be
aining to maxi
at the data prThis has been
Subcomponents
components
components
of the general main compleit should be nactor “MultiplMEs think of ted in the com
e able to identimize underst
resented in Tan done in Tab
s
changchangmultipnew trresoudisagrscopethe timsize is
Contaconsuunderguys”)appre
Theremultip
Contagoverunexpconfliclimited(e.g., when
Thereunder
l themes fromexity factors enoted that onlle conflictingthe challenge
mplexity literatify with the wtanding of the
able 18 is to oble 19 below.
O
ges in one resouges had to be maple conflicting goraining programrces), underspereements betwee of funding), andme of trainees iss limited).
ains elements of ultant might haverspecified goals ), and independ
eciation for DM’s
e were no obviouple conflicting go
ains elements of rnment announcpected readjustmcting goals (e.g.d resource optio got unwanted at wore military un
e were no obviourspecified goals.
m the bottom-uexamined in tly in the case g goals” does es to their decature. This is iway that challe ideas being
organize the d
Overlap
urce meant that oade to accommo
oals (e.g., requires are given withocified goals (e.g
een stakeholdersd independent a
s limited, so train
f connectivity (e.ge had a bigger im(e.g., “go PSYOent agents (e.g. contribution).
us examples of doals.
f connectivity (e.gements can forc
ments in training), political/strateg
ons), and indepettention at strateniforms).
us examples of d
up challengesthis project. Hof the generathere appear
cision makingimportant for lenges are prepresented.
data according
Page 43
other odate it), ements for out additional
g., s regarding agents (e.g., ning package
g., an outside mpact),
OPS those , lack of
dynamics or
g., ce ), multiple gic concerns ndent agents
egic level
dynamics or
s analysis However, al theme to be a
g and the
esented
g to the
Pa
Co
Dy
Mgo
Un
In
3.
Olitchwif anto
Tbococorew
Au
age 44
Complexity Fac
onnectivity
ynamics
ultiple conflictingoals
nderspecified go
dependent agen
.4.4.2 Gap
One of the impterature and thallenges to th
well captured if the CF educanalysis is baseo the findings
o determine iottom-up chaomplexity liteomplexity conesearch are in
would be diffic
General Them
uthority
Tabl
ctor
CollaboInforma
AuthoriPlannin
g Authoriissues
oals Collabo
nts Authoriconflictissues
p analysis
portant piecesthe actual exphe decision min the compleation and trained upon the lidescribed in
if there were gllenges analyerature was idncepts have b
ncluded wherecult to investi
me Des
Challengthe powe
le 19: Themes
Gene
oration; Communation; Location; P
ty; Collaborationng; Resources
ty; Collaboration
oration; Direction
ty; Collaboration; Information; Lo
s of informatioperience of CFmaking of CF exity literaturening processeiterature reviethat subsectio
gaps, the geneysis were examdentified and ibeen investigae applicable; higate these co
Ta
scription
ges related to er hierarchy
s organized by
eral Themes wh
nication; CulturePersonality; Plan
n; Communicatio
n; Direction; Exp
n; Planning; Res
n; Communicatioocation; Persona
on required frF personnel ispersonnel in
e. These gapses are to be adew described on of docume
eral themes amined and anyincluded in th
ated in microwhowever, just
oncepts. The g
able 20: Gap a
Subcompon
Subcomponentinclude challengrelated to whenoverstep their awhen to call upohigher authorityhaving enough authority to influsituation, etc.
y five complex
hich Contain th
e; Direction; Evalnning; Resource
on; Evaluation; G
perience; Goal co
sources; Role jus
on; Culture; Direality; Planning; R
rom this comps a determinatseemingly co
s need to be iddequately supearlier in this
ents which we
nd related exything not apphe gap analysworlds and pot because a gagap analysis i
analysis
nents
s ges
n people authority, on y, not
uence a
The indethat agenauththis litera
Oftepartmeamakand highmakand
Human
xity factors
he Complexity F
luation; Experienes; Role justificat
Goal conflict; Info
onflict; Planning
stification
ction; EvaluationResources; Role
mparison of thetion of what iomplex envirodentified and pported. Note s report, and tere reviewed.
amples generparently repre
sis. Explicit exotential limitaap is noted dos presented in
Gap Ana
complexity literaependent agents some of these ints could be in ahority over the D was not exploreature reviewed.
en in microworldsicipant is the on
ans they are the king authority in t do not have to w
her authority. Teaking is likely unde more research
nsystems® Incor
Factor
nce; Goal confliction; Strategic is
ormation; Locati
; Resources; Str
n; Experience; G justification; Str
e complexity important onments are ninvestigated that the gap
therefore is li
rated from theesented in thexamples of hoations in this oes not mean tn Table 20 be
alysis
ature mentions s; it is possible ndependent
a position of M, although
ed in the
s the ly DM; this main decision the situation worry about a am decision errepresented is needed to
rporated
ct; sues
on;
rategic
Goal rategic
not further
mited
e e ow the
that it elow:
Humansystem
General Th
Collaboration
Communicatio
ms® Incorpora
heme
Chalhavinothe
on Chalexchinforothe
ted
Description
llenges related tng to work with rs
llenges related thanging rmation with rs
Subcom
to Subcomponinclude charelated to c(or lack thechange rescollaboratorhidden age
to Subcomponinclude whecollaboratordifferent jarnecessary pfor communinformation place, whencommunicavague, etc.
mponents
nents allenges co-location reof),
sistance of rs, distrust, ndas, etc.
nents en rs use rgon, when procedures nicating were not in n ation was
Gap A
understand howinfluences compmaking.
There are examexperience wheadvise and doesdecision making
There is also anexperience of thcreating a perceimportance of hperception of aunot investigated
There was little in the complexitreviewed that decollaborative proin cases where makes decisionthan each teamresponsible for t
The collaborativdecision makingin microworlds, critical in the CFdirection from hthey work in teaare usually implteams).
Specific aspectsworthy of mentioimportance of nagendas, co-loccommon undersnegotiation, havdisagreements, dealing with per
The need to gatappears to be incomplexity literathere is little disis actually accomchallenges invo
Communicationmuch more impcontexts than asmicroworlds, at reviewed in this
Analysis
w authority plex decision
mples in CF ere the DM can osn’t have overt g power.
n example in CF he rank of the DMeption of the is role – the uthority generallyd in microworlds.
acknowledgemety literature ecision making iocess, particularthe entire team s together, rathe member being task component
ve nature of g is usually ignorwhereas it is
F (people get igher command
ams, and decisiolemented by
s of collaborationon include: the etworking, hidde
cation, building astanding, ving to deal with team building, arsonnel turnover
ther information ncluded in the ature; however, cussion of how tmplished or the lved.
n appears to be ortant in CF s represented in least the ones project (althoug
Page 45
only
M
y is .
ent
s a rly
er
ts.
red
, ons
n
en a
and r.
this
n
gh
Pa
Cu
Di
age 46
General Them
ulture
irection
me Des
Challengcultural d
Challengunderstacommanother ins
scription
ges related to differences
ges related to anding nd intent or structions
Subcompon
Subcomponentinclude speakindifferent langualack of commonunderstanding, differences in thsystem, etc.
re is a teamworkature that may ine). While commle in microworlds needs to acquireerally how the D the environmen
erms of commun
ecific aspects of cthy of note includ
mmunication to bemplete, and accu
d to deal with difen trying to commerent organizatio
complexity literaependent agents cultural differenDM and indepenht add to the comision making, altexplored in the lewed.
tural issues as aerally critical for editionary operamples of them ine not noted, at leature reviewed fortant aspects oude language diferal differences erstanding (e.g.,ing a job mean? be trained for a erences in socialtionship of age tal infrastructure ks in Afghanista
erent literacy rate
s category appealar to the fact tha
mplexity literaturesometimes difficls, whether it is g
m higher commanating concrete go
mponents of decolving direction w
nsystems® Incor
alysis
k-based nvolve this unication plays s in that the
re information, DM interacts nt is not framed nication.
communication de the need for e clear, rate, and the fferent jargon municate with ons.
ature mentions s; it is possible nces between ndent agents mplexity of though this was iterature
whole are the CF in
ations and yet n microworlds east in the for this report. of culture fferences, in , what does How should job?), l norms (e.g., to authority), (e.g., no
an), and es.
ars to be at in the
e it is noted that cult to get clear getting goals nd or the DM oals.
ision making which are
rporated
Humansystem
General Th
Evaluation
Experience
Goal conflict
ms® Incorpora
heme
Chaldetehaveacco
Chalthe sknowposs
Chalhavinthat
ted
Description
llenges related trmining if goals
e been omplished
llenges related tskills and wledge sessed by DMs
llenges related tng multiple goalscan conflict
Subcom
to Subcomponinclude timebaseline avobjective asbeing difficu
to Subcomponinclude makright personright job, usneeding relexperience
to s
Subcomponinclude conmultiple facachieving mconflicting o
mponents
nents e delays, no vailable, ssessment ult, etc.
nents king sure the n is in the sing intuition, evant , etc.
nents nsidering ctors and multiple objectives
Gap A
important to thestressed in micrthe need to obehaving the optiowith higher comneed to understhierarchy.
This theme ovethe fact that theliterature notes difficult to determeffect on the enfeedback is delaMicroworld reseto improve how their impact on environments – solutions have ydetermined. Thuobvious gaps beand the complex
Many researche1996) note that plays an importadetermining theDM in complex However, the acof experience wdifference are nunderstood (e.gskills or situation
Often microworldecision makershas limited expeenvironment). Inare trained to filare often carefutheir skills and ethe right person
This theme appcompletely with conflicting goalscomplexity litera
Some specific econflict have soare usually not i
Analysis
e CF which are nroworlds includeey higher commaon to clarify orde
mmand, and the tand the comma
rlaps heavily wit complexity that it is often mine your net vironment, that ayed, etc. earchers are tryin people evaluatecomplex though clear yet to be us, there are no etween this themxity literature.
ers (e.g., Dörner experience likelant role in effectiveness odecision makingctual component
which make a not thoroughly g., are there genen specific skills?
lds use novice s (at least, the Derience in that n the CF, peoplel their roles, and
ully selected for experience (“neen in the right job”
ears to overlap the factor “Mults” from the ature.
ges related to mation e to the DM ant to include es related to
nicating with als)
ges related to he scenario ce
ges related to onality of the
gnitive psycholights that could
Subcompon
Subcomponentinclude getting information withfinding it difficulcorrect informathaving insufficieetc.
Subcomponentinclude harsh conditions, securequirements, laflexibility, etc.
Subcomponentinclude indepentype A, having tpersonality for tetc.
logy and cognid be incorporat
nents
micrstak
s
h errors, lt to get tion, ent data,
Thisthe ithat net ethat inforchannotethat inco
s
urity ack of
The inclurelatdecimighcomspec
s ndence, the right the job,
The consalthodiffegenerathethe beffecdeciGrisin tetendones
The genereseconsdetegoodrelataspeby thto aplitera
itive science (eted into comple
Human
Gap Ana
roworlds (e.g., mkeholder expecta
s theme overlapsidea in the comp it is difficult to deffect on the env there is often a rmation to deal wnge over time, eeworthy aspect o information can
orrect.
complexity literaudes consideratited to the locatioision making (e.ght make a decisi
mplex, even if thecify a location pe
complexity literasider individual dough these are gerences in expereral decision maer than personabehaviours notective or ineffectivision making consogono, 2010) coerms of personaldency to attributeself or others).
personality of therally considereearch, although ssidered in the coermining whethed and poor actorted to decision mects of personalhe CF personneppear in the comature (e.g., being
e.g., goal formaex decision ma
nsystems® Incor
alysis
managing ations)2.
s heavily with plexity literature determine your vironment, and great deal of with and it may etc. One of this theme is n actually be
ature generally ion that factors on involved in g., weather) ion more ey do not er se.
ature does differences, generally rience and aking skill ality. Some of ed as being ve in complex ntexts (e.g., ould be framed lity (e.g., the e failures to
he DM is not d in microworld some is ontext of er there are r behaviours making. Most ity mentioned
el do not seem mplexity g type A, being
ation and selecaking and micr
rporated
ction) roworld
Humansystem
General Th
Planning
Resources
ms® Incorpora
heme
Chalcreaplan
Chalmanadeq
ted
Description
llenges related tting or modifyings
llenges related taging or finding quate resources
Subcom
to g
Subcomponinclude chaassumptioninsufficient lack of cont
to
Subcomponinclude communicainfrastructubudget, etc
mponents
nents allenging ns, planning, trol, etc.
nents
ations re, roads,
c.
Gap A
able to get alongand network).
As noted in the the results of the(see Section 3.1an attempt by Dframework integand motivationagood/poor actorUnfortunately, athis report that lreadily availableis not cited or re
There appear tocomplexity factofor this theme (wlarge). The needmodify plans is complexity litera
Components of not be adequatecomplexity literaneed to involve planning as welhow the plan wiobservers (similCollaboration th
The complexity discusses time amust be managterms of the dynenvironment reqmonitor time anenvironment at
Resources typiclimitations that hconsidered whedecisions, and sissues would likmost microworldThus, resource central to most research.
One other aspemanagement - sdisagreements aperceptions relaallocation - are
Analysis
g with other peo
section discussie literature revie1), there is curre
Dörner to create grating personalial elements with r behaviours. as of the writing oiterature is not
e in English, andeviewed here.
o be a lot of ors that are relevwhich is quite d to plan and central in the ature.
planning that mely covered by thature include the other groups in l as understand ll be perceived blar to the
heme).
literature as a resource thed, particularly inamics of the quiring the DM tod interact with thparticular times.
cally represent have to be en making similar resource kely be used in d environments. management is microworld
ct of resource stakeholder and the ated to resource important in CF
Page 49
ople
ion ew ently a ity
of
d so
vant
ight he e by
hat n
o he .
Pa
Ro
Stgodicoimac
TbocoremcobeprSprehade
Acewththfa
age 50
General Them
ole justification
trategic issues (eovernmental rectives; onsidering stratemplications of ctions)
he gap analysottom-up chaomplexity liteeviewed for th
mentioned in thonsidered beye little acknowrocess, and Dpecific relatedeview) includaving to negoealt with in th
As previously ertainly possib
was not includhe complexityhe education aactors may be
me Des
Challenghaving toothers throle or thtrainees
e.g.,
egic
Challengthe strateoperation
sis presented llenges analyerature, there his project whhe literature r
yond the scopwledgement i
DMs rely on otd issues that se having to d
otiate. Similarhe complexity
noted, becausble that the g
ded in this revy literature, thand training oe omitted.
scription
ges related to o convince hat the DM’s he role of is important
ges related to egic level of n
above shows ysis are somew
appear to be hen it is compreview sectionpe of this projein the complether people foshould be exaeal with teamrly, the need fy literature rev
se the literatuaps identifiediew. Howeve
hey present a rof military SM
Subcompon
No subcompon
No subcompon
that, while a what similar ta number of g
pared to the exn (Section 3.1ect. Thereforexity literatureor informationamined in futu
m building, havfor DMs to juviewed for th
ure review undd in this analyer, to the extenrisk to the pla
MEs to make d
nents
contadeqcom
ents The micrto dehavi
ents Straimpoare ginterof isreprliteraalthonot b
Straof fatheycont
number of thto those ideas gaps in the coxperience of C1), reviewing e, in the literae that decisionn as well as toure work (incving to deal w
ustify their rolis project, bu
dertaken in thysis are simplynt that these gan of using thdecisions in c
Human
Gap Ana
texts but may noquately represen
mplexity literature
complexity literaroworld researcheal with issues sing to justify thei
ategic issues areortant issues to tgenerally relatedrnational relationssues could likelyresented in the cature as importaough the term stbe used per se.
ategic issues couactor used in micy were presentedtext. Similar to re
he general the we examined
omplexity liteCF SMEs. Foteam decisio
ature reviewen making is oo implement
cluding a morwith personnele also does n
ut may be addr
his project way examined ingaps are real a
he complexitycomplex envir
nsystems® Incor
alysis
ot be nted in the e.
ature and h do not appear such as the DM ir role.
e extremely the CF as they d to high level ns. These types y be complexity ant goals, trategic would
uld be one level croworlds, if d in a military esource issues.
emes from thed from the erature that wor example, aon making wad, there appea
often a collabotheir decisione in-depth liteel turnover, an
not appear to bressed elsewh
as rather limitn other researand not addre
y literature to ronments, as
rporated
e
was s
as ared to orative ns. erature nd be here.
ted, it is rch that essed in guide critical
Humansystem
4. D
The overalldecision maeducation agoal, we att
1. Docom
2. Arecov
3. Whma
4. Can
These quesgained, lim
4.1 Doch
CF personncomplexitylittle troubland general
We empiricwe were exthe scenarioscenarios toconcluded t
4.2 Ardelite
There do apthat are notchallenges review. Somliterature orthe collaborimportant csuch as jargaddressed i
ms® Incorpora
Discuss
l goal of this paking (in partand training retempted to an
CF personnemplexity literae there challenvered by the chat challengesaking? n microworld
tions will be mitations of thi
o CF persohallenges
nel do seem toy literature. Ane coming up lly agreed tha
cally assessedxamining and os described bo at least somthat the challe
re there checision maerature?
ppear to be mt adequately aexperienced bme aspects ofr deemed to brative nature
components wgon differencen other comp
ted
sion
project was toticular, findinelated to decinswer several
el experience ature? nges that CF complexity lits need to be a
ds likely be us
answered in tis research, an
onnel expdescribed
o experience tnecdotally, wwith multiple
at such factors
d whether therthe experienc
by the SMEs.me extent, and
enges describ
hallengesaking that
many types of addressed in thby CF personf CF decision be beyond theof decision m
which were noes between or
plexity researc
o determine thngs from reseasion making iquestions, in
the types of d
personnel typterature? addressed in C
sed to facilitat
turn. As well,nd possible fu
perience thd in the co
the types of dwhen we reviewe examples ofs are challeng
re was an ovece of the CF S In every caseadded to the
bed in the com
that CF pt are not c
decision makhe complexity
nnel which wemaking whic
e scope of the making, role juot included inrganizations).ch which was
he usefulnessarch using miin complex en
ncluding:
decision maki
pically face in
CF education
te this educat
, in this sectiouture work.
he types oomplexity
decision makiwed the five
f each of the fging for their
erlap betweenSMEs by mape, the five facdifficulty of
mplexity litera
personnelcovered by
king challengey literature. Tere not identifch can be challiterature rev
ustification), n the literature. As noted, it
s not examine
s of existing ricroworlds) fonvironments.
ing challenge
n their decisio
and training t
tion and traini
on we discuss
of decisioy literature
ing challengesfactors with tfive factors frdecision mak
n the five mainpping the fivectors were repthe scenario.
ature are expe
typically y the com
es related to cThe gap analyfied in the comllenging are e
view performewhereas som
e review (e.g.may be that t
ed in the curre
esearch in coor enhancing To accompli
es described in
on making tha
to support de
ing?
s additional in
on makinge?
s described inthe SMEs, therom their expeking.
n complexitye complexity fpresented in thThus, it can b
erienced by C
face in thmplexity
complex envirysis identifiedmplexity litereither not presed for this pro
me challenges , communicatthese issues aent project.
Page 51
mplex military ish this
n the
at are not
cision
nsights
g
n the ey had erience,
y factors factors to he be
CF SMEs.
heir
ronments d many rature sent in the oject (e.g., have tion issues
are
Pa
4
TsuAexm
4
Ba haennearinprcuen
Ttoinjush
Soaranthsire(enoTpe
Seleriyosuchcemot
Bth
age 52
4.3 Whattrain
he first way tupport decisio
A second way xamine the ch
may be the mo
.3.1 Challe
By examining wide margin,alf of all suggnhanced. Keyetworks, makre collaboratinntelligence, inroject indicateurrently findsnvironment, t
he education o the Role jusndicate that thustify their gehould be expl
ome of the edre already parnd training suhese componeignificant chaelated to Planne.g., “Make suonetheless, thhis could be berformed, it is
everal educatearning; ratheght person inou have the riuggestions thahosen for thosertain people
making some ithers.
By examining hat represente
t challenging to sup
to identify chaon making is tto identify ch
hallenges idenost broadly ap
enges from
the education, the largest cgestions). Thiy componentsking sure to hang with (pers
nterpersonal sed that these
s itself operatithe ability to e
and training tification them
his is an additineral role as wicitly taught.
ducation and trt of CF instruuggestions indents of compleallenges with dning (e.g., “Nure communichere is some cbecause they s difficult to i
tion and trainir, they appear
n the right job ight personaliat certain peose jobs. Thusmay have cer
individuals m
the bottom-ued a large prop
ges need tpport dec
allenges that nto examine th
hallenges thatntified from thpplicable and t
m SME sugg
n and trainingategory of sus strongly ind related to enave face-to-faonalities, expkills, and relaskills are critiing. As the CFeffectively co
suggestion thme), at least aional gap in cwell as the sp
training suggeuction, but thedicates that thex decision mdecision mak
Need to be ablcation is clear
component of are difficult timplement th
ing suggestior to be selecti(a suggestion
ity for the jobople should be, it is possiblertain attribute
more suitable f
up challenges,portion of the
to be addrision mak
need to be adhe education at need to be adhe top-down therefore goo
estions
g suggestions uggestions haddicates that thhancing colla
ace meetings aperience, etc.)ationship builical for succeF typically m
ollaborate is a
hat CF personas presented bcurrent CF inspecific role th
estions made e fact that the
hey may not bmaking are noking. Examplele to see whenr”). It does ap
f these decisioto teach, it is dem effectivel
ns actually doion criteria. Fn related to thb (a suggestione chosen for ce that, in addies that make thfor particular
it can be seene challenges m
ressed in king?
ddressed in CFand training sddressed in Canalysis, and
od targets for
provided by td to do with ehis is an area waboration inclas much as po), and buildinglding. Many oess in many of
makes and imp critical decis
al need to be by the SMEs wstruction. CF ey have in a p
by the SMEsey were includbe performed t performed e
es include edun plans need tppear that theon-making bedifficult to uny, etc.
o not appear tor example, m
he Experiencen related to th
certain jobs, aition to teachihem more or complex deci
n that there wmentioned by
Human
CF educa
F education asuggestions ofCF education
identify chalintervention.
the SMEs, it cenhancing colwhere CF inslude creating ossible, knowg skills such aof the SMEs if the situation
plements decision making f
able to justifywe interviewpersonnel ne
particular situ
s are likely reded as challeneffectively ateffectively it lucation and trto change”) ase aspects are
ehaviours whinderstand whe
to be suggestimaking sure te theme) and mhe Personalityand other peoping individualless suitable ision making
were several cthe SMEs. O
nsystems® Incor
ation and
and training toffered by the and training
llenge types th
can be seen thllaboration (atruction shouand building
wing the peopas emotional interviewed fons in which thsions in a teafactor.
fy their role (red, does appe
eed to be able uation, and th
lated to thingnges and educt all times. Wlikely leads toraining suggeand Communie taught; ich are challenen they shoul
ions for enhanthat you have making sure ty theme) seemple should nols to be betterfor particularenvironment
challenge themOf 310 challen
rporated
o SMEs. is to hat
hat, by lmost
uld be
le you
for the he CF am
related ear to to
his
gs that cation
When o stions ication
nging. ld be
ncing the
that m to be ot be r DMs, r role –ts than
mes nges or
Humansystem
education achallenges)instructionaaddition to that they apand expeditaddressing certain scen
4.3.2 Ch
There was e(connectiviplayed somaddressed iwould also types are afwhether thevariety of d
As noted incomplexitydomestic daoperations sintrinsicallydomestic opimproving cfocus, ratheeducation athroughout
It is difficucomplexity10 scenarioshould be ainvestigate
4.4 Catra
Based on thhave not be(e.g., DMs implement interperson
The largest facilitate cocomputerizfacilitating
ms® Incorpora
and training su), and Resourcal changes canthese being th
pply across altionary operatthem should
nario types.
hallenges fro
evidence provty, dynamics,
me role in eachn CF educatiobe useful to d
ffected by theere are challendecision maki
n the top-downy ratings appeaay-to-day funscenario; howy more complperation. Thucomplex decier than domesand training ca
the career of
lt to make defy factors in thios produced foaddressed morthis issue.
an microwaining?
he gap analyseen implemengetting incorrsuccessfully
nal skills).
challenge areollaboration. Tzed virtual wo
collaboration
ted
uggestions mces (45 challen be made, it he most frequl three scenartions), whichprovide great
om comple
vided in the to, multiple conh of the scenaon and trainindetermine if te different typnges that broang situations.
n analysis, a pars. Briefly, o
nctions. The swever, it is diflex than expe
us, it is possibision making stic day-to-daan be supplie
f CF personne
finitive conclis research, asor this projectre than anothe
worlds like
is, there are mnted in microwrect informati(e.g., training
ea pointed ouThe typical m
orld seems funn, as the DM i
entioned, Colenges) represewould seem t
uent types of crio types exam should also mter benefit tha
xity literatu
op-down analnflicting goalsarios. So, therng if decision there are pattepes of challengadly apply so.
pattern relateoperations tencenario with fficult to makditionary opele that educatshould be tar
ay focus. Whed “just in tim
el remains unk
lusions about s the complext. Thus, it is ner factor. How
ely be use
many factors wworlds; some ion), but somg people how
ut by the SMEmicroworld setndamentally iis not interact
llaboration (9ent two thirdsto be beneficchallenges m
mined (domesmean that thean addressing
ure
lysis that all fs, underspeci
re is some evin making is toerns in the degges to see if t that general
d to which tynd to have higthe highest co
ke conclusionserations, becaution and trainrgeted first at ether complex
me” for operatiknown to the
the relative dxity factors wnot possible towever, future
ed to facili
which are impof these coul
me would likelto build relat
Es as needing tting where ainadequate foting with real
91 challenges)s of all challenial to focus o
mentioned, it shstic operationey are most brg challenges th
five complexified goals, anidence that theo be adequatelgree to whichtargeted intervinstruction co
ypes of scenargher complexomplexity scos that domest
ause there wasning interventi
CF personnex operational ional deploymauthors.
difficulty prodwere only com
o determine wwork should
itate this e
portant for CFld probably bly be much mtionships and
developmenta single DM inor addressing tl people, build
), Planning (5nges. If limiten those categhould also be
ns, domestic droadly applicahat are only p
ity factors nd independenese issues sholy taught. Howh different scevention is reqould impact a
rios tend to haity ratings thaore was the dotic operationss only one exaions aimed atl with an opedecision mak
ment or is bes
duced by the mpared within whether one fd be performed
education
F decision mae easily imple
more difficult tincrease their
t was the abilnteracts with the issues relading a real ne
Page 53
50 ed
gories. In e noted day-to-day, able and present in
nt agents) ould be wever, it enario quired, or a wide
ave higher an omestic are
ample of a t rations
king st provided
different the set of
factor d to
n and
aking that emented to r
ity to a ated to
etwork of
Pa
re(etharinanimcocoth
4
4
TbetySMtr
Odemththa thof
Tonefmtycopedi
It cosofageefdesesoTim
age 54
elationships, ee.g., networkehough there arre to be implenterpret body nother, etc.) Hmplemented inomponents ofollaboration) horough revie
4.5 Addi
.5.1 The im
he importance overemphasypically achieMEs mention
raining sugges
One major diffecision makin
makers usuallyhe situation. Uhe actions of tmilitary unit
he commandeften a social (
he effective rn the literaturffectively wit
microworld resypes of errorsommunicationeople to be miscussed in th
t is worth conomplex decisiocial factors dactors easier tenerally thougffects (i.e., whecision makereemed to undocial relationshe creation an
mmediate ben
etc. While mied computer sre still fundamemented, or wlanguage, talk
However, somn microworldf dealing withand terminolo
ew of that liter
itional ins
mportance
ce of social fasized. Social teve their goalsned during thestions related
ference betweng explored iny have to act iUsually goals the decision mthe soldiers a
er could do ve(i.e., team-bas
representationre reviewed fohin the paradsearch. Not on; for examplen critical. Not
more effective he cultural sec
sidering that ion making endifferently thato understandght to be apprhen causes anrs (e.g., Dörnerstand very wships and socind maintenan
nefits, but it w
croworld envsystems whermental aspect
would be very k face-to-face
me aspects of ds. For examph different lanogy have likerature was be
sights
of social fa
ctors in decisties and socias. Indeed, soceir interviewsto enhancing
een the decision the complexin the contextinvolve the s
maker are impactually carryery little to imsed) activity r
n of social facor this projectigm of a singnly is the soc
e, errors in imte that there hdecision mak
ction below.
social factorsnvironments. an other conte. One of the mreciating dyn
nd effects are ner, 1996). Howell and menial networks,
nce of positivewas also usual
vironments hae teams interats of collabora
challenging te, have informcollaboration
ple, simulatingnguages (i.e., ely been succeeyond the scop
ctors
sion making cal networks arcial factors wes, and most SMg the ability to
on making exxity literaturet of other peoptate of other p
plemented throut the decis
mplement his orather than str
ctors in microt) and it is unk
gle user interaial context fu
mplementationhave been attekers when dea
s may be fundIt is possible
extual factorsmost difficult amic aspects separated in t
owever, one ontioned freque
and also the e social relatilly mentioned
ave been deveact with the wation that stillto implement
mal gatheringn and related cg collaboratiosome effects essfully implepe of this proj
contexts experre critical for ere usually onMEs mentiono build social
xperienced by that we revieple, and therepeople (e.g., drough the comsions of the coor her decisiorictly an indiv
worlds requirknown how itcting with a s
undamental, bn due to misunempts to use valing with cul
damentally dife that people p, and find impaspects of coof the envirotime) are ofte
of the main timently was the cost of creatinonships was m
d that these po
Human
eloped with a world togetherl need additiot (e.g., the abi
gs where peopchallenges coon within a diof culture as emented in a ject).
rienced by CFthe way that
ne of the first ned specific ed
relationships
y CF personneewed is that re are a lot of wdefeating an e
mbined actionommander, as
ons). Also, decvidual activity
res more reset could be imsimulation, tybut it creates tnderstandingsvirtual enviroltural challeng
fferent from oprocess informplications rela
omplex decisinment; for ex
en not fully unme-lagged effbenefit of creng negative smentioned asositive social
nsystems® Incor
collaborativer), it seems as
onal research ility to read anple get to knowould probably istributed teamwell as microworld (
F personnel cCF personnelthings that th
ducation and s.
el and the typeal-life decisiways this impenemy), and u
ns of others (es on his or hecision makingy.
earch (at least mplemented ypical of mostthe risk of difs etc., which monments to teages; these are
other aspects mation relatedated to socialion making isxample, time-nderstood by fects that the eating positivsocial relations a specific goconnections w
rporated
e aspect s if they nd w one be
m and
(but a
cannot l he
pes of ion
pacts usually
e.g., in er own g is
based
t fferent makes ach e
of d to l s -lagged
SMEs ve nships. oal with would
Humansystem
likely pay odo a favoursomeday thsetting the sputting som
It is possiblissues may complexitypoor at doinHowever, itbecause humother types contexts, it
4.5.1.1 C
Culture appculture wasdifferent orgenerally inInteragencyare likely topersonnel to
An overviecultures (Alikely to befor culturalincluded:
Ab Em Rel Inf Ext Ag Con
Thus, indeprole in the sdevelopmen
Adams andbeing used visual represituations thCulture Tralanguage, loThinking ansides of inte
ms® Incorpora
off in some tar for someonehey are more lstage for futu
mething “in th
le that this relhave contribu
y literature. Inng. That is, ift is not clear tmans for the mof factors. Inwould seem
Culture
peared as a ges narrowly derganizations oncluded in they, Multinationo increase, ano operate effe
w of researchdams & Brow important in competency
ility to negotimotional stabillationship bui
fluence and petraversion reeableness nflict resoluti
pendent reseasuccess of CFnt of these sk
d Brown (201in cultural co
esentation of hat they will eaining Systemocal sounds, bnd Leadershipercultural sce
ted
angible way ine, this is generlikely to get it
ure benefits. Inhe bank” as a w
latively develuted to the facntuitively, thef humans can that social facmost part are
ndeed, as socias though the
eneral challenfined in the c
or other groupe Collaborational, and Publind education aectively in the
h into what fawn, 2011) pro
CF decision which overla
iate lity and self-rilding ersuasion
ion
arch has foundF operations, akills and attrib
1) also noted ompetence insanother envirencounter in t
m (TLCTS) allbuildings, etcp (ATL) is a t
enarios. Users
n the future. Frally a good tt. Thus, somen fact, buildinway of solvin
loped ability tct that social
e definition ofdo somethingctors should bbetter at und
al factors appese factors des
nge theme, andhallenges ana
ps have to woon challenge tic (JIMP) opeand training pe midst of suc
ctors contribuovided evidenmaking. Fact
ap with the so
regulation (e.g
d that the impand CF perso
butes.
that there arestruction. Immronment (e.g.,the future. Folows users to
c. which allowteam-trainings take turns pl
For example, thing, becausee aspects of song a social neng unknown f
to understandfactors have tf what is “comg relatively eabe ignored byderstanding thpear to be so cserve a great
d it is closelyalysis, culturark together (ttheme). The cerations meanprograms shouch challenges
ute to the abilnce supportingtors that Adam
ocial factors o
g., Emotiona
portance of soonnel should b
e immersive emersive envir, dress, architor example, th
explore a virw a sense of ag system in whlaying people
people undere if they requiocial relations
etwork is a forfuture problem
d complexity atypically been
mplex” is basasily, then it i
y complexity rhe implicationcritical to CF deal of attent
y related to soal issues also these types ofcurrent focus
ns that challenuld be develo.
lity to competg our claim thms and Brown
our SMEs thou
al Quotient)
ocial factors isbe adequately
environments ronments can tecture) and ghe Tactical Irartual Iraqi villa real Iraqi vilhich some us
e from differen
rstand that whire help in retships etc. are rm of risk mams.
as related to sn ignored in ted on what huis not seen as researchers si
ns of social fadecision mak
tion.
ocial factors. Wcome into plaf challenges win the CF on
nges related tooped to prepar
tently deal wihat social factn found to beught were im
s likely to play supported in
and virtual hhelp to provi
get personnelaqi Languagelage, and inclllage. The Aders experiencnt cultures, an
Page 55
hen they turn seen a
anagement,
social the umans are complex.
imply actors than king
While ay when were
Joint, o culture re CF
ith other tors are e important
mportant
ay a large n the
humans ide a used to
e and ludes daptive ce both nd are
Pa
prca
Amanletemenco
4
AactaUofprit enprveunrew
It “gis
4
Cas
Esy
Tsh“pcocham
age 56
rovided with an be adjusted
Although it is pmicroworlds tond Brown (20earning. As weach the facto
making (e.g., anvironments aomplex decisi
.5.2 Poor
As noted previctor behaviouaught so that C
Unfortunately,f the good androved to be vewas unknow
nvironments. rocesses, whiery few examnknown wheteally didn’t pe
what would co
t is worth notigood” or “poos knowing wh
.5.3 Know
Complex Adapspects of com
1. Are a 2. Are co
indivi3. Show
adapt)
xamples of Cystem.
he study of Chowing differparadoxical” onflict with ohanges in the mplified. Thu
backstories ad to give feed
possible that o help train cu011) noted tha
well, these sortrs mentioned
ability to negoand microworion making ef
and good a
iously, originaurs related to cCF personnel it was difficud poor actor bery difficult t
wn how well thIn some casech made it di
mples providedther this was derform any po
onstitute good
ing that there or” may be m
hat behaviour
wing when to
ptive Systemsmplexity. CAS
set of interacomposed of midual componindividual an
).
CAS include th
CAS makes aprent propertiesnature of CAne another. ACAS are inhi
us, it may not
nd goals to mdback about cu
systems similultural compeat explicit feets of training earlier in thisotiate, emotiorlds will contffectively.
actor behav
ally it was hocomplex deciwould be bet
ult to accompbehaviours arto examine gohe SMEs undes, SMEs had fficult to assed of bad actordue to report oor actor beha
d or poor actor
is some evidemisguided, and
to display wh
o do what
s (CAS) (e.g.,S are so name
cting or interdmany parts whnents (i.e., theynd collective b
he stock mark
pparent that es at different S by pointing
An example giibited, while “be possible to
make their expultural errors
lar to the TLCetency, and peedback from asystems teachs section as g
onal stability, inue to be ina
iours
oped that we csion making, tter able to ha
plish this, for re very difficuood or poor acerstood their difficulty des
ess their behavr behaviours obias on the paaviours, or whr behaviour.
ence that atted that the critihen. That disc
, Grisogono, 2d because the
dependent comhich as a whoy are complexbehaviour cha
ket, social ins
ffectively adatimes. For ex
g out the fact tiven is that “r“innovation” o determine c
perience more.
CTS and the Aerhaps even aa human instruh cultural spe
generally requetc.) Thus, it
adequate for t
could gather iand determin
andle complexseveral reason
ult to empiricactor decision own decisionscribing their viours as gooon the part ofart of the SMhether there w
mpting to finical ability of cussion is the
2006) have ofey:
mponents (i.eole exhibit behx), and ange as a resu
sect colonies,
apting to a coxample, Grisothat many of robustness to requires that
certain proper
Human
e accurate. Bo
ATL could beadditional socuctor is requi
ecific informauired for effec
is likely that teaching cultu
information ane which of thx decision mans. As alreadyally assess. Amaking beha
n making behar decisions anod or bad. Furf the DM them
MEs, whether iwas a lack of
nd behavioursf a DM in a co
topic of the n
ften been stud
., a system),haviours not p
ult of experie
the brain, and
mplex enviroogono (2006)
the propertiedamage” reqsome change
rties which ar
nsystems® Incor
oth of these sy
e modified to ial factors, Aired to facilitaation and do lictive decision
virtual ural issues in
about good anhese should baking situatioy discussed, m
Another reasonaviours was beaviours and d decision marther, there wemselves. It is it was becausunderstandin
that are alwaomplex environext section.
died to unders
predictable fr
nce (i.e., they
d the immune
onment may rdiscusses thes of CAS app
quires that somes in the CASre always adap
rporated
ystems
create Adams ate ittle to
n
nd poor be ons. many n that it ecause
aking ere
e they ng of
ays onment
stand
rom
y
e
require e pear to me S are ptive;
Humansystem
rather, whaof behaviouthis range o
The fact thaimplicationteach the Ddifferent th
4.6 Lim
There are srelated to thto the scope
Some limitaacquired a lpossible thaadequate toSMEs mighwell, in sominterview. Timportanceheuristic, hbiases). In many of theaspects of aassessed in articulate asdescribe co
The educaticould colleceducation aunderstandiduring interaspects of taspects migeach decisio
Because weevidence tooutcomes wextremely dtried everytthe case (i.ewhether lac
Another limdid not wishunderstandi
ms® Incorpora
at makes a CAurs for the situof behaviours
at contrastingns for teachingDM to use part
ings, and the
mitations
everal limitathe data collece of the repor
ations have tolot of useful iat a lot of infoo elicit all of tht not have reme cases yearThus, there co of it at the timindsight bias;addition, two
e scenarios. Ita complex decthis study. It
spects that theomplex decisio
ion and trainict for this pro
and training ining of the siturviews about their decision ght prove to bon making as
e were askingo compare thewere the resuldifficult. For ething and nothe., there was ack of change w
mitation relateh to discuss, oing and repre
ted
AS (or DM) efuations it encat the proper
g behaviours mg CF personnticular skills, most importa
tions related tction method, rt, and some a
o do with the information, bormation was the important eally appreciatrs had elapsedould be missinme, have sinc; see Adams, o hours was nt is reasonablcision makingis also possib
ey felt were ion making in
ing which SMoject. In additnfluences theiuation. This inthese situatiomaking envir
be more salienspect actually
g individuals ae SMEs’ statemt of poor deciexample, sevehing could bea set point in was the result
ed to data collor which theysentation of t
ffective mighounters, as w
r times for opt
may be requirel to be betterbut rather the
ant thing is kn
to the researchsome are rela
are due to prac
way that databecause the dmissed. It is information fted all aspect
d between the ng informatioce forgotten, oRehak, Brow
not sufficient te that more tig domain, andble that informmportant in th words).
MEs have receion to shapingir view of situn turn would ons. For examronment (e.g.
nt to the SMEimpacted the
about events tments with, itision making eral SMEs mee done to imprthe environmt of poor deci
lection was thy did not wishthe scenarios,
ht be the combwell as the abil
timal results.
red to create ar decision mae DM needs tnowing WHE
h presented inated to the dactical limitati
a was collectedata we collec
possible that from all SMEts of their com events we w
on because SMor memory m
wn, & Hall, 20time to gatherime would had only the higmation was ntheir decision
eived might alg their behavuations they einfluence the
mple, if SMEs ., who the aut
Es than other ae SMEs’ decis
they had expet was unknowbehaviours oentioned that rove the situa
ment that was ision making.
hat there wereh to be includas some fact
bination of hality to approp
an effective Cakers. It mighto be able to dEN to do WHA
n this report. ata analysis mions related to
ed for this repcted was elicit
the interviewEs. This couldmplex decision
were asking abMEs did not a
may be biased 009 for a revier all relevant
ave been requghest level aspot gathered bmaking (i.e.,
lso have influviour, it is highencounter ande information
are taught tothority figureaspects, regarsions.
erienced and wn the extent or whether thet they thoughtation. It is unchighly resista
e some sensitded in our repotors could not
aving an adeqpriately shift b
CAS has serioht not be so imdo a large numAT.
Some limitatimethod, some o recruitment
port. Althoughted via intervi
w questions wd have been bn making situ
bout and the tiappreciate the(e.g., availabew of decisioinformation a
uired to fully epects may havecause SMEs, it may be dif
uenced the dahly likely tha
d shapes their they would p
o pay attentions are), then thrdless of the a
we had little to which any
e situation wat that they basclear whetherant to change)
ive topics whort. This limitt be included.
Page 57
quate range between
ous mportant to mber of
ions are are related of SMEs.
h we iews, it is
were not ecause
uations. As ime of the e bility on-making about explore all ve been s could not fficult to
ata we at SMEs’
provide n to certain hese amount
empirical y bad as just sically r this was ), or
hich SMEs ted our
Pa
Tscexsushan
It thimlitfain
Wlimnarein
age 58
here were alscenarios, the mxtraction of chubjective manhaped the findnalysis).
t was also a limhis project, anmportant factoterature searcactors are misn the gap anal
We were limitemitations weravy focus, so esult of recruincluded but no
so limitations mapping betwhallenges andnner. There mdings. Future
mitation that nd the amountors related to ch findings wessing from thelysis), but ther
ed as to the exre known in athe results m
itment limitato SMEs were
related to theween the scend education an
may have beene work could u
validating thet of literature complexity were validated e complexity re may be add
xperiences ofadvance (e.g.,
may not be as rtions (e.g., hue recruited; on
e analysis metnarios and the nd training sun unknown biause more obje
e findings of reviewed wa
were either noat least someliterature. In ditional missi
f the SMEs w this project hrelevant for thmanitarian ex
nly one examp
thod used in tcomplexity c
uggestions weas on the partective method
the complexis quite small.
ot found in thewhat in the wsome cases thing factors.
ho were recruhad an army fhe air force orxpeditionary ople of a dome
Human
this project. Tconcepts, andere done in a st of the analysds for data an
ity research w. Thus, it is poe literature se
workshop) or these omission
uited for this focus rather thr navy), wheroperations weestic operation
nsystems® Incor
The creation od the bottom-usomewhat st which migh
nalysis (e.g., a
was out of scoossible that
earch (althougthat importanns were noted
project. Somehan an air forreas some weere intended tn was include
rporated
of the up
ht have a factor
pe for
gh the nt d (e.g.,
e rce or re the to be ed).
Humansystem
5. C
Challengingbeing characlaims havethat make denvironmenresearch invexperiencedCanadian F
A literatureto the compdynamics, mexception, wexperiencesmake their complexity
There appeoperations (domestic dacomplexityrequire morengaging in
Although thand the factsignificant identified inrelated to cwhich appechallenges. complexityintervention
5.1 Fu
Potential fudata collectcomplexity
5.1.1 Da
Using diffedecision magather usefuthere was puseful to co
ms® Incorpora
Conclus
g decision maacterized as “ce been made bdecision makints encounterevestigating cod by Canadian
Forces instruct
e review identplexity literatumultiple confwe found thats of the SMEsdecision mak
y literature are
ar to be some(both domestay-to-day fun
y factors. Thisre support to n domestic da
here was signtors which apgaps identifien the complexollaboration,
ear to require CF education
y challenges exns at increasin
uture Work
uture work whtion technique
y and educatio
ata collectio
erent approachaking occurs
ful informationprobably a lot ollect more in
ted
sions a
aking environcomplex” by based on intuing “complexed by the CF.omplex decisin Forces perstion related to
tified major cure. Five factflicting goals, t these five fas we interview
king more diffe indeed part o
e types of scenic and expedi
nctions. It alsos indicates thaimprove their
ay-to-day func
nificant overlappeared to maed, with manyxity literatureincluding culadditional insn and trainingxamined in thng DM’s prof
k
hich could be es, using diffeon and trainin
on
hes for collecin the CF. Con about decisof lower-leve
nformation ab
and Re
nments such aresearchers (eition, rather t” according t. The main goion making issonnel, and hoo decision ma
omponents otors were chos
underspecifieactors appearewed. As well,ficult. Thus, iof the experie
narios which itionary) tendo appears as that CF personnr decision mactions.
ap between thake decision my additional ce review. The ltural factors. struction inclug could also bhis project areficiency in tho
logical extenerent data anag topics.
ting data coulonducting intesion making inel informationout how SME
ecomm
as those expere.g., Grisogonthan a detailedto the literaturoal of this pros relevant to thow that researaking.
f what makessen for furtheed goals, anded in each of , the SMEs init appears as tence of CF pe
are more chad to contain mhough scenarnel who are g
aking abilities
he factors idenmaking difficuchallenges fac
most importa Other areas wude planning
be enhanced ie the most chaose areas.
nsions of this alysis techniq
ld add to our erviews with n complex CFn that was noEs attempted t
mendat
rienced by theno, 2010). Hod examinationre actually areoject was to dhe decision mrch might be
s decision maer examinationd independentthe scenarios
ndicated that tthough factorersonnel.
allenging thanmore complexirios tend to begoing to engags than personn
ntified in the ult for CF per
cing CF persoant of these apwhich challenand dealing wf future workallenging for
report includques, and inve
knowledge aa two-hour tiF environmen
ot collected. Fto understand
tions
e CF are comowever, manyn of whether e present in th
determine whemaking actualused to impro
aking difficultn: Connectivi
t agents. With describing ththese factors ds identified in
n others. For eity componene complex onge in operationel who are p
complexity lirsonnel, there
onnel that werppear to be fange CF personwith resource
k examines whCF personne
de exploring destigating diff
about how comme limit allow
nts at a high lFor example, id the factors t
Page 59
mmonly y of these the factors he ether ly ove
t according ity,
hout he do indeed n the
example, nts than n all five ons likely rincipally
iterature e were also re not actors nnel
e hich of the
el, and aim
different ferent
mplex wed us to evel, but it might be that were
Pa
imstin
NCquocou
DinuswcoobgeIfinprcopaarabhodom
5
It anfrpeinSMwapthwno
Tsosu
Fibepeth
age 60
mportant to thtrategies for unterviews with
Now that someCF complex de
uestionnaires ccurrence, theutcome in dif
Data collectionncorporating osed in this pro
would provide ompiled and ubservation is et the SMEs tf there is somenstructed usinrove valuableonsidering wharticularly bere doing well bout the novicow they deteroes not actual
method such a
.1.2 Data a
t would also bnalysis of comrom a CF perserceive compntuitive to thoMEs to rate th
would be analyppear to deterhis approach i
what complexiot necessarily
he data analyometimes useuch an analys
inally, if quesetween factorerformance ohose two sets
heir decision munderstandingh the same SM
e informationecision makinto gather mo
e difficulty offferent situatio
n could also bobservation woject, if the sca more comp
used for instruusing experieto comment oe objective w
ng microworlde for understanhen determinineficial whenor doing poo
ces’ behaviourmine that a nlly reflect thes the one desc
analysis
be possible to mplexity wouspective. This
plexity and enose being taughe similarity ysed to determrmine what mis that it is a dity is rather thy tell us about
ysis methods ued to determinis would prov
stionnaires arrs which havef novices, andof data can b
making as thig a complex siME, could all
has been gatng, it is possibore data aboutf dealing withons, etc.
be done througwould be to cocenarios beingplete understauctional purpenced SMEs ton things that
way to determids which reconding what coing whether thn considering orly, but may hurs. As well, enovice’s behav information cribed here w
analyse data uld be to deters could be useable educatio
ght. To perforof the comple
mine the undemakes a situatidata-driven (i.han us trying tt their perform
used in this prne the main idvide a more o
e used to colle been rated ind informatione correlated t
s could be usituation. Condlow for more
hered about tble that data ct aspects of thh the challeng
gh other methombine observg investigatedanding of the oses. Anotheto observe thethe novices a
ine what the nord their actioomponents ofhe novices arthat experts ohave difficultexperts often viours are goothat they are
would overcom
via a factor armine which fed to guide ouon and trainingrm a factor anexity of pairs erlying mentaion complex i.e., bottom-upto fit their sta
mance.
roject were ladeas and theirobjective way
lect data, it wn questionnairn is gathered ao determine w
ed to determiducting longeinformation t
the types of chcollection methese challengeges, the degree
hods such as ovation with ind were ongoincomplexity per potentially e behaviour oare doing wellnovices are acns and the ouf decision mare performing often do havety articulatingdo not have aod or poor, oractually cons
me many of th
analysis. The factors influenur understandg enhanceme
nalysis of comof scenarios
al structure of in the SMEs’ p) approach, satements into
argely subjectr relationships
of categorizi
ould be possires. For examabout what thwhich behavio
Human
ine whether ther interviews,to be gathered
hallenges whthods could ines such as thee of impact th
useful way tof novices beinl and what thectually doing utcomes) this aking the SMEg well or not. Te good insightg exactly whaa conscious ur their conscisidering. Usinhese limitatio
benefit of pernce the percep
ding of how Cnts to be pres
mplexity, reseaor situations.
f complexity (view). One o
so the SMEs wour structure
tive. Semantics within writteing the experi
ible to performmple, if SMEshose novices aours actually
nsystems® Incor
here are gener or multiple d.
ich play a rolncorporate
eir frequency hey have on th
One way of milar to the meg the situation
hat could be o collect datang taught, andey are doing p(e.g., they arinformation cEs are actuallThis would bt into what noat is good or punderstandingous understan
ng an observaons.
rforming a faption of comp
CF personnel sented in termarchers could These rating(i.e., what facof the benefitswould be tell. However, it
c analysis is en documentsiences of CF S
m correlations are used to rare actually dotend to result
rporated
ral
le in
of he
ethod n
a using d to poorly. e being could y e
ovices poor of nding
ational
actor plexity
ms d ask gs ctors s of ling us t would
s, and SMEs.
ns rate the oing, t in
Humansystem
higher rankarticulate w
5.1.3 Ad
Determininineffective 2010). In thpoor actor beasily measdescriptionbehaviours.making behfacilitate CFimportancewhen, than
There was econflicting the 10 scenonly compadefinitive cdecision maattempting different m
It could be CF domainstreamline ldecision mahave better novices finddifficult thacomplex debefore advaby the decis
It should bemakers, thistrategies foappear to dor experienfurther inveeffectively strategies rasituation spCF domain
Another aredecision mastrategies th
ms® Incorpora
kings from thewhat they thin
dditional top
ng whether thefor complex d
his project, it behaviours, ansured. Future s and develop. This could inhaviours, and F decision ma may be “metrelated to spe
evidence thatgoals, unders
narios created ared within thconclusions abaking. Futureto create a geeans of collec
useful to inves. Assuming tlearning, if thaking. As welinsight into hd difficult. It an experts do,ecision makinanced strategision maker.
e noted that, is might indicor making comiffer in consis
nce that benefiestigated. If thapplied acrosather than foc
pecific elemens, this should
ea for future raking strategihat are effecti
ted
e SMEs, and enk is importan
pics
ere are distincdecision makproved to be nd this was pwork could b
p a method ton turn facilitadetermine wh
aking. Note thta-cognitive”,ecific types o
t the five mainspecified goalfor this proje
he set of 10 scbout the relati work could b
eneral assessmcting data (e.g
estigate differthat there are
he different bell, novices, alhow they are mis possible th, and experts
ng should occuies for dealing
if no consistenate that instrumplex decisiostent ways, it
fits the decisiohere are stratess a variety ofcus instructionnts that shouldd be known an
research woulies and indiviive in multipl
experimenternt in complex
ct types of beking have been
extremely difartially due to
be done to ref empirically a
ate the assessmhether there ahat this work , or related tof behaviours
n complexity ls, and indepeect. However,cenarios produive difficulty be performedment measureg., observatio
rences betweedifferences, u
ehaviours thalthough they amaking decis
hat novices finwere the focuur in stages, wg with comple
nt differencesuction should ons. That is, imight indicat
on maker. Thiegies for makf situations, itn on situationd be taught tond these strate
ld be investigdual differenc
le decision ma
rs will not havdecision mak
haviours whin of interest tfficult to asseo behaviour dfine the good assess the prement of the vare general beshould take i
o understandin(e.g., always
factors (connendent agents, because the uced for this pof the differe
d to address the for the compon of exercise
en novice andunderstandin
at experts engaare not generasions, and it wnd different dus of this projwith more basex decisions c
s are found befocus on gen
if novice and ate that there iis is another a
king complex t would be of n specific strao support effeegies need to
gating possiblces. It is veryaking domain
ve to rely on tking.
ich are generato researchersess whether Ddescriptions band poor acto
esence of thosviability of parehaviours thatinto considerang what behavmaking goals
nectivity, dyns) were all prefive main comproject, it is d
ent complexithis issue. Possplexity factorss).
d expert decisng these differage in tend toally as effecti
would be usefdecision makinject. It may besic skills havican be effecti
etween noviceneral rather thexpert decisi
is no situationarea of researdecisions tha
f extreme beneategies. Howeective decisionbe described.
le interactionsy possible thatns, but that dif
the ability of
ally effective s (e.g., Grisog
DMs showed gbeing vague anor behaviour se good and prticular decisit should be taation that the viours to prods concrete).
namics, multipesent to some mplexity factodifficult to maty factors in Csible methodss, perhaps wit
sion makers inrences could ho result in bettive as expertsful to understang componene that instructing to be acquively taught o
e and expert dhan context spon makers do
n specific inforch which shoat can be wideefit to teach th
ever, if there an making in c.
s between effet there are genfferent people
Page 61
SMEs to
or gono, good or nd not
poor actor ion
aught to factors of
duce
ple extent in ors were ake
CF s include th a
n complex help to ter
s, often and what nts more tion in uired or applied
decision pecific o not ormation ould be ely and hese are complex
fective neral e will have
Pa
disounfacoinlediwanreth
age 62
ifferent levelsomeone with nderstand conactors at the sould benefit fnteract in a spearning whichifficult to crea
who was very nd benefit muelationships, bhey would hav
s of success aa large worki
nnections betwame time and
from instructiopecific domainh individuals wate positive soextraverted b
uch more frombut benefit lesve less ability
at applying theing memory (ween them thd consider howon about whin. However, iwere importaocial interactiut with a sma
m learning wiss from learniy to reason ab
ese strategies(i.e., they can han average) mw they might ch factors tenif that person nt in a particuions with thesaller working th whom it ming all of the out the interr
. For examplekeep track of
might be able interact with
nd to be imporis very shy, t
ular context, bse individualsmemory size
might be beneffactors whichelationships b
Human
e, it would bef more pieces to keep track
h one another.rtant and howthey might nobecause they s. On the othee might show ficial to createh might impacbetween them
nsystems® Incor
e possible thats of informatiok of many dif Such an indi
w they tend toot benefit frommight find it
er hand, somethe opposite e positive socct their decisi
Conflicting objectives (between independent agent and decision maker)
Independent agent can modify their own strategies based on situation
Self-organizing system (e.g., social network)
Challenges with Goals
Under-specified goals
Create concrete goalsOp: Ops goals concrete
Maintain abstract goals
Have no criteria to measure or evaluate success (goals are vague)
Polytely (multiple goals) - these can conflictOp: Interagency dialogue -milt., N/OGA,local, Maxi…
Relationships between goals Consider interrelationships between goals Trade-off contradictory goals
Consider goals as independent
Making decisions
Make more decisions per goal (compared to poor performers)
Make more decisions overall (compared to poor performers)
Goal Stability
Are easily distracted from a goal
Have an unstable goal prioritization structure (behaviourally)
Change goal focus if they are failing at achieving their goal
Maintain focus on the same set of goals throughout the task
Prioritization
Choose a point of strongest effort without losing sight of background goals
Choose one goal opportunistically according to saliency
Choose goals based on relative importance
Show repair-service behaviour
Choose an attainable goal, even if goal is relatively unimportant (encapsulation)
Assess impact of "problems" and salient signals in whole picture
Select goal based on own competence areas rather than on importance of goal
Challenges with Self-reflectionOp: AARs, Hot Wash, Lessons learned, Le…
Failure
Investigate the reasons for failuresOp: AARs, Hot Wash
Concentrate self-reflection on failures and on inefficient thinking and reasoning; this leads to "reshaping" of thinkingOp: AARs (vs. self-reflection), Lessons learned
Marginalize failures
Concentrate on recognizing, understanding, and learning from failures rather than marginalizing them
Minimize own responsibility for failuresAttribute failures to external causes rather than own actions
Creates scapegoats; shifts blame
Engage in limited self-reflection; only as confirmatory recapitulation of successes - no new information or ideas are allowed in
RitualismChallenge own behaviour patterns and check for unwarranted ritualization
Behave ritualistically
Do not self-reflect
Judge when particular behaviours are or are not appropriateOp: AARs, Lessons learned
Cultivate practice of self-reflection
Choose behaviours largely unconsciously or automatically
Information overload (i.e., large amount of data)Op: Adversaries in complex terrain, Advance…
Amount of planningOp: War is difficult to control
Over-plan (more and more conditions and assumptions; more and more elaborate, specific, and fragile plans)
Make "bang-bang - decisions"
Have "stop rules" for planning - i.e., able to judge how much planning is enough
Jump straight from abstract goals into CoA development
Forgo planning when appropriate
Pattern analysis
Look for patterns in spatial and temporal development of the situation
Concentrate on data collection without analysis
See situation as a network of interwoven elements. Develop appreciation of whole networked system
See situation as collection of independent elements
Intransparency (opaque relationships between variables)Op: Operational uncertainty, Advancement in …
Uncertainty orientationOp: Uncertainty, Chance
Have ambiguity tolerance
Have a high need for certainty
Hypothesis testingOp: Chance
Test hypotheses
See creating hypotheses as creating "truths" and do not test them
Monitor effects of actions
Study the effects of actions carefully and try to find the reasons for unexpected results of actions
Don't look for effects contrary to expectations
Act "ballistically"; "fire and forget"
Evaluating own beliefs and assumptions
Cling to own concepts and beliefs; unwilling to consider alternatives
Challenge own concepts and beliefs, entertains alternatives
PredictionOp: War is unpredictable, Chance
Predict future conditions with consideration of those factors which determine changes in respective domain of reality
Don't assume current trends continue, but look at what drives them
Check whether conditions for validity of current plans or actions are still fulfilled, even when they always had been given until now
Predict the future as a linear projection of the present
Dynamics (constant change even without input from decision maker)Op: Changing characteristics of conflict, War is d…
Time scale
Feedback Delays (consequences can develop more slowly than people can connect to cause)
Oversteer (makes changes to a system which results in the system going past the desired state)
Change rates (observational) can vary widely within an environmentOp: Pace of change is increasing
Events may evolve quickly enough that an intervention has to be made very quickly (or timed very precisely) to be effective - too little time to consider many variablesOp: Requires rapid adaptation
Connectivity (large number of diverse, interacting components)Op: Conflict driven: culture,ethics,religion, Stre…
Basis of planning
Plan according to what is known about the situation
Plan according to causal factors governing reality (not symptoms)
Treat irrelevant symptoms (only the present situation provides basis for planning)
Show methodism (i.e., use actions which have been successful in the past without considering special conditions of actions)
Plan simplistically and do not consider conditions of actions or side- and long-term effects
Plan broadly and take the conditions of validity of actions as well as side- and long-term effects into account. Assess their likely impacts and probabilities
Develop and evolve a stratagem
Causal reasoning (creating mental model of environment)Op: War is chaotic
Distinguish between symptoms and the important factors that drive their development
Try to go beyond the surface of the given situation, try to identify causal factors which govern the development of the respective domain of reality
Look for "single causes"
Recognize that their view of a situation is likely to be incomplete and therefore they need to keep looking for further relevant factors and remain open to adding causal and influence pathways as necessary
Concentrate on identifying the characteristics of the current situation
Hypothesis generation (note: Good and Poor performers generate the same number of hypotheses)
Conduct hypothesis formation in a systemic manner
Conduct hypothesis formation about causal factors in the form of reductive hypotheses
Show progressive conditionalizing
Show magical thinking
Legend
Good performers... (adaptive behaviours) from Grisogono (in review)
Poor performers... (pathological behaviours) from Grisogono (in review)
Terms from Funke 2001
Op = Operational Terminology: represents terminology from Adaptive Campaigning (2009) and discussions with former military personnel
ANNEX A Mind Map of Complexity Factors and Behaviours.mmap - 1/31/2011 -
Pa
age 68
This pag
ge intentionallly left blank.
Human
.
nsystems® Incorrporated
Humansystem
AnneComp
This annex overall com
1. ScEv
The decisiointernationastakeholderthe DM’s suwith whomthe Local CC2 occurredsurrounding
Factors whi
TheTheof p
In gwh
Seceve
Oth
MoconexpDMpolDM
Thethisimp
ms® Incorpora
x B: Oplexity
contains the mplexity ranki
cenario Devent
on maker (DMal event. It wars (including tuperior office
m to communicCommand Cend during whicg the event w
ich influenced
e internationaese events haprevious even
general there hich was diffic
curity was notent took place
her security is
o There w
o There wproblem
o Water a
o Close to
orale among snsiderations nperience as a pM’s benefit (elice) but some
M might be m
e DM replaces led to the peportant;
ted
Operatiy
operational sing (see Table
escription
M) was assignas the responsthe CF and oters informed. cate, and whentre (LCC) anch security fo
was in jeopardy
d the ability o
al event was hd never takennts to draw on
was a high decult to manag
t the only cone at a less than
ssues included
was an extrem
were many pubms;
ccess (increas
o an internatio
some personnnot carrying thpolice officer.g., DM undeetimes was a
more loyal to th
ed another inderception by t
onal S
cenario descre 10), with th
n: Military
ned to be the msibility of thether municipaThe DM had
en to communnd had to “maorces were ordy.
of the DM to
held at the samn place simultn for lessons l
emand for infge;
nsideration inn ideal locatio
d:
mely large loca
blic order uni
sed accessibil
onal border;
nel suffered ashe same weigr as well as a merstood policedisadvantage he police than
dividual of higthe police that
Scenar
riptions. The she most compl
Liaison a
military liaisoe DM to facilial, provincial,d to decide whnicate it. Durianage” the sendered to “stan
manage these
me time as antaneously beflearned etc.;
formation flow
n choosing theon for security
al population;
its involved, c
lity);
s some securitght as other familitary offic
e procedure an (e.g., sometin the army);
gher rank; bet the CF saw
ios tha
scenarios are lex scenario f
and Advis
on and advisoitate commun, and federal ahat informatioing the event nsitive time wnd down” and
e processes in
nother importafore, meaning
wing in many
e location for y planning;
;
creating great
ty stakeholdeactors; The DMcer. In many cnd had more cimes the CF p
ecause the DMthis position
at Con
presented in first.
or, Interna
or during a manications betwauthorities) anon to communthe DM was p
when a breakdd the security
ncluded:
ant internatiog that there wa
y directions a
the event, the
t coordination
ers resented thM had extenscases this worcredibility wi
people would
M was of loweas being less
Page 69
tain
order of
ational
ajor ween the
nd keep nicate, present in down in situation
onal event. as a lack
at once
erefore the
n
heir sive rked to the ith the feel that
er rank,
Paage 70
The Dcould lin min
CollabdifficuProces
Issues situatio
There event;
Securimovem(e.g., a
Logistwhich a shortinner sevent;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Everytpeoplelater;
M knew the plead to proble
nd).
boration betweult because of ss but to the p
that arose weon;
was massive
ty measures cment was restranxiety, isolat
tics planning wmeant that m
t timeline for security cordoThere were m
CF personnshould the nhave proper
Inappropriamade for C
There was aand what fe
Not all CF that all CF
Not all CF obviously s
There werelot of work security parof land evo
The CF werwhich was were foundsurveillance
thing was beine not wanting
personalities oems (e.g., kne
een the federaf different jargpolice it is On
ere often sens
media covera
caused a numricted and section);
was not de-comoving supplie
planning chaon was not shmisunderstand
nel were not pneed arise (thr personal pro
ate requests foF personnel t
a huge disconederal authori
assets were dassets should
assets were dstaged forwar
e requests for to determine
rtner to use Dlved into a re
re frequently frequently mi
d to allow the e as required;
ng recorded ito talk in cas
of several peoew some of th
al police, the gon (e.g., OPPntario Provinc
sitive, both leg
age that was n
mber of unintencurity measur
onflicted withes (e.g., gettin
anges as the dhared with stakdings about w
properly equiphey only had lotective equip
or unskilled ato deliver mea
nnect betweenities were wil
declared to thed have been m
declared to thed and in plain
assistance thae the details ofDND propertyequest for the
requested to isunderstood CF to suppor
;
in the cells duse they said so
ople involvedhe higher-leve
local police, P to the CF mial Police);
gally and poli
not necessaril
nded effects fres caused unw
h the establishng food to per
decision to reskeholders unt
what the CF w
pped to be auglethal force oppment);
assistance werals);
n what local sling to provid
e security parmade available
e security parn sight;
at were incomf needs. For e
y started as a nuse of an ent
conduct activby other secu
rt other securi
uring the interomething that
Human
d and could prel officers had
and the CF wmeans Operati
itically – high
ly favourable
for local residwanted psych
hment of secursonnel) was
strict vehicle ttil less than 2
were willing a
ugment police ptions availab
re made (e.g.,
security forcede in terms of
rtners. Some se;
rtners althoug
mplete and theexample, a reqneed for a smtire CF armou
vities outside urity partnersity partners to
rnational event could be use
nsystems® Incor
redict how thed more self-in
was made morional Planning
hly political
to the interna
dents. Freedomhological effe
urity measuresdifficult. Thetraffic inside weeks before
and able to pro
or security foble, they did n
, a request wa
s were requesf financing;
security partn
gh some were
e DM had to gquest from a
mall external cury and suppli
its lawful ma. Inventive soo conduct
nt, so this led ed against the
rporated
ey nterest
re g
ational
m of ects
s, ere was the e the ovide:
forces not
as
sting
ners felt
go to a
orner ies;
andate, olutions
to em
Humansystem
Whnotto b
Civagr
Whcauit”)
Thegoi
Somall wer
Evewer
Becmo
Gendep
As givnotthopla
Factors whi
Strat wacticonOriunpfor reqthethe
Ovknoautprofeltpeointe
ms® Incorpora
hat was happet send securitybe present wa
vilian police sreement that t
hen new costsused a reasses), everyone w
e DM was suring on (e.g., w
me tactical jupersonnel were employed,
eryone did nore not objecti
cause this waotivated peopl
neral Rules opending on lo
a liaison, theve advice, prot have the authought changesanning).
ich unfolded
ategic level dwhich plans hivities, like contracting guidiginally local prepared whethe use of the
quests were m cost of many timelines for
ver time it becowledge of ththority to haveotected persont it would be rople because werpersonal rel
ted
ening locally,y forces to suas not certain
security partnthe operation
s for security ssment of wha
was worried ab
rprised at the where security
udgements durere donning th
leaving polic
ot want to critively assessed
as such a largele to be self-p
f Engagemencation. (e.g.,
e DM had no avide informathority to inters were needed
over time:
decisions werehad to be madontracting, w
delines were nsecurity partnn the contractese assets. Th
made from fedy security aspr approval dec
came clear to he legal case Re cordons andns). The DM gremiss not to)who felt the Dlationships an
funding issuupport the eve
until the last
ners conductedwould be join
were publishat was neededbout the muni
lack of informy boundary zo
ring the crowheir Individuace personnel v
ticize others od;
e and importaprotective;
nt for CF actinif they had to
authority to gtion, and putrcede in policd (e.g., DM w
e made at the de and implemere done in h
not well-undeners were negting process t
he DM suggesderal rather thects (e.g., rencreased;
the DM that vRegina vs. Knd protect themgenerally dec), but then theDM was “sticnd also conflic
es, etc. meantent (this meanminute);
d independennt and interag
ed about a mod (“we can’t picipal budget;
mation cominones would g
wd confrontatial Protective Evulnerable;
or hear negati
ant event, care
ng in this situo defend their
give direction people in con
cing issues anwas surprised a
latest possiblmented kept chaste; Treasury
erstood by Progotiating for ftook a lot of tsted that the phan local secunting a CF arm
vital informatnowlton, a casm when countcided to informe DM was macking their nocts between o
t that police fnt that the num
nt intelligencegency;
onth before thpay for it so w;
ng out to the po);
ion operationsEquipment w
ivity and so p
eers were on t
uation were atr assets);
(understandantact with onend there were at the lack of
le moment. Thanging, and y Board reguovincial and Mfederal resourtime and theyprocess shoulurity partners.moury) went
tion was not kse where the tries are hostim people aboarginalized bese in”. This c
others because
forces might omber of secur
e gathering de
he planned evwe’re not goin
public about w
s were unsounwhen certain te
lans and situa
the line which
t times obscur
ably, DM coue another). Thcases where D
f operational-l
This meant thaeventually talations and PW
Municipal parrces, but they
y received masld be changed. When this wdown to noth
known (e.g., finding resultng internation
out the informecause of thiscaused concere some peopl
Page 71
or might ity forces
espite the
vent this ng to do
what was
nd. Not echniques
ations
h
re,
uld only he DM did DM level
at the rate actical WGSC rtners..
y were ssive bills
d so that was done, hing and
ted in the nally
mation (DM s by some rns for e would
Pa
2
It oprestwloreinlothexminm
Fa
age 72
agree wover ti
The inunfolddelayspriorit
Persontime;
There in the Lthe DMinformpressu
The dehow pewere a
The brincludbetwee
Investiconseqpeoplewould and so
. Scen
t was the respperations perfesources (e.g.torage, mainte
well as the factogistics staff aequired these n turn requiredocations of thehe DM had noxtremely limi
moving resournhabited by th
medical evacua
actors which
Individ
Action
with the DM ime;
ndividual agended. Certain in in needed infies than main
nality played a
were several LCC and the
M for informamation about eure became mo
emonstrationseople were ha
available, etc.
reakdown of Cing far-reachien security sta
igations are oquences for ore’s careers, re
likely be invome individua
nario Desc
onsibility of tformed by the, food, artillerenance, etc. Dt that only a fand other resoresources to bd the buildinge FOBs were o input into thited, the dispeces from one
he enemy; theation) made t
influenced th
dual differenc
ns of the enem
and some wo
ndas of securindividuals weformation bei
ntaining secur
a role and the
C2 cells activ“main” HQ w
ation as the Devents occurriore and more
s and protestsandling the si;
C2 during theing consequenakeholders;
on-going, and rganizational commendatioestigations re
al’s decision m
cription: N
the decision me CF in Afghary, vehicles, a
Due to a stratefinite amount ources were ebe dispersed tg and supply odecided base
hese decisionsersed physicallocation to an
ere were no aithe logistical s
he ability of th
ces (e.g., som
my (e.g., the n
ould disagree,
ity personnelere trying to king communirity for the eve
e interactions
vely coordinawas located elM was the peing at the inteintense;
unfolded ovetuation, how
e event unfoldnces for perso
these investigand personal
ons for future elated to this emaking becam
NSE Office
maker (DM) tanistan. This and other equegic emphasisof money wa
extremely limthroughout thof Forward O
ed on anticipas. Due to the fl location of rnother (locatiir assets availsituation extre
Engineer on auser requirem creating a spincluding usa
to develop me, objective tes
of the DM to
the DM had colvement wasirements spec
t methods ands largely igno
ything they co
le regarding c
ut initial requi
er similar proget needed inf
g changed freqnnel. This reqcreate a pool to find recented for longer dividual occants based on preparations
nge cyclicallyhe had 4 bos
onships, makin);
up (high-readito plan for co
had to be hired
ans inform ons for weak or en used by the
ineer, Cap
a capital acquments and writpecification thability, as weeasures for ussts, a controll
manage these
consistently ds important, thcification proc
d explained thored. This inteould but nothin
certain aspect
irements caus
ojects and atteformation as
quently acrosquires active rof people whtly retired peomay have los
asion people hother people’for the Olymp
y and frequenses). So, certang people aw
iness HQ) intooncurrent traid;
ne another andr grey areas ine planners to
pital Acqu
uisition projecte HF-based shat was: easy ell as meetingser requiremeled usability t
e processes in
different persphe other teamcess;
he importanceerpersonal cong changed;
ts of the equip
sed a lot of as
empted to do opportunities
ss time. A newrecruitment o
ho can be drawople with most touch with have to be sch’s priorities (hpics required
ntly over time ain things nee
ware of how th
o the trainingining, having
d both changen the plan to utighten up we
uisition
ct for the CF. specifications to meet, met
g time and finaents and detertrial, etc.)
ncluded:
pectives. Whm members did
e of HF to othnflict created
pment needed
ssumptions by
related R&D s arose;
Page 85
w training of wn upon re current current
heduled in holidays a large
(e.g., in ed to be hings have
g schedule. to re-
e over use as eak spots
It was the for the empirical ancial rmine
hile the dn’t want
her team d a feeling
d to specify
y the DM’s
by
Paage 86
Becaube leve
The Dgot thememb
The DDM w
It was ensureapproabaselinmake tcompo
Users hwill ge
Other beforegoing spend enginethat les
The crevidenlarger teams way todramatin projreadily
There there welimin
There be willadminithe tecmany bdemonbidderevalua
The scwith ththe bid
se of previoueraged to get
M used their e Deputy Projers about HF
M was not cowas not always
difficult to coe systems beinach necessaryne equipmentthis equipmenosed of contro
have multipleenerally affec
teams on the the Statementhrough budgearly in the p
eering specificss money was
redibility of thnced by the reproject manawere not que
oo much detaitically revisedject scope), asy accepted by
was resistancwere thousandnated until the
were concernling to have thistered user ra
chnical requirbidders as po
nstrated user nrs and there tuation;
cope of the prhe winning bidders presente
s work the DMadditional da
own networkject Director wissues);
o-located withs consulted be
onvince the png acquired wy in the absenc
was in short nt available toolled goods;
e conflicting nt all of the oth
project had hnt of Requiremget resources qproject on engcations kept hs available fo
he HF engineequirement to agement team stioned by thil in bid evalud and abbrevis well as evid
y project mana
ce to includingds of engineery numbered f
ns that there wheir systems atings of acceements that hssible, but at needs. There wurned out to b
oject changedidder to develed to be evalu
M had a netwata;
k of interpersowho did work
h other decisioefore major sc
project team towould offer imce of performsupply, it wo
o bidders, and
needs. Changher needs as w
hired staff tooments (SOR) quicker than a
gineering, withhaving to chanr HF SOR an
ers and their acontinually pfor approval e project man
uation documeiated, at addit
denced in chanagement with
g testing for aring specificafewer than 50
would not be esubjected to ueptability. Thhad been empithe risk of buwere no strate
be more bidde
d from a situalop and customuated were wh
work of interp
onal relationshk on other pro
on makers. Ocoping or oth
o use a testingmproved capabmance data forould impose ad much of the
ging equipmewell (either p
early (i.e., hiwas finalizedanticipated. Th little actual nge to reflect
nd test specific
approach waspresent argum(whereas the
nagement teamentation (whitional cost to nges made by
h little questio
all important ations, HF crit0;
enough biddeusability testihe Engineerinirically valida
uying a systemegies put in p
ers than could
ation in whichmize a systemhat the projec
Human
ersonal relati
hips to push tojects to talk t
One impact of her project cha
g baseline forbility over in-r in-service sya lot of logistie baseline equ
ent to address ositively or n
ired a large end) and therefoThis resulted i project advan
t SOR changecation validat
s continually ments with supe other specialm) , the requiich later needthe project, to
y other team moning or dema
interacting huteria were con
ers because thing comprisinng Section waated by the Dm that would place to controd easily be han
h the DM’s tem, to a situatioct would buy f
nsystems® Incor
onships that c
the HF agendto other team
f this was that anges were m
r bid evaluatio-service systeystems), becac challenges t
uipment was
one of these negatively);
ngineering teaore the projectin a significanncement, bec
es. It also metion work.
questioned – pporting data lty engineerinirement to proed to be o reflect the cmembers that ands for evide
uman factors;ntinually bein
he bidders wong scientificalanted to waterM to ensure anot meet the ol the numberndled in bid
eam would woon where systfor the CF (i.e
rporated
could
da (e.g.,
the made;
on (to ems, an ause the to
needs
am t was nt
cause ant
as to the
ng ovide
changes were
ence;
; while ng
ould not lly r down as
r of
ork tems e., no
Humansystem
CFgrebid
Factors whi
Thewh
Thecau
Finhavdrooth
Thefor
Theasp
9. Sc
The DM waof the DM’training procreate a Disrevamping DM had to meetings, arevitalizatio
Factors whi
Theany(arm
Chrelathepro
TheCFaffe
Difwa
Ina
ms® Incorpora
customizatioeatly increasedd evaluation p
ich unfolded
e awareness ohich influence
e specificatioused assumpti
nancial resourve resources fopped over timher non-HF pu
e project provces caused sc
e scope of thepects of the pr
cenario De
as a senior stas responsibili
ograms. At thstance Learniof the Profesperform task
and maintaininon process.
ich influenced
e need for cony recommendmy, navy, air
anges to the pated to PME Rre was a gene
ocess;
e Strategic Re during this ti
fect funding, i
ffering interprs overhead an
accuracies in d
ted
on). This shord the required
process much
over time:
of technologyd ideas about
n of requiremions about av
rce availabilitfor Research ame without neurposes);
ved to be quiccope changes,
e work changroject.
escription
aff officer whities was to ove beginning ong (DL) optiosional Militars such as organg communic
d the ability o
nsultation. If dations that af
force);
proposal submRevitalizationeral lack of cl
eview. A majime period. Itncluding fund
retations betwnd general inf
databases of f
rtened the projd specificity fmore importa
y that was avat what was po
ments was an iailable techno
y for HF chanand Developmeeded R&D b
ck to spend an resource rest
ed repeatedly
n: PME Re
ho supported Pversee the creof this scenarion for educatiry Education anizing meetications betwe
of the DM to
a training proffect policies f
mission procen changed durlarity about ex
or Strategic Rt was anticipading related t
ween stakeholfrastructure up
funding requi
oject schedulefor the statemant.
ailable changeossible and cre
iterative procology to be re
nged over timment (R&D) bbeing accomp
nd slow to detrictions, and
y over time wh
evitalizatio
Professional Deation of policio, there was ion and traini(PME) systemings, putting ten the variou
manage this p
ogram is beinfor CF progra
ess. The procering this timexpectations an
Review was uated that the rto PME revita
lders about thpgrades mean
irements (ther
e, but created ment of require
ed over the coeated differen
cess and feedbe-evaluated an
me; initially thbut this allocalished (i.e., it
liver; the strapressure to d
which had imp
on Staff M
Developmentcies and proca demand froing, which wam (called PMtogether brief
us stakeholder
process includ
ng changed, thams without c
ess required toe period. As thnd difficulty
undertaken tharesults of the ralization;
he scope of prnt to be includ
re appeared to
a huge increaements, and m
ourse of the pnt opportuniti
back from indnd changed;
hey were suppation of resout was realloca
ategic review deliver;
pacts on the ot
Member
t (PD) for theesses related
om higher comas associated
ME revitalizatifing packagesrs to facilitate
ded:
he DM shouldconsulting all
o submit prophe procedure in following t
at affected threview will pr
roject financinded?);
o be accountin
Page 87
ase in risk, made the
roject, ies;
dustry
posed to urces ated for
and other
ther
CF. Part to pan-CF
mmand to with a
ion). The s for e the PME
dn’t make elements
posals was new, this
e whole rofoundly
ng (e.g.,
ng errors);
Pa
Fa
1
It Ain
CplcoPhaov
Fa
age 88
DifficuProposdeliverrequireprogra
Periodreques
The nelot of t
Requirrequiri
actors which
Improvput dif
As the
As the(e.g., ssupporrevital
Trainingovern
Thingsrequesagain;
Meetinschedu
Lack othat tas
0. Scen
t was the respAfghanistan denfluence and d
Components olanning basic onfirmation eSYOPS trainiad to be identver, but final
actors which
ulty in isolatinsals for fundinr a program, ied for a program should pay
ds of silence osted informati
eed for briefintime to read th
rements for ning a shifting
unfolded ove
vements and fferent deman
e recession oc
e impact of thesetting up resorting the healtization got pu
ng priorities cnmental priori
s would go qusts for more inthis appeared
ng requests wuling;
of continuity, sks were perf
nario Desc
onsibility of teployment. Thdisseminate in
f training thatcourses and t
exercise, arraning with the gtified and recrarrangements
influenced th
ng componenng generally iinfrastructureram but it is ay what propor
of significant ion to higher h
ngs to be thorhe documents
ew training pof resources.
er time:
changes in tends on and cre
curred and go
e Canadian opource centres th and welfarushed to a low
changed over ities changed
uiet for a few nformation) wd to the DM to
were responde
with new peoformed multip
cription: P
the DM to dehe goal was tnformation in
t the DM wasthe schedule,
nging a 2-weegeneral traininruited. There s were genera
he ability of th
nts of programinvolve many
e and overheadalso used for ortion of the co
duration (e.g.headquarters;
rough yet cons;
programs whic
chnology (e.geated differen
ot more seriou
peration in Afor returninge of returning
wer priority an
time as senio(e.g., more o
months and twhich would ro be a cyclica
d to less favo
ople entering ple times as p
PSYOPS T
velop a trainio create the b
n a productive
s responsible arranging co
ek long final eng requiremenwas a genera
ally up to the
he DM to dev
ms to get accuy interrelated d issues (e.g.,other things sost?);
., several mon;
cise because
ch often do no
g., the possibint opportunitie
us it caused in
fghanistan chg soldiers, supg soldiers) so nd delayed;
or commandeor less demand
then there worequire a respal process;
ourably over t
the process, deople had to b
Training P
ing program fbest PSYOPS e manner.
for included aourse locationexercise in Alnts that also h
al concept planDM.
velop the train
Human
urate costing ifactors such a, creation of ao how can yo
nths or more)
those being b
ot come with
ility of creatines for T&E;
ncreasing fun
hanged, other pporting militprojects like
rs, governmed for aborigin
ould be a flurrponse and then
time, which cr
due to annualbe gotten up
Program D
for a PSYOPS platoon poss
arranging quans, creating anlberta, and cohad to be provn “in pencil”
ning program
nsystems® Incor
information. as actual costa virtual libraou determine w
after submis
briefed don’t h
additional fu
ng a virtual li
nding concern
priorities inctary families, the PME
ents, and nal programs)
ry of activity n it would go
reated delays
l postings, mto speed, etc.
Developer
S component sible, able to
arters and ratin internal oordinating vided. Instrucbefore the DM
included:
rporated
t to ary is what
sion of
have a
unds,
ibrary)
ns;
creased
);
(e.g., o quiet
in
meant
of an
ions,
ctors M took
Humansystem
Thitrai
Themoresinst
Somarraprewer
Theto b
Themil
TwuseThigroper
The
Theopptrai
Locwercul
Insweradvcou
Factors whi
Plarollgroalloterm
Groin tcivcomto b
ms® Incorpora
is was the firsining in Afgh
ere was a veryonth training pource (e.g., intruction chan
me elements oangements fo
essure to havere given for T
ere was pressbe handed off
e trainees werlitary experien
wo group memed by the DMis offered a ba
oup, and gaversonnel they w
e DM was req
e DM had a nportunities (e.inees to obser
cating the traire used to asstural informa
tructor schedre a lot of avavance then theuld not be del
ich unfolded
anning for theling-wave pla
oup had alreadowed the DMm planning;
oup cohesion this situation
vilian clothes, mbat training.be “outstandin
ted
st time such ahanistan so pre
y short timeliprogram was nstructor avaiged);
of planning wor quarters ande the training Toronto);
ure to have thf to the BG ve
re a diverse gnce (although
mbers had sign and two weeasic review, b the trainees a
were stationed
quested by th
network of res.g., he knew srve their comm
ining in Torosist training (eation);
dules producedailability chale lead time giivered in the
over time:
e training proganning). For edy started trai
M to take advan
was an impoand was impatrainees boar
. In this case, ng”);
a thorough traevious course
ine as budget to begin. Becilability) mean
were done befd rations. Thiat the PSTC i
he trainees beery quickly af
group of peoph none were n
nificant expereks of close qubuilt trust withan additional d with;
e training loc
sources that psomeone at TVmunications m
nto allowed ae.g., to provid
d constraints llenges, as insiven for this coptimal order
gramming waexample the cining and the ntage of oppo
ortant processacted by factording togetherthe group ge
aining programes were not av
approval wascause of the shnt that things
fore the DM tis limited the in Kingston b
e able to provefter their train
le with very dnew soldiers);
rience in closuarter combahin the groupskill set to in
cation to not h
proved very uV Ontario; thmethods);
access to a pode experience
on when infostructors werecourse). This mr.
as still underwclose-combat skills of the t
ortunities that
for facilitatinors such as thr, and team mlled together
m was being dvailable to use
s obtained 6 whort timeline, had to be shi
took over, incDM’s option
but financial a
e their worth ning ended;
different back;
e quarter comat training wasp, increased thncrease their v
have the traine
useful for provhis created an
opulation of Ae using transla
ormation coule generally bomeant that so
way during thtraining was trainees becamt arose but wa
ng training; thhe training cenmembers cond
well (teambu
developed fore to guide pla
weeks before , changes in oifted (e.g., the
cluding prelimns (e.g., there wapproval for r
right away –
kgrounds and
mbat training; s offered interhe confidencevalue to the ot
ees in uniform
viding traininopportunity f
Afghan immigators and to pr
ld be delivereooked farther ometimes info
e training itsearranged afteme known. Thas not optima
his process wontre requiringducting close uilding was co
Page 89
r PSYOPS anning;
the 4-one e order of
minary was
rations
they were
levels of
this was rnally.
e of the ther
m;
ng for 5
grants that rovide
d (there in
ormation
elf (i.e., er the his
al for long-
orked well g use of quarter onsidered
Paage 90
Some appareThe usimportcould c
of the benefitent. For exampsefulness of thtance was undcall upon rela
ts of training uple, some advhis was not imderstood laterated academic
unfolded oveversarial intenmmediately apr (e.g., when tc literature for
r time rather nt theory was pparent to thethey had to der support).
Human
than being im provided by
e trainees but efend their id
nsystems® Incor
mmediately the DRDC grthe relevanceeas in the fiel
rporated
roup. e and ld they
Humansystem
AnneFive K
This annex each scenarwith the moconcerns ab
1. ExAd
Concept an
Connectivity:
Things in the influence one complicated aunpredictable
ms® Incorpora
x C: OKey Co
contains the rio. The mappost complex sbout privacy.
xperience dvisor, Int
nd Definition
environment another in
and ways
ted
Operatiomplex
operational epings are presscenario first.
to completernationa
Examples of deincluded:
All groups wereMany requestswould have beThere were reqinformation abocould not tell thinformation). Tfigure out whatthe DM can gewithout steppin
The breakdowneffects. For exawere going to tmany implicatiotactical officersanother on showere not availahad to be founbe brought in smade includingimplications forwould be told tto deploy? Weprotected? Whhad lethal forcethe situation wsuch as careerit was perceivethis could havehave far-reach
onal Exity Fa
xperience masented in ordeNote that som
exity factoal Event
Concept E
ecisions which in
e requesting infos for information en outside of thequests from locaout CF capacity hem (secret or o
This situation reqt the DM can do
et around those sng outside of CF
n of C2 during thample, federal atake over from loons for the DM is had to be moveort notice. Howevable to redeploy,d. As well, if othsuddenly, other ag feeding, housinr C2, including wto officially standre CF assets at
hat were the ROEe)? So the possiere profound. Thr implications aned that the local e far-reaching iming consequenc
Experieactors
appings to theer of overall cme specifics h
or mappin
Examples
nvolved interrela
ormation from th were for informae CF’s lawful maal security partne and capabilities
operationally senquired a lot of jug, what the DM csituations and m
F bounds.
he event had proauthorities decideocal authorities. ncluding the faced from one locaver, the tactical , which meant oter tactical officearrangements hang, and pay. Thewhether the locad down, was the risk and should Es going to be (tible political imphere were follow
nd public perceptauthorities were
mplications). Thisces for personal
ence M
e five key comcomplexity rahave had to b
ng: Militar
ated factors
he DM. ation that andate. ers for s but the DM nsitive ggling to can say, how make it work
ofound ed that they This had ct that ation to officers ther options
ers were to ave to be ere are
al authorities army going they be the CF only
plications of w-on effects tion (e.g., if
e ineffective s could also
H
MitmtoaD
Eobadidror
Mapped
mplexity factoanking (see Tabe removed du
ry Liaison
Concept ImporScenario (High
Low) and Jus
High
Many factors thainterrelated and to be consideredmaking decisionthe negotiation fof DND propertyat least 11 factoDM had to cons
Examples of 2nd order effects (e.gbreakdown of C2at least 10 additdecisions or effeincluding effectsdozens of persorelationships andorganizational relationships)
Page 91
d to
ors for able 10), ue to
n and
rtance for h, Medium, tification
at are that have d when ns (e.g., for the use y involved rs that the ider)
and 3rd g., the 2 involved ional
ects, s on onal d
Pa
C
Dy
Ththexchwhrambean
It hieprthdyth
age 92
Concept and De
ynamics:
he system has aat unfold over timxample, the envihanges over timehen you do noth
ate at which thingay be variable; te delays betweend effects.
is important to nerarchical aspecresent (i.e., subsat have their owynamics which ae DM context).
efinition
relasta
Theproarraccupoma
aspects me. For ronment e even hing; the gs change there may n actions
note cts if systems wn are part of
Sitdec
Strmomatac
TreguiMuthesecparweof tthebe ratthearmapphadeffo
Ovwavs.autcouTheinfowabeccauandwothe
Theplaweto doth
ationships and thakeholders.
ere was a requeoperty. The DM wrangements. Origcess to a piece oon questioning bany other related
uations that unfocision making in
rategic level decoment. This meaade and implemectical activities, li
easury Board regidelines were nounicipal partnerse best way to negcurity related to trtners were nego
ere unprepared wtime and they reese assets. The changed so thaher than local se
e cost of many semoury) went dowproval decreased been done in tort, and bad feel
ver time it becams not known (e.g Knowlton, a casthority to have countries are hostie DM generally dormation (felt wos marginalized bcause who felt thused concerns fod also conflicts b
ould agree with the implications of
e individual agenayed a role in howere trying to keepdelays in neededhers appeared to
Concept Exam
he relationship b
est from the locawas acting as a ginally the local of property was aby the DM they ad facilities and am
olded over time tcluded:
isions were madant that the rate aented kept changke contracting, w
gulations and PWot well-understoo. There was gengotiate for the usthe event. Originotiating for federwhen the contraceceived massive DM suggested tt requests were
ecurity partners. ecurity aspects (
wn to nothing andd. According to the beginning mulings could have
me clear to the Dg., knowledge ofse where the finordons and protng internationalldecided to informould be remiss nbecause of this bhe DM was “sticor the DM’s interbetween others bhe DM and somethese incidents
ndas of security w events unfoldep information to td information beo have other prio
mples
between the sec
l authorities to uliaison to help wauthorities said all they needed,also wanted accemenities
that profoundly a
de at the latest pat which plans hging, and eventuwere done in has
WGSC contractiod by Provincial neral ignorance ase of federal assnally local securiral resources, bucting process too bills for the use hat the process made from fede When this was (e.g., renting a Cd the timelines fothe DM, if this stuch difficulty, wa
e been avoided;
M that vital inforf the legal case Rding resulted in ect them when y protected persm people about ot to), but then tby some people king their nose irpersonal relatiobecause some pe would disagreebuilt over time;
personnel involved. Certain indivthemselves (whi
eing communicatorities than maint
Human
ConSce
Low
curity
use CF with that but ess to
affected
possible ad to be ually ste;
ng and about sets for ity ut they ok a lot of should eral done,
CF for trategy asted
rmation Regina the
sons). the the DM n”. This
onships people e, and
ved viduals ich led ted), taining
High
Ninesituaoveraffec
Twewith dynadecis
nsystems® Incor
ncept Importannario (High, Mew) and Justifica
h
e specific exampations that unfoldr time that profoucted decision ma
nty-seven subsy somewhat differamics which impsion making
rporated
ce for edium, ation
ples of ded undly aking
ystems rent
pacted
Humansystem
Concept an
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
ted
security for the
Personality plapersonality andseveral C2 cellThe DM was plocated elsewhDM for informaground” with acat the internatiopressure becam
The demonstrawell as their imhandling the sisecurity forces
The breakdownand had profouconsequencesrelationship be
Investigations unfold over timorganizational reputation, peoevents, etc. Asbe investigatioinfluenced decdecision makin
There were suthis context. Th
At leDynadiffertypesdiffer
Dynadifferdifferprocetimelwork
Othe(cultu
Concept E
e event, etc.;
ayed a role and td events changels actively coordresent in the LC
here, so this creaation as the DM wccess to informaonal event. As eme more and mo
ations and protesmplications, such
tuation, how C2 were available,
n of C2 during thund effects, inclu for personal rel
etween security s
are on-going, anme and have man
and personal reople’s careers, res the understandns related to this
cision-making anng became more
bsystems whichhese included:
ast 22 different samics of the secrent based on los of areas to polrent numbers of
amics of the secrent based on orent planning apesses, different lines over which king;
er subsystems wures, timelines, p
o Peaceful p
o Violent pro
o Attendees
o General cit
o Media.
Examples
the interactions bed over time; Thedinating during thCC and the “mainated a high demwas the person ation about evenevents unfolded, ore intense;
sts unfolded oveh as how people would operate, etc.;
he event unfoldeuding far-reachinationships and tstakeholders;
nd these investigny consequenceelationships, orgaecommendationding that there ws event grew, th
nd some individue and more self-p
h had their own d
security agenciecurity personnel wocation as they hice, different gro attendees/obse
curity personnel worganization as tpproaches and ocultures, and dif they were accu
with different dynaprocesses) inclu
protestors;
otestors;
of the event;
tizens;
between ere were he event. n” HQ was and on the “on the nts occurring the
er time, as were what extra
ed over time ng the
gations will es for anizational s for future
would likely is
ual’s protective.
dynamics in
es. were
had different oups, ervers, etc.;
were also hey had
other fferent
ustomed to
amics uded:
Concept ImporScenario (High
Low) and Jus
Page 93
rtance for h, Medium, tification
Pa
C
M
Haobbesa
Un
Goacto
In
Thenwh
age 94
Concept and De
ultiple conflicting
aving to achievebjectives which me all achievable aame time
nder-specified g
oals may be diffchieve because o vague
dependent agen
here are indepenntities in the envho influence it (t
efinition
g goals:
e multiple may not at the
The
Mositurelanegwitrela“stisecma
oals:
ficult to they are
Exa
Thejobmig
Whwabascomthekno
Whgenwa
nts:
ndent ironment hey may
Indinc
e goals of the D
Building
Building organiza
Meeting
Meeting
Providingsecurity o
Maintainassets;
Supportinassets fo
Making s
Making s
Making sof the evstay beh
ost of these goalsuation; for examationships with ogative by anotheh them; providinationships if it waicking your nosecurity personnel aintaining the sec
amples of under
e DM didn’t realb, which gave theght have been e
hen asked what s instructed by tsically every decmmunicated. The DM didn’t actuaow and what wa
hen things startenerally “sort it ous instruction to o
dependent agentcluded:
At least 2were sev
Concept Exam
M included:
and maintaining
and maintainingtions;
responsibilities t
obligations to hi
g advice about Corganizations;
ing the security
ng negotiations for security relate
sure actions are
sure actions are
sure the CF doesent (i.e., the CF ind the scenes).
s can conflict deple, building andone group was ser group and so ng certain informas seen negativ
e in”); providing i often contradictcurity of confiden
rspecified goals
ly get clear terme DM needed fleasier with cleare
information wouthe boss to “Givecision and conveere was no otheally know what ths going on at his
ed going wrong, ut”, which was noothers more than
ts who influence
22 public order uveral ways the D
mples
g personal relatio
g relationships be
to the situation;
gher command;
CF capabilities to
of confidential C
for the use of fedd to the event;
legal;
defensible mora
s not “become th wanted to advis
epending on the d maintaining sometimes seen hurt the relationsation could damely (e.g., it was snformation to locted the goal of ntial CF assets.
included:
ms of reference foexibility but the Der terms of refere
uld be useful, thee me everything”ersation was er specific directihe boss neededs end;
the instruction wot helpful (althoun the DM).
d decision maki
units involved – tDM mentioned th
Human
ConSce
Low
onships;
etween
o
CF
deral
ally;
he face” se and
as ship
mage seen as cal
High
Therhigh goalsdiffesituagoals
Threconf
or the DM’s job ence;
e DM ”, so
ion and d to
was ugh this
High
Thregoalsabilitdecis
ng
there at their
High
Tweagendecis
nsystems® Incor
ncept Importannario (High, Mew) and Justifica
h
re were an extre number of impos that conflicted rent ways in diffe
ations (10 distincs)
ee examples of gflict
h
ee examples of vs that impacted ty of the DM to msions
h
nty-eight indepents who impactesion making
rporated
ce for edium, ation
emely ortant in ferent ct
goal
vague the
make
endent d
Humansystem
Concept an
have differentthe decision m
2. ExAf
Concept and
Connectivity:
Things in the environment ione another incomplicated aunpredictable
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
t goals than maker)
xperience fghanistan
d Definition
nfluence n and ways
Ei
TifnBms
Tis
ted
goalsthe improtecoopwereordelongedifficgroumany
Medigettin
Mayorepriother
Peac
Violeand t
Atten
Genewith
Therlanguwas langu
to complen
Examples of decncluded:
The DM was resncluded quantityfood, artillery, venumber of persoBecause the resmeant that a lot supplies were wh
The relative impos quite variable sustainment esti
Concept E
s conflicted with mportance of theection mode, whperative with the e not focussing or units just left, mer contributing to
culties because ops and the goal y of them;
ia with its own bng a good story)
or – wanted a broritization and pr tasks;
ceful protestors;
ent protestors (wthreatened secu
ndees of the eve
eral citizens (didsecurity measur
re were issues wuage/terminologmade difficult byuage.
exity facto
Concept Ex
cisions which inv
sponsible for meey, storage, maintehicles, and otheonnel and vehicleources were disof juggling had there they were n
ortance of logistand frequently limate. Because
Examples
the DM’s own. Be event, many wich meant they w DM or each othon security. Sommeaning that theo security. Thereof territoriality of of self-protectio
biases and agend);
riefing – caused pulled the DM aw
wanted to disrupturity);
ent;
dn’t want to haveres such as the f
with learning the gy because collay a lack of comm
or mappin
xamples
volved interrelate
eting logistics netenance, and loc
er equipment usies to transport itspersed (decentrto be done to maneeded;
tics consideratioittle effort is diremore firepower
Because of were in self-were not
her, and also me public ey were no e were many different
on held by
da (e.g.,
way from
t the event
e to deal fence).
same aboration mon
SigcD
ng: NSE O
ed factors
eeds which cation of ing a limited tems. ralized), this ake sure
ns in the CF ected at the was desired
H
Mibdloivtdl
Concept ImporScenario (High
Low) and Jus
Seven examplesindependent agegoals that confliccould interfere wDM’s goals
Officer,
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
High
Many factors thainterrelated and be considered wdecisions (e.g., tlogistics problemover a dozen facincluding many dvehicles, many dtypes of items, mdifferent locationlimited staff. The
Page 95
rtance for h, Medium, tification
s of ents with cted or
with the
ortance for h, Medium, stification
at are that have to
when making the basic
m involved ctors different different many ns, and ese were all
Pa
C
Dy
Ththexenovdowhbedean
It hieprthdyof
age 96
Concept and De
ynamics:
he system has aat unfold over timxample, the nvironment chanver time even who nothing; the rahich things chane variable; there elays between and effects.
is important to nerarchical aspecresent (i.e., subsat have their owynamics which af the DM context
efinition
in thewas personumbtroopthe aneedof lognumbwhicdo m
Anotsustasustabasefor ptrainiand rmora
The impacounflownover muchcan tThis orderesou
aspects me. For
nges hen you te at
nge may may be ctions
note cts if systems wn are part t).
Situadecis
The ambulocatrelev
Locabut thbuilt influeapprnot uAfgh
The is qusustain thewas perso
C
e Afghanistan man increase in thonnel. This meaber of logistics pps, which had boability of the logisds (e.g., impactegistics staff due ber of convoys wh items could m
maintenance);
ther impact of littainment estimateainment was note and get food ealanners about tring for soldiers rreadiness requirale and prepared
location of the cact on logistics. Antries (i.e., no sen in. Because of other countries h preplanning is take over a mon in turn results inring process andurces.
ations that unfoldsion making incl
enemy is constaush locations antion of resourcesvant depending o
ations and numbhey were plannewell before theyence where theyopriately situate
useful as the CF anistan to fight;
relative importanuite variable and ainment estimatee Afghanistan man increase in thonnel. This mea
Concept Examp
mission but the buhe proportion of
ant that there wepersonnel sent tooth immediate anstics staff to kee
ed psychological to lack of sleep
which could occuove, impacted th
tle effort being de is that during tt practiced (e.g.,asily). This led toue logistical neeregarding true surements, which ldness;
onflict (AfghanisAfghanistan is sua access); thus, the nature of ar requires their co required to movth to receive am
n a lack of flexibid a resulting vuln
ded over time thuded:
antly evolving thend methods). This (e.g., FOBs) beon enemy locatio
er of FOBs stroned without logistiy were needed; ty were or know td. As events unf were sent to an
nce of logistics c frequently little ee. Because more
mission but the buhe proportion of
ant that there we
ples
udget was limite combat to logistre a relatively smo support the cond long-term effep up with resour well-being and sand rest, impactur, impacted thehe ability of the s
irected at the training, true soldiers could go a lack of informeds as well as a ustainment demaikely impacted t
stan) had a profourrounded by oth ammunition has
rtillery, flying artionsent, and therve ammunition (e
mmunition from Clity in the ammunerability in the f
at profoundly aff
eir tactics (e.g., tis means that thecame more or lons and activity;
ngly influenced lics input and hadthere was no wahat they would bfolded, the FOBs
nother part of
considerations ineffort is directede firepower was udget was limite combat to logistre relatively few
Human
CoSceLo
ed, there tics mall mbat ects on rce safety ted
e rate at staff to
go to the mation lack of ands heir
ound her s to be llery
refore e.g., it Canada). unition flow of
factocons
Examordeeffecat thinvoladditeffec
fected
their e less
ogistics d to be
ay to be s were
n the CF d at the desired
ed, there tics
High
Eighsituatime decis
At lewith dynadecis
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ors that the DM hsider)
mples of 2nd ander effects (e.g., scts of directing lite sustainment elved at least 13 tional decisions cts)
h
ht specific exampations that unfold that profoundly sion making
east twelve subsy somewhat differamics which impsion making
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
had to
d 3rd ide ttle effort
estimate
or
ples of ded over affected
ystems rent
pacted
Humansystem
Concept and
ms® Incorpora
d Definition
lhtiscim
Aepepgtam
TicfomcTor
TADc(otam
Tatiasa(m(gh
ted
ogistics personnhad both immedthe logistics staffmpacted psychostaff due to lack convoys which ctems could movmaintenance);
Another impact oestimate was thapracticed (e.g., seasily). This led planners about tgathered over timtraining for soldieand readiness remorale and prep
The location of thmpact on logisticountries (i.e., noflown in. Becausover other countmuch preplannincan take over a mThis in turn resuordering processresources;
There was a radAfghanistan missDM landing in Afchanges in plans(i.e., LAV compaone on base). Thterm repercussioand performed (emeans no preve
The use of ammammunition use that X amount wncreased greatlyas when other fasome commandeammunition). Fa(especially ammmaking it more d(i.e., as the pacegreatly increasedhow much artille
Concept Ex
nel sent to suppoiate and long-terf to keep up withological well-beinof sleep and res
could occur, impave, impacted the
of directing little at during trainingsoldiers could goto a lack of advarue logistical neeme during the opers regarding truequirements, whparedness;
he conflict (Afghcs. Afghanistan o sea access); th
se of the nature otries requires theng is required to month to receivelts in a lack of fles and a resulting
ical change in thsion which occufghanistan. This s to how the LAVanies were alwayhis change in resons to how maine.g., all LAVs contative maintena
unition varied gr at the beginning
was used per unity when the paceactors changed (ers were more pctors which increunition) also had
difficult for the BGe of battle incread, but the informry was being us
xamples
ort the combat trrm effects on theh resource needsng and safety ofst, impacted numacted the rate at ability of the sta
effort at the susg, true sustainmeo to the base andanced informatioeds (informationperation) as wellue sustainment dhich likely impact
hanistan) had a p is surrounded bhus, ammunitionof artillery, flyingeir consent, and move ammunitioe ammunition froexibility in the amg vulnerability in
he CONOPS for rred immediately CONOPS requiV companies woys in use rather source allocationtenance could b
onstantly being oance was possib
reatly over time.g of the DM’s tout time; however,e of battle increa(commanders chprone to use a loeased the use od other effects sG to report amm
ased, the use of amation from the B
ed was not sent
roops, which e ability of s (e.g., f logistics mber of t which aff to do
stainment ent was not d get food on for n had to be l as a lack of demands ted their
profound by other n has to be g artillery therefore on (e.g., it om Canada). mmunition the flow of
r the y prior to the ired
ould be used than having n had long-
be scheduled out in use ble);
Monitoring ur indicated this
ased as well hanged and ot of of resources such as munition use
ammunition BG about t; this could
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Page 97
ortance for h, Medium, stification
Pa
C
M
Hammat
age 98
Concept and De
ultiple conflicting
aving to achieveultiple objectivesay not be all acht the same time
efinition
haveother
Resothat ifactoreba
Therthis c
g goals:
e s which hievable
The
The extrebalaneedcan
C
e been due to ther factors);
ource availabilityit had to constan
ors such as vehiclancing was req
re were subsystecontext. These in
The Battle
The logistic
Personnel
The CF as
CEFCOM;
CANOSCO
Other armi
The ANA
The Taliba
For examphave profoeffects wer
Personnel different lelogistical s
Enemy actlogistics reunpredicta
goals of the DM
Maintaining
Making su
Taking awa
Maintaining
Making anallies
Lowering t
Managing vehicles, o
Acting withDM indicated emely importan
anced due to lacd to share resousometimes com
Concept Examp
e stress and time
y was so close tontly be balancedcles needing repuired frequently.
ems which had tncluded:
Group (BG);
cs unit;
at the FOBs (m
s a whole;
OM;
ies (e.g., US, Br
an (the enemy)
ple, the events exound effects on lore sometimes de
manning differeevels of activity aupport.
tivity also has prequirements andably.
included:
g Canadian secu
re that Canada w
ay Taliban traini
g a positive pub
d keeping strong
he stress level o
physical resourcother equipment)
hin resource conthat many of tnt and yet had ck of resourcesurces with alliempromise resup
ples
e pressure of ba
o the minimum re and plans chan
pair would mean .
heir own dynam
ultiple groups);
itish, Netherland
xperienced by thogistics, but theselayed.
ent FOBs experieand required diffe
rofound effect on it waxes and wa
urity
was well represe
ng areas
lic perception of
g relationships w
of commanding o
ces (food, artiller)
nstraints. these goals werto be delicatel
s. For examplees for tactical epply of other
Human
CoSceLo
attle or
equired nged; that
mics in
ds);
he BG se
enced erent
n anes
ented
f the CF
with
officers
ry,
re ly e, the effect
High
Therhigh goalsdiffesitua
Threconf
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
h
re were an extre number of impos that conflicted rent ways in diffe
ations (8 distinct
ee examples of gflict
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
emely ortant in ferent goals)
goal
Humansystem
Concept and
Under-specifie
Goals may beachieve becautoo vague
Independent a
There are indeentities in the environment winfluence it (thhave differentthe decision m
ms® Incorpora
d Definition
Cbhch
ed goals:
e difficult to use they are
E
agents:
ependent who hey may t goals than maker)
Ii
Mwf
Sw
ted
Canadian unitsbalance betweehaving needed constraints (i.ehaving extra su
Examples of und
What rsupposdevelowas juANA lo
The DMgoals wlevel).
ndependent agencluded:
The Cmake sTaliban
US arm
NATO followe
Netherwell re
British repres
RCMP
CIDA (
DFAITprogra
ANA (pindepe
TalibanNATO
Many independewhich had to be forces, ANA, NA
Several groups (which were in co
Concept Ex
s; time lags in ren managing phresources) and., not spending
upplies not bein
derspecified goa
role the logistics sed to have with
oped when the Dst told to “do whogistics.
M noted that, altwere generally c
ents who influen
F (ensure Canadsure Canada is wn training areas)
my (make sure U
(follow NATO ded by others);
rlands army (maepresented);
Army (make suented);
P (mentor the AN
(provide humani
T (assist in provinam);
protect own counendence);
n (defeat enemie forces).
ent agents with caccommodated
ATO personnel, U
(e.g., Taliban, ANonflict with the D
xamples
resupply meanthysical resourcd acting withing too much monng used) were
als included:
component andh the ANA was nDM was involvedhat you can” to w
though difficult toclear (at least at
ced decision ma
dian security is pwell represented);
US is well repres
doctrine and ens
ake sure Netherla
re British are we
NP);
itarian aid);
ncial reconstruct
ntry, maintain
es including CF,
conflicting resou (e.g., CF, otherUS army)
NA at times) hadM’s goals.
t that the ces (i.e.,
n resource ney and in conflict.
d CF was not fully d. The DM work with
o achieve, a high
M
Ogo
aking
preserved, d, take away
sented);
ure it is
ands are
ell
tion
, other
rce needs r allied
d goals
H
Twm
Sigi
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Medium
One example of goal that impactof the DM to ma
High
Ten independenwho impacted demaking
Seven examplesindependent agegoals that conflicinterfere with the
Page 99
ortance for h, Medium, stification
f a vague ed the ability
ake decisions
nt agents ecision
s of ents with cted or could e DM’s goals
Pa
3
Co
Theninfancounwa
age 100
3. ExpeAfgh
Concept and Definition
onnectivity:
hings in the nvironment fluence one nother in omplicated and npredictable ays
erience tohanistan
Examples of
The prison bprocess gradPicture (COPnot effectivedifficulty resfor assistancsecurity orgaused to workinformation cbe accompli
Cultural diffethey createdmany of the
ExAfto foraure
Di(ewede
A atthisevco
ThhahacoAfpo
Dianreunpr
Litrecwo
complex
Con
f decisions which
break led to a produally revealed tP) among Afghaly get informatioponding to threace from other seanizations typicaking at an operachanged how theshed;
erences betweend a lack of trust a DM’s decisions.
xtremely high emfghanistan (e.g., Afghans is parar example, authouthority to the Afglationships);
fferences in the .g., people respoere not punishedestroyed trust);
difference in thetendant responss phone becauseven though that woming to);
he Afghans appead little control ovappen”); whereasontrol over eventfghans were not ossible event and
fferent social stany Afghan the DMlationships were
nderstand what tivy to how famili
teracy is so low cords are kept, would help assess
ity factor
ncept Examples
h involved interr
ocess of informathat there was n
an security agencon about threats;ats; that the ANPcurity organizati
ally work at a tactional or strategie DM saw his go
n Afghanistan anand difficulty with. Factors include
mphasis on interp the importance
amount). This haority based on poghans (obedienc
legal system anonsible for the pd as they could p
e idea of what it isibility (e.g., a poe DM was gettinwas the only pho
eared to have thever events (e.g.,s Canadians typts. This had impl used to the cond were resistant
andards (e.g., DM worked with). e important, but wthe relationshipses were interrela
in Afghanistan thwhich means das resource and tr
mapping:
s
elated factors in
ation gathering. To Common Opecies; that the AN; that the ANP haP could not effecons; and that Af
ctical level and aic level. These poals and how the
nd Canada are ph coordination, aed:
personal relation of personal relaas profound implosition alone is nce is based on p
nd widespread corison break prob
pay to be release
is to have a job aolice officer threwng too many 911one the calls we
e perspective th, “what Allah willpically feel they dications; for exacept of practicin to such training
M never met the The DM knew thwas not able to as were as he wasated through ma
hat usually no wata is not availabraining requirem
Human
: Liaison O
CoSc
L
ncluded:
This erating NP could ad
ctively ask fghan
are not pieces of ey could
profound; affecting
nships in ationships ications; not “real”
personal
orruption bably ed, which
and the w away calls, re
at they s will
do have ample, the g for a
e wife of hat social actually s not arriage;
written ble that ments;
Hig
Mainteto bmathecultimpinfludec
Exaordhavcultaddeffe
nsystems® Incor
Officer,
oncept Importacenario (High, MLow) and Justifi
gh
ny factors that aerrelated and thabe considered wking decisions (ere were 15 impotural effects andplications which uenced the DM’scisions)
amples of 2nd ander effects (e.g., ving to work in ature involved at ditional decisionsects)
rporated
ance for Medium, ication
are at have
when e.g., ortant d
s
nd 3rd the DM different least 15 s or
Humansystem
Concept anDefinition
Dynamics:
The system haspects that unfold over timFor example, environment changes overtime even wheyou do nothinthe rate at whthings changemay be variabthere may be delays betweeactions and effects.
It is importantnote hierarchiaspects if pres(i.e., subsystethat have theiown dynamicswhich are parthe DM contex
ms® Incorpora
nd n
as
me. the
r en g; ich
e ble; en
to cal sent
ems r s rt of xt).
Situationmaking
There wto be runwas usevolunteethe ANPthe ANP(an unprANP, forcivilians
The prisprocess Picture (not effecdifficultyfor assissecurity used to informatbe acco
The DMmaintainthe U.S.differencchange was highfrustratinthat the
There wcontext.
ted
Lack of apprecequipment wafaction of the Aequipment in tthe DM);
Age is more oAfghanistan. Tbeen received
ns that unfolded included:
was a 911 systemn by the ANP bu
ed for the 911 caered to take overP involved as theP would be contaredictable) windor obtaining intelli;
son break led to gradually revea(COP) among Afctively get informy responding to tstance from othe organizations tyworking at an option changed howmplished;
attempted to gen, train on, and u DM found this vces), and felt tha(i.e., there seemhly resistant to cng as time went C2 infrastructure
were subsystems These included
The ANA;
The ANP
Kandahar pris
The CF;
Civilians;
The operation
Concept Exam
ciation for resouas given to the reANA changed lothe old location u
f a factor in creaThe DM felt that d if DM had been
over time that p
m that was impleut the chief of poalls as he found ir the 911 functioe operations roomacted to answer ows of opportunigence, and for f
a process of infoaled that there wafghan security a
mation about threhreats; that the A
er security organypically work at aperational or straw the DM saw h
et the relevant stuse communicatvery difficult for mat any interventiomed to be a “set change). This be on and the DM ge would be adeq
s which had their:
son personnel;
s centre in whic
mples
urces (e.g., commelevant stakeholdocations but left tunattended with
ating a sense of more respect wn older;
profoundly affect
emented; this waolice discarded thit inconvenient. T
on; this became am would receivethem. This creaity for collaboratfacilitating relatio
ormation gatherias no Common
agencies; that theeats; that the ANANP could not e
nizations; and thaa tactical level aategic level. The
his goals and how
takeholders to inion equipment pmany reasons (eon tried did not rpoint” in the env
ecame more andgrew increasingquate to maintain
r own dynamics
h the DM was w
munications ders; one the out notifying
authority in would have
ted decision
as supposed he phone that The DM a tool to get
e the calls but ated additional tion with the onships with
ing. This Operating e ANP could
NP had effectively ask at Afghan nd are not
ese pieces of w they could
nstall, provided by e.g., cultural result in vironment that d more ly hopeless n security.
in this
working.
Concept ImpScenario (Hig
Low) and Ju
Medium
Three specific situations that uover time that paffected decisio
Six subsystemssomewhat diffedynamics whicdecision makin
Page 101
portance for gh, Medium, ustification
examples of unfolded profoundly on making
s with erent h impacted
ng
Pa
Mco
Hamobmacsa
Ungo
Godifbeto
Inag
Thindeneninfmdifthm
age 102
Concept and Definition
ultiple onflicting goals:
aving to achieveultiple bjectives which ay not be all chievable at the ame time
nder-specified oals:
oals may be fficult to achieveecause they are o vague
dependent gents:
here are dependent ntities in the nvironment who fluence it (they ay have fferent goals an the decision aker)
Canadian ana relatively forganizationprocedures)change, with
e
The goals of
Cr
BuANan
There were these goals.adversaries was difficult example is tthe DM provremain invesresulted in s
e
Examples of
The goal of csuperficially of the curren
Independent
Th
Th
Th
Kaaft
Bo
ND
IEpro
Me
Large problestakeholdersone wanted
Con
nd other foreign fast rate of changns (e.g., longer ti, with an except
h higher turnove
f the DM include
reating an effect
uilding and mainNA, ANP, Kandand the NDS.
some cases in w One example w that the DM was to meet both of hat the DM had
vided to trainees sted (i.e., too mustakeholders with
f underspecified
creating an effec clear but what wnt system was on
t agents who inf
he CF;
he ANA (didn’t lik
he ANP;
andahar prison pter the prison bre
order security;
DS;
C (Independent otection;
entors.
ems due to interps (e.g., ANA and to work with the
ncept Examples
military organizage compared to me to train, longion being in the r in the Afghan o
ed:
ive Kandahar cit
taining relationsahar prison perso
which it was difficwas that the ANPs trying to get to their needs and to balance the f with allowing thuch negative feehdrawing from th
goals included:
ctive Kandahar cwas actually requnly revealed ove
luenced decision
ke working with
personnel (not treak);
Electoral Comm
personal conflictd ANP didn’t wane Kandahar priso
s
ations appeared the Afghan ger time to changrate of personneorganizations.
ty security netwo
hips with membonnel, Border Se
cult to achieve aP and ANA were work together, a expectations. Afeedback accuraem to save face
edback would likehe training).
city security netwuired and the poer time.
n making include
the ANP and vic
usted; most wer
mission) – require
ts between differnt to work togethon personnel)
Human
CoSc
L
to have
ge el
ork
bers of the ecurity,
all of e and it
Another acy that e and ely have
Me
Theimpconin ddist
Twocon
Primprostapargoa
work was oor state
Me
Onegoaabidec
Goafairchacurand
ed:
ce versa);
re new
ed
rent her; no
Hig
Eigwhoma
SevindegoacouDM
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importacenario (High, MLow) and Justifi
dium
ere were a numbportant goals thanflicted in differedifferent situationtinct goals)
o examples of gnflict
mary difficulty duoblems with gettikeholder buy-in rticipation rather als conflicting
dium
e example of a val that impacted lity of the DM to cisions
als at a high leverly clear, the maiallenge was to derrent security situd needs
gh
ght independento impacted decisking
ven examples ofependent agentsals that conflicteduld interfere with
M’s goals
rporated
ance for Medium, ication
ber of at nt ways ns (6
goal
ue to ng and than
vague the make
el were in etermine uation
t agents sion
f s with d or
h the
Humansystem
Concept anDefinition
4. ExDe
Concept an
Connectivity:
Things in the influence one complicated aunpredictable
ms® Incorpora
nd n
Large prparticipadidn’t wa
xperience eveloper
nd Definition
environment another in
and ways
ted
roblems related ation; this partialant to cooperate
to comple
Examples of deincluded: cultuteam training, iinterviews), woCIDA), dealingbalance conflicNATO have dif
Factors the DM
The degree to CIDA, DFAIT, over time (e.g.greater need foin providing anThere were sev
As operational training had to almost constanenvironments achanges to effe
Concept Exam
to getting stakehly a cultural prob
e with the DM’s t
exity facto
Concept E
ecisions which inral information, winteracting with torking with multipg with unexpectecting objectives (fferent policies o
M must consider
which the CF woand other organ, the Manley panor cooperation),
nd receiving trainveral componen
ok time to build tncies (e.g., CF, C together. Netwo
ding were more a (e.g., a “night ou
D training to facil
ther aspect of OGe over time was erstanding of bascess (OPP). Initiaaining in the OPbegun. This traimon understand
works which wereeatre. The DM sand 3rd order efionships and oth
environments a change along wntly updating SAand priorities as ectively deal with
mples
holder buy-in anblem (e.g., all Afraining plans)
or mappin
Examples
nvolved interrelaworking with tranthe media (e.g., ple OGDs (e.g.,
ed events, and h(e.g., when CEFor priorities)
how to include
ould have to wonizations only benel report indica therefore their inning evolved ovents to this, includ
he necessary truCIDA, DFAIT) toorking and relatioactively encouraut dinner” was bitate networking
GD integration w getting a commsic Operational Pally CIDA, DFAIT
PP and this basicning helped imp
ding and build soe useful for trainsaid that there wffects from theseher training bene
and priorities chawith them. This reA about operation well as implemeh changes. Som
nd adequate fghani groups
ng: CoE T
ated factors nslators, giving DFAIT, ow to
FCOM and
in training:
ork with ecame clear ated a nvolvement
er time. ding:
ust between o effectively onship
aged over built into g etc.);
which took on Planning T etc. have c training prove ocial ing and also ere many e social efits;
anged, equires nal enting
meone from
M
Facdhdwp
EoiDiow
Concept ImpScenario (Hig
Low) and Ju
Training
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Medium
Factors that are and that have toconsidered whedecisions (e.g., thave to considerdifferent aspectswhen designing programs.)
Examples of 2nd order effects (e.ginvolvement of CDFAIT in the OPinvolved “many” order effects (altwere not explicit
Page 103
portance for gh, Medium, ustification
ortance for h, Medium, stification
interrelated o be n making the trainers r at least 7 s of training the
and 3rd g.,
CIDA and PP training 2nd and 3rd though these tly listed)
Pa
C
Dy
Ththexchwhrambean
It hieprthdyth
age 104
Concept and De
ynamics:
he system has aat unfold over timxample, the envihanges over timehen you do noth
ate at which thingay be variable; te delays betweend effects.
is important to nerarchical aspecresent (i.e., subsat have their owynamics which ae DM context).
efinition
theknesitu
aspects me. For ronment e even hing; the gs change there may n actions
note cts if systems wn are part of
Sitdec
As traalmenvchatheknesitu
TheCIDovegrein pThe
Thefirsbutmis
Gethechanee
Nedevfor
e CoE often wenew what’s needeuation was.
uations that unfocision making in
operational envining had to cha
most constantly uvironments and anges to effective CoE often wenew what’s needeuation was;
e degree to whicDA, DFAIT, and er time (e.g., theeater need for coproviding and reere were severa
It took timagenciestrain togebuilding wtime (e.gOGD trai
Another aplace oveunderstaProcess no traininwas begucommonnetworksin theatre2nd and relations
e money availabst, when war start funding becamssion began to w
enerally training pere are many varange over time (eds are);
etworks of peopleveloped, and this training as well
Concept Exam
t on the recce wed in theatre and
olded over time tcluded:
vironments and pnge along with tupdating SA abopriorities as well
vely deal with cht on the recce wed in theatre and
ch the CF would other organizatie Manley panel rooperation), therceiving training
al components to
me to build the ns (e.g., CF, CIDAether. Networkinwere more activ., a “night out diining to facilitate
aspect of OGD ier time was gett
anding of basic O(OPP). Initially C
ng in the OPP anun. This training understanding a
s which were usee. The DM said t3rd order effectships and other tr
ble for training derted, the budget e more scarce a
wind up, the rece
programs use roriables which ha(e.g., people’s av
e were built as ths helped in the a as getting other
mples
with the new HQ d what the curren
that profoundly a
priorities changethem. This requiout operational l as implementinanges. Someon
with the new HQ d what the curren
have to work wons only becameport indicated arefore their involvevolved over tim
o this, including:
necessary trust bA, DFAIT) to effeng and relationshely encouraged nner” was built i
e networking etc.
integration whiching a common
Operational PlanCIDA, DFAIT etcnd this basic trai helped improveand build social eful for training athat there were ms from these socraining benefits;
ecreased over ti was virtually unas time when on ession started, e
olling-wave plannve to be set andvailability, what t
he training was acquisition of resr organizations in
Human
CoSceLo
so they nt
affected
ed, red
ng e from so they nt
with me clear
a vement
me.
between ectively hip over nto .);
h took
ning c. have ining e and also many cial
me – at limited, and the
etc.;
ning as d things training
sources nvolved.
Med
Eighsituatime decis
Six ssomedynadecis
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ium
ht specific exampations that unfold that profoundly sion making
subsystems withewhat different amics which impsion making
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
ples of ded over affected
h
pacted
Humansystem
Concept an
Multiple confli
Having to achobjectives whbe all achievasame time
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
cting goals:
hieve multiple ich may not
able at the
ted
One or two peoof DFAIT) and more people inmuch more use
Now, trainers aThis means thaneed to talk ab
Changes to traChanges are dthere is a greatraining cycles
There were suthis context. Th
OGD
Train
Instru
Writi
CF
CoE
CIDAsche6 monetwindiv
CoE both struc
The goals of th
Gettithis iwith thing
Coor
Meet
Build
Sometimes thehigher HQ don
Training needsneeds (e.g., timoperational tas
Some conflictsother resourcelimited resourc
Concept E
ople would get o then their contanvolved. Personaeful than “officia
are often traineeat they generallybout and can imp
aining programs difficult to make wt deal of change.
bsystems whichhese included:
Ds (DFAIT, CIDA
nees
uctors
ng group (SMEs
military vs. civili
A and DFAIT havedules than the Conths) which cauworks and undersviduals.
military vs. civili chains of commctures and proce
he DM included:
ing the trainees s really clear. Gformation battle
gs the HQ needs
rdinating with op
ting requirement
ding and maintai
e training goals on’t align
s are sometimesme for training vssks)
s arise simply du limitations (e.g.
ces)
Examples
on board (e.g., oacts were useful al contacts oftenl” channels;
es from an earliey understand whprove training;
have a distinct pwithin a training e that happens b
h had their own d
A)
s)
ian chain of com
ve different deplCF (CF HQ 9 mouses problems wstanding capabil
ian chain of command have differeesses.
ready for war (menerally this goa task standards
s to be able to do
perational needs
ts of superiors;
ning network of
of the governme
s in conflict with os. time for perfor
ue to time limitati., can’t do everyt
one member for getting n proved
er group. hat they
pattern. cycle, but
between
dynamics in
mmand
loyment onths, OGDs with building lities of
mmand – ent authority
main goal) – al comes (a list of o in war);
s of trainees;
contacts.
ent and
operational rming
ions and thing with
M
Tgds
Tc
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Medium
There were 4 imgoals that conflicdifferent ways insituations
Three examplesconflict
Page 105
ortance for h, Medium, stification
mportant cted in n different
s of goal
Pa
C
Un
Goacto
In
Thenwhhath
5
C
Co
Thinfcoun
age 106
Concept and De
nder-specified g
oals may be diffchieve because o vague
dependent agen
here are indepenntities in the envho influence it (tave different goae decision make
5. ExpeStrat
Concept and De
onnectivity:
hings in the envifluence one anoomplicated and npredictable way
efinition
oals:
ficult to they are
Exa
Whwokno
Thetheto u
Sotheinsdire
NAlevvag
nts:
ndent ironment hey may
als than er)
Indinc
Oftpeo
erience totegic Advi
efinition
ronment other in
ys
Exainc
Onnetunewitcha
amples of under
hen the training porking “in a void”,ow what they ne
e DM had neverey were trying to understand wha
me changes dide Canadian Govesurgency strategyection;
ATO generally givvel command chague goals as cha
dependent agentcluded:
Traineesand opercommantime durischedule
NATO (oGovernm
CoE civil(may hav
OGDs (Cprocesse
ten difficult to coople have multip
complexisory Team
amples of decisicluded:
ne goal of the DMtworks were builexpected benefith the chaplains aplains acted as
Concept Exam
rspecified goals
program began , had only limited
eeded;
r experienced the recreate, whicht they were tryin
occur which weernment announy but failed to pr
ves good directianges so can theanging goals).
ts who influence
s (have conflict brational needs (ed group take off ng which a train
ed));
objectives may cment objectives a
ian vs. CF militave different goals
CIDA, DFAIT, etces, and timelines
oordinate meetinple priorities and
ity factor m, Afghan
Concept Exam
ions which involv
M was to build ret over time and ts. For example,at a nearby US
s a resource whe
mples
included:
initially, the DM d staff and didn’t
e kind of meetin made it more d
ng to do;
ere vague. For enced a counter-rovide any firm
on but when hige direction (not s
d decision maki
between training e.g., may have thf to do a recce foing seminar was
onflict with Canaand policies);
ary chain of coms and processes
c.) (have differens).
gs and training b commitments.
mapping:nistan
mples
ved interrelated
elationships; relahad many, some, the DM made cbase, and these
en Canadians ne
Human
CoSceLo
was t really
g that ifficult
example,
gher so much
High
Thregoalsabilitdecis
ng
needs he or the s
adian
mand s);
nt goals,
because
Med
Six who mak
Five indegoalsinter
: Chief of
CoSceLo
factors
ationship etimes contact e eeded
Med
Maninterbe codecisconsbe o
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
h
ee examples of vs that impacted ty of the DM to msions
ium
independent age impacted decisiing
examples of pendent agents s that conflicted rfere with the DM
Staff,
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ium
y factors that arerrelated and thatonsidered whensions (e.g., the sideration of wheopenly military inv
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
vague the
make
ents ion
with or could
M’s goals
nce for Medium, cation
e t have to n making
ether to volved
Humansystem
Concept an
Dynamics:
The system hthat unfold ovexample, the changes overwhen you do rate at which tmay be variabbe delays betwand effects.
It is importanthierarchical aspresent (i.e., sthat have theidynamics whithe DM contex
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
as aspects er time. For environment
r time even nothing; the things change ble; there may ween actions
to note spects if subsystems r own ch are part of xt).
ted
counselling (e.facilitate relatioopen house BBbuilt more and growing netwofacilitated man
There was an oopenly military vehicles) and tbeing targetedwith weapons oprotected in momilitary law as reaching conseother country mAfghan military
Situations that decision makin
One goal of thenetworks wereunexpected bewith the chaplachaplains actecounselling (e.facilitate relatioopen house BBbuilt more and growing netwofacilitated man
There was an oopenly military vehicles) and tinfluenced by fin the area. Thand safety issuand benefits (evehicles, beingmilitary officersreaching conseother country mAfghan military
The chain of coAfghanistan (Tgroup for admiworked directlybecame more authority over tthis made deci
Concept E
g., when a co-wonship building, tBQ every Friday more people work of connectiony interactions;
on-going balanc (e.g., wearing utrying to pass as, legal trouble anout of uniform) aore secure vehic on-duty military equences, includmembers saw Cay buildings.
unfolded over ting included:
e DM was to bui built over time a
enefits. For examains at a nearby d as a resource g., when a co-w
onship building, tBQ every Friday more people work of connectiony interactions;
on-going balanc (e.g., wearing utrying to pass asfactors such as te costs (e.g., be
ues if caught withe.g., being protecg protected by ms) have to be weequences, includmembers saw Cay buildings;
ommand was fuzTFA) in Kandaha
nistrative purposy through CEFCOand more clear tthe DM’s team tsion making mo
Examples
worker was killedthe DM’s group
y night, and as reould attend. Thisns between peop
cing act betweenuniforms, drivings civilian. The cond safety issuesand benefits (e.gcles, being prote officers). This hding strategic imanadian military
ime that profoun
ild relationships;and had many, s
mple, the DM ma US base, and th when Canadian
worker was killedthe DM’s group
y night, and as reould attend. Thisns between peop
cing act betweenuniforms, drivings civilian, which wthe current stateeing targeted, legh weapons out octed in more sec
military law as oneighed. This hadding strategic imanadian military
zzy. Task Forcear was in charge ses, but the teamOM. As time wethat TFA felt thehan the DM thou
ore difficult. For e
). To hosted an elationships s created a ple and
n being military
osts (e.g., s if caught g., being ected by had far-mplications if y entering
apt
Eopbic
ndly affected
; relationship sometimes ade contact hese ns needed ). To hosted an elationships s created a ple and
n being military were e of tension gal trouble of uniform) cure -duty far-
mplications if y entering
e of the DM’s m actually
ent on it ey had more ught, and example,
M
Fstd
Ssdd
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
at least 8 decisiopossible conseqthe DM had to c
Examples of 2nd order effects (e.gpossible conseqbeing openly miinvolved at leastconsequences)
Medium
Five specific exasituations that utime that profoundecision making
Six subsystems somewhat differdynamics which decision making
Page 107
ortance for h, Medium, stification
ons and quences that consider)
and 3rd g., the
quences of litary or not t 6 possible
amples of nfolded over ndly affected
g
with rent impacted
g
Pa
C
M
Haobbesa
age 108
Concept and De
ultiple conflicting
aving to achievebjectives which me all achievable aame time
efinition
TFmethisbe
Teaperthefor to bimpteaexpsecfirs
Eveto rweothcasimp
Thethis
Theandres
ThehadproDM
Thediff
g goals:
e multiple may not at the
The
A kept pressurineasures put on ths off as that wou obvious they we
am cohesion issriod. For example negligent disch some time afterbe a tight-knit grpact the mood oam members to wperienced 2 diffecond configuratiost;
ents which threareassessment of
ell as an on-goingher embassies tose an evacuationprove communic
ere were subsyss context. These
TFA;
CEFCOM
The DM’s
Forces fr
The groucompoun
The Afgh
e DM’s group had so were more source allocation
e TFA and CEFCd different rates ocesses as they M’s team;
e Afghan securitferent practices t
e goals of the D
Ensuring
Ensuringequipme
Building
Performi
Concept Exam
ng the DM to getheir vehicles, buuld make them taere military vehic
sues waxed and le, the team mem
harge was teasedrward. The grouproup, so any tensf the entire compwork effectively terent team configon were more te
atened the securf the security plag effort to work wo arrange for a mn was required, cation between t
stems which hade included:
M;
s team;
rom different cou
up at the US basnd;
han security forc
ad fewer resourcaffected by chan
n);
COM, as well as of information e were much larg
ty force had a dithan the DM’s te
M included:
g team members
g safety of the cont
relationships
ng administratio
mples
t electronic count the DM kept pu
argets (because cles);
waned during thmber who experd about it by thep lived together sions could profopound and the atogether. The Dgurations and theam players than
rity of the compoan for the compowith the British amore secure locaand also an attehese stakeholde
d their own dyna
untries;
se near the DM’s
ce hired by the D
ces than many gnge (e.g., need f
s other countriesxchange and sloer groups than t
fferent culture aeam.
s’ safety
ompound and
n tasks effective
Human
CoSceLo
nter-utting it would
his time rienced e group and had
foundly ability of M
he n the
ound led ound as and ation in empt to ers.
amics in
s
DM.
groups for
s’ forces ower the
and
ely
Med
Therimpoconfdiffegoals
Two
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ium
re were a numbeortant goals that flicted in differenrent situations (6s)
examples of go
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
er of t ways in 6 distinct
oal
Humansystem
Concept an
Under-specifie
Goals may beachieve becautoo vague
Independent a
There are indeentities in the who influencehave differentthe decision m
6. ExSu
Concept an
Connectivity:
Things in the influence one complicated a
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
ed goals:
e difficult to use they are
agents:
ependent environment
e it (they may t goals than maker)
xperience upervisor
nd Definition
environment another in
and
ted
Deal
Meetcomm
Somhighehavemeasmaketheir
One was inher
Examples of un
TherAfghactua
Independent aincluded:
DM’s
Ame
ISAF
UN m
UN a
Othe
Afgh
Afgh
Enem
It was clear thadifferent agend
Potential enem
to comple
Examples of deincluded:
If an educationhave to be mad
Concept E
ing with unexpe
ting demands anmand
e of these goalser command at Te the vehicles fittsures, but the De his team targe safety;
main problem wlack of time rathrently contradicto
nderspecified go
re was the requirans and “do it thally meant was u
gents who influe
s team members
rican coalition g
F mission groups
mission groups
agencies
er nations with em
an civilians
an military
my
at the DM thoughdas but clear exa
my action drove m
exity facto
Concept E
ecisions which in
nal program is bede with consider
Examples
ected events effe
nd requirements
s conflicted – for TFA ordered theted with electronM thought that t
ets and actually d
with managing mher than goals beory.
oals included:
rement to assist heir way”, but whunclear.
enced decision m
s
roups
s
mbassies and a
ht these groups amples were not
many decisions.
or mappin
Examples
nvolved interrela
eing changed, thration of all elem
ectively
s of higher
r example, e DM to nic counter-this would decrease
multiple goals eing
c
the hat this
M
Ott
making
mbassadors
had t provided;
M
Nwm
Oigi
ng: PME R
ated factors
he changes ments (army,
M
Fac
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
conflict provided
Medium
One example of that impacted ththe DM to make
Medium
Nine independewho impacted demaking
One explicit exaindependent agegoals that conflicinterfere with the
Revitalizat
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Medium
Factors that are and that have toconsidered whe
Page 109
ortance for h, Medium, stification
d
f vague goals e ability of decisions
nt agents ecision
ample of ents with cted or could e DM’s goals
tion
ortance for h, Medium, stification
interrelated o be n making
Pa
C
un
Dy
Ththexchwhrambean
It hieprthdyth
age 110
Concept and De
npredictable way
ynamics:
he system has aat unfold over timxample, the envihanges over timehen you do noth
ate at which thingay be variable; te delays betweend effects.
is important to nerarchical aspecresent (i.e., subsat have their owynamics which ae DM context).
efinition
ys navsyselesigtragoi
If shavthroshuordtimpriosomcon
aspects me. For ronment e even hing; the gs change there may n actions
note cts if systems wn are part of
Sitdec
Comoinfogenunk
Metim
Thestrelittl
Lacentweup
Theovemewaimpmis
Theexamereqwo
Insdonproto hmis
vy, and air forcestem or course aements and theirnificant differencining is requireding to get buy-in
something is addve to be removeough the other Duffled to make suder and prerequi
me of trainees is loritizing materiamething else hasnstraints).
uations that unfocision making in
ommand directionore scrutiny was ormation requesneral risk aversioknown;
eeting requests wme, which delaye
e DM’s own stafess increased ase apparent prog
ck of continuity; tered (including
ere performed mu to speed, etc.;
e complexity of ter time. The Traeant to keep up ws typically fairly portant windowsssed;
e rate at which tample, sometimeeant that the DMquests for more iould go by with n
structors had to bne far in advancocess). Due to dehave particular issed, and decisi
Concept Exam
) to ensure that are consistent wir training philosoces it is difficult t, how it should b from different s
ded to a DP, thened and this couldDP levels as otheure that things asites are maintalimited also creal (usually if somes to be dropped
olded over time tcluded:
n slowed the ach paid as the numsts increased. Won or other facto
were responded d the process;
ff had difficulty ss the process caress;
as old people lethe DM) the proultiple times, peo
the operating enining and Educawith changes; hoslow to react to
s of opportunity m
things changed wes submitting inf and his staff weinformation, ando feedback from
be hired to run pce (e.g., to go threlays in the PMEnstructors at parons had to be m
mples
the changes to tith needs of all phies. Because to determine whbe done, how thetakeholders, etc
n something elsed cause ripple cher things have to
are learned in theained. The fact thates problems wiething is added to fit within time
that profoundly a
hievement of gomber of small hether there was
ors were at play
to less favourab
taying motivatedarried on over tim
eft and new peopcess it meant thople had to be g
nvironment chanation (T&E) systeowever, the T&E new things, andmight have been
was variable; forformation to the ere bombarded wd sometimes weem the Staff at all;
programs; this harough PWGSC E process, opporticular times we
made without pro
Human
CoSceLo
the
of at ey are c.;
e may hanges o be e right hat the ith
e
decisprogat leathat
Examordesomeinvol3 othconspriorunits
affected
oals and
s is
bly over
d and me with
ple at tasks
gotten
ged em is E system d so n
r Staff with eks
ad to be
ortunities ere likely oper
Med
Sevesituatime decis
Foursomedynadecis
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
sions (e.g., educgram changes invast 6 interactingthe DM had to c
mples of 2nd ander effects (e.g., aething to a DP clve considering aher DPs and sideration of the rity of many conss in those DPs)
ium
en specific examations that unfold that profoundly sion making
r subsystems witewhat different amics which impsion making
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
cational volved
g factors consider)
d 3rd adding could at least
relative stituent
mples of ded over affected
th
pacted
Humansystem
Concept an
Multiple confli
Having to achobjectives whbe all achievasame time
Under-specifie
Goals may beachieve becautoo vague
Independent a
There are indeentities in the who influencehave differentthe decision m
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
cting goals:
hieve multiple ich may not
able at the
ed goals:
e difficult to use they are
agents:
ependent environment
e it (they may t goals than maker)
ted
support from a
There were suthis context. Th
The
The
The
The
The own
The playeproce
The goals of th
Incre
Ensuof the
Meet
Meetcommshouprog
It was impossibincrease the nurunning all of thwhat the prioritnot all be accotoo limited).
Examples of un
The progrelati
Independent aincluded:
Eachhas isyste
The moneinfras
Stud
Concept E
finalized PME p
bsystems whichhese included:
DM’s team (wor
School;
Staff;
Federal governm
School and the S systems and tim
overall Federal ged a role (e.g., thess).
he DM included:
easing the numb
uring the educatie CF;
ting budget requ
ting other requiremand regarding uld be trained (e.ram).
ble to meet the bumber of peoplehe other programties of these goamplished at the
nderspecified go
goals of runningram appeared toive priority were
gents who influe
h environment (aits own things them;
School personneey for out-of-scostructure improv
ents may have i
Examples
process.
h had their own d
rking on specific
ment.
Staff seemed tomelines.
governmental prhe Strategic Rev
ber of staff educa
ion program met
uirements
rements from hig the nature of wh.g., running an a
budget requireme educated, as wms required. It wals should be an same time (reso
oals included:
g the joint commo be clear, altho not always clea
enced decision m
army, navy, air fohey want from th
el: had goal of oope items (e.g., vements);
individual constr
dynamics in
tasks);
o have their
rocesses view
ated;
t the needs
gher hat and who aboriginal
ments, well as was unclear d they could ources were
M
Tig
Tc
and staff ugh their
ar.
L
Ntt
Gs
making
orce): each e T&E
obtaining
raints (e.g.,
M
Swm
Tigi
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Medium
There were a nuimportant goals goals)
Three examplesconflict provided
Low
No examples of that impacted ththe DM to make
Goals at a high seemed to be fa
Medium
Six independenwho impacted demaking
Two examples oindependent agegoals that conflicinterfere with the
Page 111
ortance for h, Medium, stification
umber of (4 distinct
s of goal d
vague goals e ability of decisions
level airly clear.
nt agents ecision
of ents with cted or could e DM’s goals
Pa
C
7
C
Co
Thinfcoun
Dy
Ththexchwhrambean
age 112
Concept and De
. ExpeDeve
Concept and De
onnectivity:
hings in the envifluence one anoomplicated and npredictable way
ynamics:
he system has aat unfold over timxample, the envihanges over timehen you do noth
ate at which thingay be variable; te delays betweend effects.
efinition
Theto dbe
erience toelopment
efinition
ronment other in
ys
Exainc
Theonethe
TradeaCID– ththe
Themafor
Thereaon havto b
aspects me. For ronment e even hing; the gs change there may n actions
Sitdec
Trastraworem
Eaas probui
senior ofwith regaeducationeeds;
The Staffthe PME
e goals of the Scdirectly contradic accommodated
complexSuperviso
amples of decisicluded:
ere needs to be e HQ has to bothe conditions for t
aining of CF persal with other actoDA, Correctionalhe DM and his sese groups adeq
e request to inclade CANOSCOM the mission was
ere was a requeadiness HQ) into effects such as ving to re-distribbe hired.
uations that unfocision making in
aining program categies were trie
orked was kept omoved or change
rly attempts wer DFAIT, CIDA, aocess to ensure ild networks. Ov
Concept Exam
fficers may be exard to training); mn with a full-time
f (may have had project).
chool personnel ct goals of the D during planning
ity factor or
Concept Exam
ions which involv
overlap and conh take over fromhe next HQ to co
sonnel also invoors including mel Services, Policstaff have to put uately involved;
ude logistics perM aware that mos required;
est to inject anotho the training sch having to plan foute the workload
olded over time tcluded:
changed over timed as the opportuor improved and ed;
re made to integand CANOSCOMmutual awarene
ver time it becam
mples
xtremely time limmany have to bae position and fa
d the goal of dela
and the Staff apDM. Other goals g.
mapping:
mples
ved interrelated
ntinuity in traininm another HQ an
ome in);
lve training themembers of DND, ing Associationsin a lot of work t
rsonnel in the traore logistics prep
her group (high-hedule. This hador concurrent trad, and new peop
that profoundly a
me as different unity arose, andwhat didn’t work
rate organizationM into the trainingess of methods ame apparent that
Human
CoSceLo
mited alance amily
aying
ppeared had to
: CoE Trai
CoSceLo
factors
g (e.g., d set
m to DFAIT, s, NGOs to get
aining paration
-d follow-aining, ple had
Med
Multinterbe codecisotheinvolgroucons
Examordeto injtrainthreeeffec
affected
d what k was
ns such g and these
Med
Six ssituatime decis
Six ssomedynadecis
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ining
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ium
iple factors that rrelated and thatonsidered whensions (e.g., integ
er actors into trailves considering
ups that the DM hsider)
mples of 2nd ander effects (e.g., thject another groing involved at lee additional decicts)
ium
specific exampleations that unfold that profoundly sion making
subsystems withewhat different amics which impsion making
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
nce for Medium, cation
are t have to n making grating ning
g six had to
d 3rd he need up into east isions or
es of ded over affected
h
pacted
Humansystem
Concept an
It is importanthierarchical aspresent (i.e., sthat have theidynamics whithe DM contex
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
to note spects if subsystems r own ch are part of xt).
ted
training sessioorganizations bDFAIT). When very relevant tothen they beca
The personnel frequently acrochange in SMErecruitment of create a pool otraining needs.retired people wwho have beencurrent issues,occasion peopare fluid schedpriorities (holid(e.g., preparati
The CF staff inand frequently had been doingthings need to relationships, mbeen done, wh
There was a rereadiness HQ)on effects suchhaving to re-disto be hired;
The training pranother and bowriting board louse as injects fthe planners toproblems.
There were suthis context. Th
Indepmem
CDAstaff)
CF tr
DFA
CIDA
CAN
Groups have th
Concept E
ns could prove vbecame more in certain training o other organizaame involved at t
recruited to runoss time. A new E personnel. Thipersonnel with t
of people who ca. There is alwayswith more currenn retired for long processes, etc.le have to be sc
dule constraints bdays etc.) and theions for the Olym
n the training pro over time (e.g., g this, the DM ha be done over anmaking people ahat worked, what
equest to inject a into the training
h as having to plstribute the work
rograms and opeoth change over ooks for weak orfor training. Thiso tighten up wea
bsystems whichhese included:
pendent contracmbers);
A civilian training );
raining personne
IT;
A;
NOSCOM.
heir own proced
Examples
very beneficial svolved relatively goals changed tations (e.g., CANthat point;
the training chatraining focus ms requires activethe relevant expean be drawn upos a need to find nt experience, a
ger may have los. As well, for eaccheduled in and based on other pe needs of other
mpics required a
ograms change c in the 3.5 yearsad 4 bosses). Sond over again (b
aware of how thint didn’t, etc.);
another group (hg schedule. This lan for concurrenkload, and new p
erational plans inr time. For examr grey areas in ths information is tak spots and hop
h had their own d
ctors (e.g., writin
personnel (the
el at CDA;
ures and timelin
so some y early (e.g., to become
NOSCOM),
anged may require a e erience to on for recently as people st touch with ch individual often there people’s r projects
a large staff);
cyclically s the DM o, certain
building ngs have
high- had follow-nt training, people had
nform one ple, the he plan to hen used by
pefully avoid
dynamics in
g board
DM and his
nes related
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Page 113
ortance for h, Medium, stification
Pa
C
M
Haobbesa
Un
Goacto
In
Thenwhhath
age 114
Concept and De
ultiple conflicting
aving to achievebjectives which me all achievable aame time
nder-specified g
oals may be diffchieve because o vague
dependent agen
here are indepenntities in the envho influence it (tave different goae decision make
efinition
to m
g goals:
e multiple may not at the
The
Recon
oals:
ficult to they are
Exa
nts:
ndent ironment hey may
als than er)
Indinc
Difgoatragrodiffinv
SogroDF
making training d
e goals of the D
Meeting groups
Meeting
Building
Getting btheir invo
esource constrainnflict
amples of under
Over timewhen newdevelopmobjective
The DM objective
dependent agentcluded:
Trainees
ADM masend teafor Ottaw
Independmembers
CDA civistaff)
CF traini
DFAIT
CIDA
CANOSC
fferent groups haals, priorities, reining in differentoups play differeferent levels andvolvement had to
metimes the DMoups which are nFAIT, CIDA, CAN
Concept Exam
demands or sup
M included:
training requirem
budget constrain
a network of res
buy-in from relevolvement as requ
nts seem to be t
rspecified goals
e training objectw mission priorit
ment process fores is required.
usually does haves both at individ
ts who influence
s
ateriel (owner of m but not work f
wa
dent contractors s)
lian training pers
ng personnel at
COM
ave different hierlationships, and t ways from one nt roles and bec
d at different timeo differ.
M wants involvemnot supported byNOSCOM)
mples
pporting training.
ments for multipl
nts
sources
vant groups and uired
he main source
included:
tives are made cties occur a r creating clear t
ve specific trainidual and HQ leve
d decision maki
all equipment) wfor Cdr., wants to
(e.g., writing bo
sonnel (the DM a
CDA
rarchies, proces see their role in another. Differecame involved ates. Ways of gett
ment of individuay them (e.g., ADM
Human
CoSceLo
.
le
getting
of goal
Med
Thergoals
One
clear but
training
ing el.
Low
No ethat the D
ng
wants to o work
oard
and his
sses, n this ent t ting
als or M,
Med
Eighwho mak
FourindegoalsDM’s
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ium
re were four dists
example of goa
examples of vagimpacted the abDM to make dec
ium
ht independent a impacted decisiing
r examples of pendent agents s that conflicted s goals
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
tinct
al conflict
ue goals bility of cisions
agents ion
with with the
Humansystem
8. ExAc
Concept an
Connectivity:
Things in the influence one complicated aunpredictable
Dynamics:
The system hthat unfold ovexample, the changes overwhen you do rate at which tmay be variabbe delays betwand effects.
It is importanthierarchical aspresent (i.e., sthat have theidynamics whithe DM contex
ms® Incorpora
xperience cquisition
nd Definition
environment another in
and ways
as aspects er time. For environment
r time even nothing; the things change ble; there may ween actions
to note spects if subsystems r own ch are part of xt).
ted
to comple
Examples of deincluded:
Users have muequipment to athe other need
Feedback froma lot of project
The DM was inattempted to gthose projects as opportunitie
The scope of thwhich the DM’sto develop andsystems the bithe project woucustomization)greatly increasof requirementmuch more imp
Situations that decision makin
The awarenessover the courseabout what waopportunities;
The specificatiand feedback favailable techn
Financial resouinitially they weResearch and resources dropaccomplished purposes);
The project prodeliver; the strascope changesdeliver;
The scope of thwhich had imp
There were suthis context. Th
exity facto
Concept E
ecisions which in
ultiple conflictingaddress one of ths as well (either
m industry about assumptions to
nvolved in other ain some needeto get informatio
es arose;
he project changs team would wod customize a sydders presenteduld buy for the C. This created a
sed the required ts, and made theportant.
unfolded over ting included:
s of technology te of the project, s possible and c
on of requiremefrom industry canology to be re-e
urce availability fere supposed to Development (Rpped over time w(i.e., it was reallo
oved to be quickategic review ans, resource restr
he work changeacts on the othe
bsystems whichhese included:
or mappin
Examples
nvolved interrela
g needs. Changinhese needs will r positively or ne
initial requireme be questioned;
similar projects ed information byon needed for ot
ged from a situaork with the winnystem, to a situatd to be evaluatedCF (i.e., no CF huge increase i specificity for the bid evaluation
ime that profoun
that was availab which influencecreated different
ents was an iteraused assumptio
evaluated and ch
for HF changed have resources
R&D) but this allowithout needed Rocated for other
k to spend and snd other forces crictions, and pres
ed repeatedly oveer aspects of the
h had their own d
ng: HF En
ated factors
ng affect all of
egatively);
ents caused
and y leveraging ther projects
ation in ning bidder tion where d were what
in risk, he statement process
L
Tfcditc
Nmm
Eocae
ndly affected
ble changed ed ideas t
ative process ons about hanged;
over time; s for ocation of R&D being r non-HF
low to caused ssure to
er time e project.
dynamics in
M
Fstd
Tsdd
ngineer, C
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Low
There are interrefactors that haveconsidered whedecisions (e.g., involved at leastthat the DM hadconsider).
NOTE: the specmentioned weremaintain confide
Examples of 2ndorder effects (e.gchange involvedadditional decisieffects)
Medium
Five specific exasituations that utime that profoundecision making
Two subsystemssomewhat differdynamics which decision making
Page 115
apital
ortance for h, Medium, stification
elated e to be n making user needs t 3 factors to
cific needs e deleted to entiality.
d and 3rd g., the scope
d at least 3 ons or
amples of nfolded over ndly affected
g
s with rent impacted
g
Pa
C
M
Haobbesa
Un
Goacto
In
Thenwhhath
9
C
age 116
Concept and De
ultiple conflicting
aving to achievebjectives which me all achievable aame time
nder-specified g
oals may be diffchieve because o vague
dependent agen
here are indepenntities in the envho influence it (tave different goae decision make
. ExpeStaff
Concept and De
efinition
g goals:
e multiple may not at the
The
Thedueof rcre
oals:
ficult to they are
Goreqcon
nts:
ndent ironment hey may
als than er)
Indinc
erience tof Member
efinition
The othenot collocdifferent
e goals of the D
Creating requirem
Meeting
Conducti
Working
ese goals provee to different priorequirements) aneate requirement
oals were not necquirements werenfusion and was
dependent agentcluded:
Other teawere imp
Potentialinteresteequipmeneeded);
Users (m
Members(e.g., PMgoals (e.
complex
Concept Exam
er decision makecated with the Dbetween these t
M included:
a usable and vaments;
resource constra
ing necessary R
productively in t
d difficult to achorities (e.g., difficnd changing reqts while meeting
cessarily vague;e changed frequested effort.
ts who influence
am members whportant and didn’
bidders (whethed in bidding; hownt would be; wh;
multiple conflictin
s of the DM’s intMs on other proje
g., validating the
ity factor
Concept Exam
mples
ers in the projectDM. Information ftwo groups.
alid statement of
aints;
R&D;
the team.
ieve at the samecult to create sta
quirements (difficg resource const
; however, projecently leading to
d decision maki
ho didn’t think HF’t want them incl
er they would bew adequate theirat information th
g needs);
terpersonal netwects) who had their own equipme
mapping:
mples
Human
CoSceLo
t were flow was
f
e time atement cult to raints).
Med
Thergoalsdiffesitua
Two conf
Priminterchanand
ct Low
Goafairlychallconcsubg
Probgoal goals
ng
F issues luded;
e r hey
work eir own
ent).
Low
Fourwho mak
One indegoalsinter
Larginter
: PME Rev
CoSceLo
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ium
re were four imps that conflicted rent ways in diffe
ations
examples of goflict
mary difficulty duerpersonal conflicnges in project prequirements
ls at a high levey clear, the mainlenge was to crecrete measures agoals
blems were crea changes rather s being unclear
r independent a impacted decisiing
example of an pendent agent ws that conflicted rfere with the DM
ge problems duerpersonal conflic
vitalizatio
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
portant in ferent
oal
e to ct and priorities
l were n eate and
ted by than
agents ion
with or could
M’s goals
to cts
n
nce for Medium, cation
Humansystem
Concept an
Connectivity:
Things in the influence one complicated aunpredictable
Dynamics:
The system hthat unfold ovexample, the changes overwhen you do rate at which tmay be variabbe delays betwand effects.
It is importanthierarchical aspresent (i.e., sthat have theidynamics whithe DM contex
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
environment another in
and ways
as aspects er time. For environment
r time even nothing; the things change ble; there may ween actions
to note spects if subsystems r own ch are part of xt).
ted
Examples of deincluded:
If a training promake any deciwithout consult
The process reRevitalization cprocedure wasabout expectat
A major Stratethe whole CF dthat the resultsincluding fundi
There was diffito get accurategenerally involvcost to deliver issues (e.g., crprogram but it you determine of the cost?).
Situations that decision makin
Improvements possibility of crdemands on an
As the recessioincreasing fund
As the impact ochanged, otherresource centrfamilies, supposoldiers) so propushed to a low
Training prioritcommanders, gchanged (e.g., programs);
Things would gwould be a flurinformation) whwould go quietcyclical proces
Meeting requetime, which cre
Concept E
ecisions which in
ogram is being csions that affectting all elements
equired to submichanged during s new, there wastions and difficul
gic Review was during this time ps of the review wng related to PM
iculty in isolatinge costing informave many interrela program, infra
reation of a virtuais also used for what program s
unfolded over ting included:
and changes inreating a virtual nd created differ
on occurred andding concerns;
of the Canadianr priorities increaes for returning
orting the health ojects like the PMwer priority and
ies changed ovegovernments, an more or less de
go quiet for a fewrry of activity (e.ghich would requit again; this appess;
sts were responeated delays in s
Examples
nvolved interrela
changed, the DMt policies for CF s (army, navy, ai
it proposals relathis time period.
s a general lack lty in following th
undertaken thatperiod. It was an
will profoundly affME Revitalization
g components ofation. Proposals lated factors suc
astructure and oval library is requ other things so should pay what
ime that profoun
technology (e.glibrary) put differrent opportunitie
d got more seriou
operation in Afgased (e.g., settinsoldiers, suppor and welfare of rME revitalizationdelayed;
er time as seniornd governmentaemand for aborig
w months and thg., requests for mire a response aeared to the DM
nded to less favoscheduling;
ated factors
M shouldn’t programs ir force);
ated to PME . As the of clarity
his process;
t affected nticipated fect funding, n;
f programs for funding ch as actual verhead
uired for a how can proportion
L
Mibdffc
Eopfp
ndly affected
g., the rent
es for T&E;
us it caused
ghanistan ng up rting military returning n got
r al priorities ginal
hen there more and then it
M to be a
ourably over
M
Sstd
Fsdd
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Low
Multiple factors tinterrelated and be considered wdecisions (e.g., funding involvedfactors that the Dconsider
Examples of 2nd order effects (e.gproposals for thefollow-on effectsprocess)
Medium
Seven specific esituations that utime that profoundecision making
Five subsystemssomewhat differdynamics which decision making
Page 117
ortance for h, Medium, stification
that are that have to
when making proposals for
d at least 3 DM had to
and 3rd g., change to e PMB had s for the
examples of nfolded over ndly affected
g
s with rent impacted
g
Pa
C
M
Haobbesa
Un
Goacto
In
Thenwh
age 118
Concept and De
ultiple conflicting
aving to achievebjectives which me all achievable aame time
nder-specified g
oals may be diffchieve because o vague
dependent agen
here are indepenntities in the envho influence it (t
efinition
Lacduemuetc
Thethis
Therevdiffin rgui
Thethetha
g goals:
e multiple may not at the
The
If gconreq
oals:
ficult to they are
Exa
nts:
ndent ironment hey may
Indinc
ck of continuity, e to annual postultiple times as pc.
ere were subsyss context. These
CF educa
The DM’s
The institproposal
Trainees
Instructo
ere were differenvitalization: the gferent timelines arates of informatiding the training
e trainees and ine other CF organan was actually a
e goals of the D
Meeting
Meeting
Effectiveprogramssimultaneprioritizat
goals conflicted instraints (i.e., noquirements)
amples of under
The DM defined aHowevertime on athis seempriorities
dependent agentcluded:
The staff
Other Sta
Concept Exam
with new peopletings, meant thapeople had to be
stems which hade included:
ational institution
s institution;
tution that was t;
s;
rs.
nt subsystems agroup implementand rates of chation flow) than thg;
nstructors work anizations (e.g.., tavailable for sch
M included:
task requiremen
budget constrain
ly using limited rs were being creeously which reqtion).
t was usually duot enough resour
rspecified goals
thought the goaand the vision fror, often the DM wa project and thems to indicate a m and/or lack of c
ts who influence
f of CF education
aff at the DM’s in
mples
e entering the prat tasks were per gotten up to spe
d their own dyna
ns;
o help prepare t
at play during PMting the training hange (e.g., represhe group respons
at a longer timelhey need more eduling).
nts;
nts;
resources (multieated and revisequired level of ef
ue to resource rces to meet tas
included:
ls were fairly weom superiors wawould spend a loen it would get “pmismatch betwe
clarity at a higher
d decision maki
nal institutions;
nstitution;
Human
CoSceLo
rocess, rformed eed,
amics in
the PME
ME had sented sible for
ine than notice
ple ed ffort
sk
Low
Thergoals
Goalargecons
ell as clear. ot of parked”; een r level.
Low
No egoals
Goafairlyintenseemdiffestate
ng Med
Six who mak
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
re were 3 imports
l conflict occurreely due to resourstraints
explicit cases of s were provided
ls at a high levey clear but commnt at a higher levmed to change (rent from expliciements of intent)
ium
independent age impacted decisiing
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
tant
ed, rce
vague d.
l were mand vel or be it )
ents ion
Humansystem
Concept an
have differentthe decision m
10. ExPr
Concept an
Connectivity:
Things in the influence one complicated aunpredictable
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
t goals than maker)
xperience rogram De
nd Definition
environment another in
and ways
ted
Staffthe P
Train
Instru
The
The staff of CFagenda (e.g., fprojects);
The staff at thePME proposal PME;
The trainees hoften have timefamily, and thecomplete T&E,
Instructors havimpact training
The Federal goministerial inquwork when theother duties).
to compleeveloper
Examples of deincluded:
Multiple factorsanother includischedules, cou
Because of the(e.g., instructorshifted (e.g., th
Two group mequarter combaweeks of closeinternally. Thisthe group, incrgave the trainevalue to the othwhich in turn im
Concept E
f at the institutionPME proposal;
nees;
uctors;
Federal governm
F educational insfund infrastructu
e institution that seemed to have
ave individual coe constraint conf
eir studies) which, which in turn im
ve their own ageg plans;
overnment addeuiries had to takey occurred, whic
exity facto
Concept E
ecisions which in
s had to be planing quarters, ratiurse locations, a
e short timeline, r availability) mehe order of instru
mbers had signit training; this w
e quarter combat offered a basicseased the confid
ees an additionaher personnel thmproved their ch
Examples
n that was to hel
ment.
stitutions had there through traini
was to help prepe hidden agenda
onstraints (e.g., flicts between thh impact their abmpacts retention
endas and availa
ed additional deme precedence ovch interfered with
or mappin
Examples
nvolved interrela
ned which impaions, course connd exercises;
changes in one eant that things huction changed);
ificant experiencwas used by the D
t training was offs review, built trudence of the grol skill set to incre
hey were stationehances of integra
lp prepare
eir own ng
pare the as to delay
students heir job, their bility to rates;
ability can
mands (e.g., ver other h the DM’s
Figi
ng: PSYO
ated factors
cted one ntent, course
resource had to be ;
ce in close DM and two ffered ust within
oup, and ease their ed with, ating well.
M
Mibdivc
Eecf
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Five examples oindependent agegoals that conflicinterfere with the
PS Trainin
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
Medium
Many factors thainterrelated and be considered wdecisions (e.g., includes six intevariables that thconsider)
Example of 2nd aeffects (e.g., clocombat training five additional ef
Page 119
ortance for h, Medium, stification
of ents with cted or could e DM’s goals
ng
ortance for h, Medium, stification
at are that have to
when making planning racting e DM had to
and 3rd order se quarter resulted in ffects)
Pa
C
Dy
Ththexchwhrambean
It hieprthdyth
M
Haobbesa
Un
Goac
age 120
Concept and De
ynamics:
he system has aat unfold over timxample, the envihanges over timehen you do noth
ate at which thingay be variable; te delays betweend effects.
is important to nerarchical aspecresent (i.e., subsat have their owynamics which ae DM context).
ultiple conflicting
aving to achievebjectives which me all achievable aame time
nder-specified g
oals may be diffchieve because
efinition
aspects me. For ronment e even hing; the gs change there may n actions
note cts if systems wn are part of
Sitdec
Pladurexagrotraadvfor
GrotraimpuseteaIn twa
Sothaadvgroappwaide
Thethis
g goals:
e multiple may not at the
The
oals:
ficult to they are
Exa
uations that unfocision making in
anning for the traring the training ample the close-oup had already inees became kvantage of oppo long-term plann
oup cohesion waining; this procespacted by factorse of civilian clotham members conthis case, the gros considered to
me of the benefan being immediaversarial intent toup. The usefulnparent to the tras understood lat
eas in the field th
ere were subsyss context. These
There weincluding
The CF a
These twtimelinesarrange tmany insadvance
e goals of the D
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Althoughanother tconflict; tplanning
amples of under
The goalpossible
Concept Exam
olded over time tcluded:
aining programmitself (i.e., rolling-combat training started training nown. This allow
ortunities that aroning;
as an important ss worked well is such as the tra
hes, trainees boanducting close qoup gelled toget be “outstanding
its of training unately apparent. Fheory was provi
ness of this was inees but the relter (e.g., when th
hey could apply s
stems which hade included:
ere several subsg:
and the instructo
wo groups had ths. For example, tthe training on astructors were bo.
M included:
training requirem
resource require
deadlines.
h these goals couthere did not seethe main issue a lead time.
rspecified goals
of creating the was the goal. W
mples
that profoundly a
ming was still undg-wave planning was arranged aand the skills of
wed the DM to taose but was not
process for faciln this situation aaining centre reqarding together, uarter combat trther well (teamb”);
folded over timeFor example, soded by the DRDnot immediatelylevance and imphey had to defensome academic
d their own dyna
systems involved
ors.
heir own processthe CF wanted toa short timeline, booked much fart
ments;
ements;
uld work againstem to be a largeappeared to be a
included:
best PSYOPS pWays to assess th
Human
CoSceLo
affected
derway g). For after the f the ake optimal
litating and was quiring and raining. uilding
e rather ome DC y portance nd their rigor).
amics in
d,
ses and o but ther in
Low
Thresituatime decis
Two somedynadecis
t one e a lack of
Low
Thergoals
Primlack conf
platoon his and
Low
Goafairly
nsystems® Incor
oncept Importanenario (High, Mow) and Justific
ee specific examations that unfold that profoundly sion making
subsystems witewhat different amics which impsion making
re were three diss
mary difficulty due of time (i.e., resflicts)
ls at a high levey clear, the main
rporated
nce for Medium, cation
mples of ded over affected
th
pacted
stinct
e to a source
l were n
Humansystem
Concept an
too vague
Independent a
There are indeentities in the who influencehave differentthe decision m
ms® Incorpora
nd Definition
agents:
ependent environment
e it (they may t goals than maker)
ted
meth
Independent aincluded:
TraintheretrainiDM’s
Instrucouldsche
Trainrelateinstitwear
Concept E
hods to achieve t
gents who influe
nees (they had defore may have hing needs; this ds goals but did h
uctors (their schd teach their maeduling);
ning location stafed to maintainintution so they didr uniforms).
Examples
this had to be de
enced decision m
different backgrohad somewhat ddidn’t really confhave to be accom
hedules dictated aterial, rather tha
ff (they had otheg a civilian-centd not want the tr
eveloped. ccs
making
ounds and different flict with the mmodated);
when they an optimal
er goals red rainees to
L
Fwm
Tigi
Concept ImpoScenario (HigLow) and Jus
challenge was toconcrete measusubgoals
Low
Four independewho impacted demaking
Two examples oindependent agegoals that conflicinterfere with the
Page 121
ortance for h, Medium, stification
o create res and
nt agents ecision
of ents with cted or could e DM’s goals
Pa
age 122
This pagge intentionallly left blank.
Human
.
nsystems® Incorrporated
Humansystem
A
Note that somore than obelonging thighlighted
ms® Incorpora
Annex D
ome statemenone general thto each appropd in yellow in
ted
D: Bott
nts include chheme. These hpriate theme. the excel file
tom-up
hallenges or trhave been entDuplicated c
e.
p Chal
raining suggetered more thchallenges and
llenges
stions that cahan once so thd training sug
s List
an be categorizhat they can bggestions are
Page 123
zed into e noted as
Pa
age 124
This pag
ge intentionallly left blank.
Human
.
nsystems® Incorrporated
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme
1 Mil advisor: international even
No nexus existed for communicating CF intelligence to other organizations (e.g., RCMP) and this was a serious problem as it was illegal to communicate information from CF assets that had to do with conducting surveillance of Canadians on Canadian soil Challenge Planning Insufficient planning
2 Mil advisor: international even
No nexus existed for communicating CF intelligence to other organizations (e.g., RCMP) and this was a serious problem as it was illegal to communicate information from CF assets that had to do with conducting surveillance of Canadians on Canadian soil Challenge Communication Procedure
3 Mil advisor: international even Specific terms of reference might have made his job easier (although flexibility was needed) Challenge Collaboration Flexibility required
4 Mil advisor: international even Specific terms of reference might have made his job easier (although flexibility was needed) Challenge Direction Vague
5 Mil advisor: international evenIf he had been upranked one that would have helped (replaced someone who was a rank above and the perception was that his job wasn't important) Challenge Authority Not enough
6 Mil advisor: international evenIt would have helped if he had been brought in sooner (could have built up relationships more in advance) Challenge Collaboration Insufficient lead time
7 Mil advisor: international evenMake sure you have access to SMEs and that you listen to them ‐ experienced SMEs who can walk you though case studies and case analyses of previous situations ‐ use the knowledge of previous events Training Experience Use SMEs
8 Mil advisor: international even
Need to objectively analyse all of the steps that were taken and the OPP that was used ‐ compare plans to the actual operation, identify what worked, examine whether the right assumptions were made Training Evaluation Objective assessment required
9 Mil advisor: international evenMake sure you use the right tool at the right time ‐ e.g., the IPP is often more appropriate that the OPP Training Planning Right tool at right time
10 Mil advisor: international even
Need the right person in the right job ‐ need the right experience and the right personality ‐ e.g., CIMIC is a reserve capacity for the CF because those people know how to walk both sides of the fence ‐need a certain amount of maturity and respect for relationships Training Experience Right person in right job
11 Mil advisor: international even
Need the right person in the right job ‐ need the right experience and the right personality ‐ e.g., CIMIC is a reserve capacity for the CF because those people know how to walk both sides of the fence ‐need a certain amount of maturity and respect for relationships Training Personality Right person in right job
12 Mil advisor: international even
Have the police identify some of their upcoming leaders and have them attend CF training related to higher C2 so when these events take place you have familiarity with people, with language, ongoing exercises, embedded liaison Training Collaboration Extend training to collaborators
13 Mil advisor: international even Difficult to manage large demand for information flow Challenge Information Overload14 Mil advisor: international even Location of the event was not optimal for security Challenge Location Security requirements15 Mil advisor: international even The personalities of some of the people involved were not optimal for collaboration Challenge Collaboration Poor collaborators16 Mil advisor: international even The event was a highly political situation Challenge Planning Highly political situation
17 Mil advisor: international even Collaboration made difficult because of different jargon used by the different organizations Challenge Communication Jargon
18 Mil advisor: international even Fencing caused problems of many types, including the perception of the event, deliveries, etc. Challenge Location Security requirements
19 Mil advisor: international even There were substantial misunderstandings about what the CF were willing and able to provide Challenge Collaboration Misunderstanding roles and responsibilities20 Mil advisor: international even Lack of previous similar events to use for planning (e.g., no lessons learned) Challenge Planning Lack of previous similar events
21 Mil advisor: international evenStatus of security force attendance was highly fluid (e.g., what was happening locally could have meant that police forces would or would not send forces to assist with security for the event) Challenge Planning Lack of firm plans
22 Mil advisor: international even Budget concerns Challenge Resources Budget concerns23 Mil advisor: international even People did not want to criticize others or hear negativity Challenge Communication Lack of clarity and honesty24 Mil advisor: international even People were highly motivated to be self‐protective Challenge Collaboration Hidden agendas
25 Mil advisor: international even No known ROEs for the CF if they had to act in this situation (e.g., to defend CF assets from a mob) Challenge Planning Lack of previous similar events26 Mil advisor: international even The DM had no authority to give direction Challenge Authority Responsibility without authority27 Mil advisor: international even Deliverables kept changing (e.g., where the fence would be) so contracting was difficult Challenge Planning Uncertainty28 Mil advisor: international even Negotiators often had misunderstandings about the process Challenge Collaboration Lack of knowledge29 Mil advisor: international even Vital legal information was not known by appropriate authorities Challenge Collaboration Lack of knowledge30 Mil advisor: international even Cases where individuals had personal agendas which superseded security needs Challenge Collaboration Hidden agendas31 Mil advisor: international even Conflict between maintaining pleasant personal relationships and getting the job done Challenge Goal conflict Achieve multiple conflicting objectives
32 Afgh LiaisonAfter the prison break there was a lot of distrust of the prison staff and a reassessment of many assumptions about the state of security in Kandahar Challenge Planning Incorrect assumptions
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme
33 Afgh LiaisonAfter the prison break there was a lot of distrust of the prison staff and a reassessment of many assumptions about the state of security in Kandahar Challenge Collaboration Distrust
34 Afgh Liaison
Many challenges related to cultural issues, including different priorities (interpersonal relationships highest in Afghanistan, age more indicative of authority), differences in the legal system, widespread corruption, different understandings of jobs and job responsibilities, different beliefs about the amount of control one can exert over a situation, different social standards, differences in literacy rates (few written records in Afghanistan), and a need for Afghans to save face Challenge Culture Different priorities
35 Afgh Liaison
Many challenges related to cultural issues, including different priorities (interpersonal relationships highest in Afghanistan, age more indicative of authority), differences in the legal system, widespread corruption, different understandings of jobs and job responsibilities, different beliefs about the amount of control one can exert over a situation, different social standards, differences in literacy rates (few written records in Afghanistan), and a need for Afghans to save face Challenge Culture Legal system
36 Afgh Liaison
Many challenges related to cultural issues, including different priorities (interpersonal relationships highest in Afghanistan, age more indicative of authority), differences in the legal system, widespread corruption, different understandings of jobs and job responsibilities, different beliefs about the amount of control one can exert over a situation, different social standards, differences in literacy rates (few written records in Afghanistan), and a need for Afghans to save face Challenge Culture Corruption
37 Afgh Liaison
Many challenges related to cultural issues, including different priorities (interpersonal relationships highest in Afghanistan, age more indicative of authority), differences in the legal system, widespread corruption, different understandings of jobs and job responsibilities, different beliefs about the amount of control one can exert over a situation, different social standards, differences in literacy rates (few written records in Afghanistan), and a need for Afghans to save face Challenge Culture Different understanding of jobs & responsibilities
38 Afgh Liaison
Many challenges related to cultural issues, including different priorities (interpersonal relationships highest in Afghanistan, age more indicative of authority), differences in the legal system, widespread corruption, different understandings of jobs and job responsibilities, different beliefs about the amount of control one can exert over a situation, different social standards, differences in literacy rates (few written records in Afghanistan), and a need for Afghans to save face Challenge Culture Different belief in individual control
39 Afgh Liaison
Many challenges related to cultural issues, including different priorities (interpersonal relationships highest in Afghanistan, age more indicative of authority), differences in the legal system, widespread corruption, different understandings of jobs and job responsibilities, different beliefs about the amount of control one can exert over a situation, different social standards, differences in literacy rates (few written records in Afghanistan), and a need for Afghans to save face Challenge Culture Social standards
40 Afgh Liaison
Many challenges related to cultural issues, including different priorities (interpersonal relationships highest in Afghanistan, age more indicative of authority), differences in the legal system, widespread corruption, different understandings of jobs and job responsibilities, different beliefs about the amount of control one can exert over a situation, different social standards, differences in literacy rates (few written records in Afghanistan), and a need for Afghans to save face Challenge Culture Literacy
41 Afgh Liaison
Many challenges related to cultural issues, including different priorities (interpersonal relationships highest in Afghanistan, age more indicative of authority), differences in the legal system, widespread corruption, different understandings of jobs and job responsibilities, different beliefs about the amount of control one can exert over a situation, different social standards, differences in literacy rates (few written records in Afghanistan), and a need for Afghans to save face Challenge Culture Saving face
42 Afgh Liaison Communication infrastructure is poor in Afghanistan Challenge Communication Infrastructure43 Afgh Liaison Communication infrastructure is poor in Afghanistan Challenge Resources Communication infrastructure44 Afgh Liaison ANA and ANP have an adversarial relationship and do not work well together Challenge Collaboration Adversarial relationships
45 Afgh Liaison Quick turnovers in Afghan personnel make it difficult to get to know people and form relationships Challenge Collaboration Turnover
46 Afgh Liaison Delicate balance between giving accurate and helpful feedback and making people demotivated Challenge Collaboration Motivation
47 Afgh Liaison Delicate balance between giving accurate and helpful feedback and making people demotivated Challenge Goal conflict Achieve multiple conflicting objectives48 Afgh Liaison Lack of reliable power in Afghanistan Challenge Resources Power infrastructure
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme49 Afgh Liaison No common COP among Afghan security agencies Challenge Collaboration No COP50 Afgh Liaison Found collaborators highly resistant to change Challenge Collaboration Change resistance51 Afgh Liaison Difficult to get correct information and difficult to evaluate information Challenge Information Difficult to get correct information52 Afgh Liaison Difficult to get correct information and difficult to evaluate information Challenge Information Difficult to evaluate
53 Afgh LiaisonOfficial positions often contradict what actually happens (e.g., told you have authority to do something but when try to do it you are denied) Challenge Collaboration Hidden agendas
54 Afgh Liaison Afghans think at tactical level only Challenge Culture Lack of knowledge55 Afgh Liaison Different ideas of how to train and what training is (e.g., no experience with exercises) Challenge Culture Lack of knowledge56 Afgh Liaison Afghans didn't understand that you should use data to make conclusions Challenge Culture Lack of knowledge57 Afgh Liaison Afghan intel was not good at instructing patrols what they should look for Challenge Communication Vague58 Afgh Liaison Often different people would come to meetings ‐ low continuity in personnel Challenge Collaboration Turnover
59 Afgh Liaison Sometimes people wouldn't want to share information because it would get them into trouble Challenge Collaboration Hidden agendas60 Afgh Liaison Lots of demands for resources from people who couldn’t really help the DM's mission Challenge Resources61 Afgh Liaison Had to convince Afghans that a security network was even necessary Challenge Role justification62 Afgh Liaison People needed to mentor the Afghans about operational rather than just tactical level Training Culture Lack of knowledge
63 Afgh LiaisonThe enemy has at least some personnel better at strategic and operational level thinking than the Afghan security forces allied with the CF Challenge Planning
64 Afgh Liaison The DM had to deal with multiple Afghan languages Challenge Culture Language65 Afgh Liaison Had the need to appear to maintain enthusiasm to keep others motivated and involved Challenge Collaboration Motivation66 Capital Acqusition Different perspectives between team members Challenge Collaboration Different perspectives67 Capital Acqusition Lack of appreciation for DM's contribution (value of HF) Challenge Role justification68 Capital Acqusition Increased workload due to differences of opinion about value of HF Challenge Collaboration Workload69 Capital Acqusition Other personnel resistant to change of opinion Challenge Collaboration Change resistance70 Capital Acqusition Insufficient data available to make requirements recommendations Challenge Information Insufficient data71 Capital Acqusition DM not collocated with other decision makers which impacted communication Challenge Collaboration Collocation72 Capital Acqusition Difficult to share some information with bidders as it is confidential Challenge Communication Procedure73 Capital Acqusition Difficult to share equipment with bidders as it is being used Challenge Resources Lack of equipment74 Capital Acqusition Difficult to create a testing baseline Challenge Evaluation No baseline
75 Capital AcqusitionUsers have multiple conflicting needs; making changes will almost inevitably affect multiple needs both positively and negatively Challenge Goal conflict Consider multiple factors
76 Capital AcqusitionResources were not used optimally and decreased resources available for needs identified by the DM
(e.g., research to determine HF requirements) Challenge Resources Budget77 Capital Acqusition The credibility of the DM was questioned based on decisions not made by them Challenge Collaboration Credibility78 Capital Acqusition There was resistance to including testing for all important interacting factors Challenge Information Insufficient data
79 Capital AcqusitionThere was no strategic plan put in place to control the number of bidders and so there turned out to be more bidders than could easily be handled in bid evaluation Challenge Planning Insufficient planning
80 Capital AcqusitionScope changes increased risk and required specificity for SOR, increased pressure on bid evaluation process Challenge Planning Scope changes
81 Capital Acqusition Awareness of available technology changed over the life of the project Challenge Information Changing information
82 Capital Acqusition Financial resource availability for HF changed over time without needed R&D being accomplished Challenge Resources Budget83 Capital Acqusition Pressure to deliver rose over time Challenge Resources Timeline84 Capital Acqusition Scope of work changed repeatedly over time which had impacts on other project aspects Challenge Planning Scope changes
85 Capital AcqusitionShould have used high‐level specification rather than very detailed ones and maintained maturation phase Training Planning Planning incorrect
86 Capital Acqusition Need to improve when resources brought on board relative to when they are actually needed Training Resources Planning87 Capital Acqusition Reduce collocation issues (management team should be collocated if possible) Training Collaboration Collocation
88 Capital Acqusition Need to take advantage of multiple related projects and achieve multiple goals from multiple projects Training Resources Achieve multiple objectives
89 Capital AcqusitionSometimes can use social network to facilitate interactions with team members and other collaborators Training Collaboration Networking
90 Capital Acqusition Give incoming staff history of team members to prepare them for likely challenges Training Collaboration Sharing information
91 Capital Acqusition Perhaps an outside HF consultant would have had a bigger impact than someone in the same team Training Role justification
92 Capital Acqusition Heavily prepared presentations for meetings with basic justifications (sometimes over and over) Training Role justification93 Capital Acqusition Use empirical evidence if available Training Evaluation Use empirical evaluation94 Capital Acqusition Know who the players are on the team Training Collaboration Know your team
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme95 Capital Acqusition Teach basic arguments for justifying HF Training Role justification96 Capital Acqusition Make sure you know the current state of knowledge ‐ what other team members know Training Collaboration Know your team97 Capital Acqusition Know how and what to communicate Training Communication
98 Capital AcqusitionHave a network of contacts (e.g., from conferences, trade shows, literature) ‐ look beyond the obvious for information Training Collaboration Networking
99 Capital AcqusitionDon’t use your own experience and intuition alone when evaluating designs ‐ often people don't like designs that they think they will Training Evaluation Use empirical evaluation
100 PME StaffChanges to programs should be done in consultation with a large number of stakeholders (e.g., all elements) Challenge Goal conflict Consider multiple factors
101 PME StaffThe process required to submit proposals related to PME Revitalization changed; there was a general lack of clarity about expectations and difficulty related to the new process Challenge Planning Procedure changes
102 PME StaffThe process required to submit proposals related to PME Revitalization changed; there was a general lack of clarity about expectations and difficulty related to the new process Challenge Direction Vague
103 PME Staff Major strategic review occurred which is anticipated to profoundly affect funding Challenge Resources Funding review104 PME Staff Disagreements between stakeholders regarding scope of funding Challenge Collaboration Disagreements105 PME Staff Disagreements between stakeholders regarding scope of funding Challenge Resources Inconsistent expectations106 PME Staff Accounting errors in database Challenge Information Errors
107 PME StaffProposals for funding involve many interrelated factors ‐ difficult to isolate some costs to one program
alone (e.g., virtual libraries) Challenge Information Interrelated factors108 PME Staff Lack of timely feedback after information submitted Challenge Evaluation Lack of feedback109 PME Staff Briefings must be thorough yet concise because those being briefed have limited time Challenge Resources Time limitations110 PME Staff Additional requirements often do not come with additional funds Challenge Resources Budget
111 PME Staff Changes in technology puts different demands on and creates different opportunities for T&E Challenge Resources Changes in available resources and consequences112 PME Staff Recession created additional funding pressure Challenge Resources Budget
113 PME StaffThe prioritization of programs like PME is influenced by other strategic priorities out of the control of the DM (due to changing operations, changing governments, etc.) Challenge Planning
114 PME StaffUnpredictable requests for information that have to be filled quickly; these alternate with periods of silence. Challenge Information Workload
115 PME Staff Lack of continuity in personnel Challenge Collaboration Turnover116 PME Staff Planning for training programs had to be done in advance of funding certainty Challenge Planning Lack of required information
117 PME StaffShould approach data collection related to funding needs from first principles rather than relying on previously compiled data Training Information First principles
118 PME Staff When new programs begin collect new data and start from scratch Training information New data119 PME Staff Need face to face meetings Training Collaboration Collocation120 PME Staff Need to work on getting everyone speaking the same language Training Communication Jargon
121 PME StaffThe DM tried to meet demands for requirements but they kept coming back and asking for more and for information to be presented in different ways Challenge Collaboration Inconsistent expectations
122 PME StaffThe DM tried to meet demands for requirements but they kept coming back and asking for more and for information to be presented in different ways Challenge Collaboration Hidden agendas
123 PME Staff Need to make sure all important people at meetings Training Collaboration Get proper people involved124 PME Supervisor Instructed to begin training before funding terms available Challenge Resources Uncertainty
125 PME SupervisorChanges to programs need to be made in consideration of many stakeholders with different philosophies Challenge Goal conflict Consider multiple factors
126 PME SupervisorChanges to one aspect of a training program has to take into account past and future T&E (e.g., the DP education packages are interdependent) Challenge Planning Interdependence
127 PME Supervisor Time of trainees is limited, so training package size is limited Challenge Resources Time128 PME Supervisor Disagreements between stakeholders regarding scope of funding Challenge Collaboration Disagreements129 PME Supervisor Previous databases of funding requirements were padded Challenge Collaboration Dishonesty130 PME Supervisor Stakeholders were overstepping their range of authority Challenge Authority Overstepping131 PME Supervisor Lack of clear command intent within other organizations Challenge Direction Vague132 PME Supervisor Periods of silence of significant duration Challenge Evaluation Lack of feedback133 PME Supervisor Requirements for new training programs are given without additional resources Challenge Resources Budget
134 PME SupervisorRequests for clarification from superiors about prioritization of programs did not result in clear direction Challenge Direction Vague
135 PME Supervisor Strategic Review is likely to profoundly affect funding Challenge Resources Funding review
136 PME Supervisor Pushing something up the authority hierarchy for resolution means that the DM risks delays etc. Challenge Authority Loss of control
137 PME SupervisorRequirement to balance short‐term with long‐term goals (e.g., using authority can get your way in the short term but poisons relationships) Challenge Goal conflict Consider long‐term effects
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme138 PME Supervisor No in‐year funding available, so resources even more restricted Challenge Resources Budget 139 PME Supervisor Impression that command intent to subordinates was actually to delay the process Challenge Collaboration Hidden agendas140 PME Supervisor Meeting requests responded to less favourably over time Challenge Collaboration Hidden agendas141 PME Supervisor Lack of continuity in personnel ‐ people have to be gotten up to speed, etc. Challenge Collaboration Turnover
142 PME SupervisorT&E system meant to keep up with rapid changes in operational environment; however, T&E process is typically actually slow to adapt and change Challenge Planning Lead time required is too long
143 PME SupervisorUnpredictable response after information exchange (e.g., silence or bombarded with more information requests) Challenge Information Workload
144 PME Supervisor Planning for training programs had to be done in advance of funding certainty Challenge Planning Lack of required information145 PME Supervisor Given instructions from higher command to do things without any funds available Challenge Direction Impossible task146 PME Supervisor Given instructions from higher command to do things without any funds available Challenge Resources Budget
147 PME Supervisor Has to manage stress on staff from them having to work on something and then having it shelved Challenge Collaboration Morale and stress
148 PME SupervisorSubordinate commanders have to take on more risk than they should due to lack of direction from
command Challenge Direction Vague
149 PME SupervisorMost decisions the DM made were intuitive based on experience and how you work with people and can try to move things forward Training Experience Use intuition
150 PME Supervisor Most problems seemed to be due to communication issues Challenge Communication151 PME Supervisor Should have trigger points in place for when follow‐up or other actions required Training Planning Use trigger points in plans
152 PME SupervisorNeed clear intent recorded as well as records of decisions (e.g., who told what to do what on what date) Training Direction Need clear direction
153 PME Supervisor Need clarity of words, intent, effect, etc. Training Direction Need clear direction
154 PME SupervisorStakeholders had different interpretations of one‐line objective/intent which should have been clarified Training Direction Vague
155 PME SupervisorStakeholders had different interpretations of one‐line objective/intent which should have been clarified Training Collaboration Different understanding
156 PME Supervisor Terminology had to be agreed upon Training Communication Jargon157 PME Supervisor Comes down to making sure all communication is clear Training Communication Clarity
158 PME SupervisorCan be a problem that superiors don’t give very concrete and clear intent ‐ incumbent on subordinates to go back and clarify Training Direction Vague
159 PME SupervisorCan be a problem that superiors don’t give very concrete and clear intent ‐ incumbent on subordinates to go back and clarify Training Direction Need to get clarification
160 PME Supervisor Realize that if you are seen as obstructionist people will learn to work around you Training Collaboration161 PME Supervisor Be sure to engage higher levels at proper points to ensure best effect Training Authority Engage higher authority at proper time
162 PME Supervisor Make sure to integrate with your staff to make sure they stay on top of things you are interested in Training Collaboration Teamwork163 PME Supervisor Keep staff engaged by remaining engaged yourself Training Collaboration Leadership164 PME Supervisor Most effective problem solving was when everyone was brought together Training Collaboration Collocation165 Strategic Advisory Team Difficult to get timely and accurate information ‐ no "ground truth" Challenge Information Inadequate166 Strategic Advisory Team Difficult to get timely and accurate information ‐ no "ground truth" Challenge Information Inaccurate167 Strategic Advisory Team News can travel quickly in the Afghan population, adding to the risk of riots Challenge Communication Speed of information travel among civilians168 Strategic Advisory Team Communications back to Canada and to TFA were not reliable Challenge Communication Unreliable infrastructure169 Strategic Advisory Team Heavily influenced by Afghan actions against U.S. and other nearby embassies etc. Challenge Collaboration Interdependence170 Strategic Advisory Team Roads were often poor Challenge Resources Roads
171 Strategic Advisory TeamDifficult to get travellers back to the compound when necessary ‐ both due to lack of vehicles and poor passability of roads Challenge Resources Roads
172 Strategic Advisory TeamDifficult to get travellers back to the compound when necessary ‐ both due to lack of vehicles and poor passability of roads Challenge Resources Transportation
173 Strategic Advisory Team Poor communication infrastructure between team members (local cell network) Challenge Communication Infrastructure174 Strategic Advisory Team Poor communication infrastructure between team members (local cell network) Challenge Resources Communication infrastructure175 Strategic Advisory Team Limited number of vehicles so travel required a lot of coordination Challenge Resources Transportation
176 Strategic Advisory TeamDifferences in culture (different communication clarity, literacy levels, no banking system to support transactions) Challenge Culture Clarity
177 Strategic Advisory TeamDifferences in culture (different communication clarity, literacy levels, no banking system to support transactions) Challenge Culture Literacy
178 Strategic Advisory TeamDifferences in culture (different communication clarity, literacy levels, no banking system to support transactions) Challenge Culture Banking
179 Strategic Advisory Team Vague mission goal ("do it their way") Challenge Direction Vague
180 Strategic Advisory TeamHad to function in a situation where there were a lot of different organizations who had different goals Challenge Collaboration Goal conflict
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme181 Strategic Advisory Team DM organized a daily meeting to support team coordination Training Collaboration Coordinating work182 Strategic Advisory Team DM build relationships with chaplains at nearby US base Training Collaboration Networking
183 Strategic Advisory Team Some team members did not appropriately communication information to the DM in a timely way Challenge Communication Timeliness
184 Strategic Advisory Team Large amount of flexibility required for mission ‐ mission command rather than strict hierarchy Training Direction Flexibility185 Strategic Advisory Team One goal of the DM was to build relationships ‐ facilitated interactions Training Collaboration Networking186 Strategic Advisory Team Had to balance being openly military with trying to pass as civilian Challenge Goal conflict Achieve multiple conflicting objectives
187 Strategic Advisory Team Chain of command was fuzzy ‐ what aspects of DM's mission controlled by CEFCOM vs. TFA Challenge Direction Unclear chain of command
188 Strategic Advisory Team Team cohesion issues sometimes arose ‐ much pressure to be cohesive as the team lived together Challenge Collaboration Team cohesion189 Strategic Advisory Team Security issues (e.g., riots) Challenge Location Security requirements190 Strategic Advisory Team Lack of sufficient evacuation plan Challenge Planning Lack of sufficient planning191 Strategic Advisory Team Challenging to mentor a person in an embarrasing situation that could impact their career Challenge Collaboration Mentoring difficulty192 Strategic Advisory Team Need to establish relationships ‐ personality is key Training Personality Networking193 Strategic Advisory Team Need to establish relationships ‐ personality is key Training Collaboration Networking194 Strategic Advisory Team Need to get different HQs talking when issues arise Training Collaboration
195 Strategic Advisory Team
Need to see implications of situation when things go wrong ‐ e.g., after riot saw need for improved coordination and communication between their team and nearby embassies etc. in case evacuation etc. required Training Planning Adapt as required
196 Strategic Advisory Team
Carefully consider whether to wear civilian or military clothing on this type of mission (strategic advisor) ‐ would have avoided unwanted attention at strategic level if didn't wear military clothing from the beginning Training Strategic issues
197 Strategic Advisory Team
Carefully consider whether to wear civilian or military clothing on this type of mission (strategic advisor) ‐ would have avoided unwanted attention at strategic level if didn't wear military clothing from the beginning Training Goal conflict Achieve multiple conflicting objectives
198 Strategic Advisory TeamWhen communicating about unpleasant events with subordinates make sure you get all pertinent information Training Communication Get all required information
199 Strategic Advisory Team
Make sure you have information about road passability if relevant and also have backup plans to get people home (flight cancelled), give travellers resources in case they have to stay away longer than planned Training Planning Create backup plans
200 Strategic Advisory Team
Make sure you have information about road passability if relevant and also have backup plans to get people home (flight cancelled), give travellers resources in case they have to stay away longer than planned Training Planning Get required information
201 Strategic Advisory TeamMake sure as much as possible to work on getting everyone to work as a team ‐ even one person who is not a team player affects morale and decision making Training Collaboration Team cohesion
202 Strategic Advisory Team Try to make decisions as a team as much as possible Training Collaboration Teamwork
203 Strategic Advisory TeamUse meetings to understand everyone's views and needs as well as practical details for coordination etc. Training Collaboration Teamwork
204 Strategic Advisory TeamCoordination meetings were led by COS rather than the CO ‐ this is not common ‐ allowed for more openness and collegiality Training Collaboration Coordinating work
205 Strategic Advisory Team Pick the right person for the team ‐ right amount of initiative, passion, and skills Training Collaboration Right person in right job
206 Strategic Advisory TeamNeeded to properly balance mission command approach with C2 approach to get needed benefits of both (e.g., C2 constant re‐evaluation of plans, mission command flexibility) Training Goal conflict Achieve multiple conflicting objectives
207 CoE Training Development Have responsibility but no real authority Challenge Authority Responsibility without authority
208 CoE Training Development Trainees respond unpredictably to events (what they will choose to do and how well they respond) Challenge Evaluation Unpredictability209 CoE Training Development Difficult to evaluate likely results of trainee actions Challenge Evaluation Objective assessment difficult
210 CoE Training Development Need to create exercises that are both realistic and controlled enough ‐ difficult to balance Challenge Goal conflict Achieve multiple conflicting objectives
211 CoE Training DevelopmentSometimes events that could (and do) actually happen in operations are not seen as realistic by trainees before they go on the operation ‐ perceived vs. actual realism have to be balanced Challenge Goal conflict Achieve multiple conflicting objectives
212 CoE Training Development Some aspects of training are difficult to mentor (e.g., interview training) Challenge Collaboration Mentoring difficulty213 CoE Training Development Required resources are often not easily available and have to be built from scratch Challenge Resources Availability in general
214 CoE Training DevelopmentGenerally a great many demands on trainee's time: this means sometimes they miss scheduled training Challenge Resources Time
215 CoE Training Development When training program began, the DM was working "in a void" ‐ didn't really know what was needed Challenge Direction Vague
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme
216 CoE Training DevelopmentThe DM had never experienced the type of situation/meeting he was trying to recreate which made his job more difficult Challenge Planning Lack of required information
217 CoE Training DevelopmentSA about operational environments and priorities must be constantly updated and changes made to follow them in training Challenge Information Updates
218 CoE Training Development Took time to build the necessary trust between agencies Challenge Collaboration Trust building
219 CoE Training Development Networking and relationship building were actively encouraged and built into training over time Training Collaboration Networking
220 CoE Training DevelopmentEffective collaboration required training to evolve a common understanding between organizations (e.g., of OPP process) Training Collaboration Common understanding
221 CoE Training Development Money available for training decreased over time, requiring restructuring Challenge Resources Budget
222 CoE Training DevelopmentNetworks of people were built as training developed which helped in the acquisition of resources for training and for getting other organizations involved. Training Collaboration Networking
223 CoE Training Development Personal contacts often proved more useful than "official" channels Training Collaboration Networking224 CoE Training Development Changes are difficult to make within a training cycle Challenge Planning Lead time required is too long
225 CoE Training DevelopmentImportance of networking and relationship building ‐ night‐out dinner most important part of workshop as you learn more about the people you are dealing with and create networks Training Collaboration Networking
226 CoE Training Development Building networks and developing trust is the most important part of his job Training Collaboration Networking
227 CoE Training Development Social side is most important aspect of the job ‐ create shared values, have interpersonal skills, etc. Training Collaboration Networking228 CoE Training Development Need to have good IQ and EQ Training Collaboration Emotional intelligence229 CoE Training Development Have to be able to coerce or convince people to give you what you need Training Collaboration Negotiation230 CoE Training Development Have to be able to build trust Training Collaboration Trust building231 CoE Training Development How you connect with people is fundamental Training Collaboration Networking232 CoE Training Development Ability to negotiate really well is important in theatre Training Collaboration Negotiation
233 CoE Training DevelopmentNeed to have a joint lessons learned cell ‐ shouldn't wait until the mission is done, get information as its happening Training Information Lessons learned
234 CoE Supervisor Needs to be overlap and continuity in training Challenge Planning Interdependence235 CoE Supervisor Government announcements can force unexpected readjustments in training Challenge Strategic issues
236 CoE SupervisorChanges may be announced but details not known, requiring assumptions must be made so that enough planning lead time is available Challenge Planning Lack of required information
237 CoE Supervisor Training cannot rely on templates because the rate of change is too high Challenge Planning High rate of change
238 CoE Supervisor Outside events (e.g., changes in policy, different operational events) force a lot of change Challenge Planning Changes dictated by outside forces
239 CoE Supervisor Often overlapping requests for training time and resources which require on‐line resource shifting Challenge Planning Resource shifting 240 CoE Supervisor Long lead times are often required for training objectives to be met Challenge Planning Lead time required is too long
241 CoE SupervisorTraining of CF personnel have to include training them to interact with other organizations ‐ requires a lot of work to get these groups adequately involved Challenge Collaboration Get proper people involved
242 CoE SupervisorDifferent stakeholders typically have different jargon and different ways of doing things which make communication and collaboration difficult Challenge Communication Jargon
243 CoE Supervisor Timelines of stakeholders are different Challenge Collaboration Timelines
244 CoE SupervisorMoney has become more of a constraint which influences other resource availability (e.g., number of people who can be involved in the writing boards) Challenge Resources Budget
245 CoE Supervisor Often training has to support other issues like basic teamwork training, sort out SOPs, etc. Challenge Planning Interdependence
246 CoE Supervisor
Training scenarios have to be firmly grounded in the current operational state because trainees are often aware of the situation and will be influenced by the perceived relevance of the training (as well as the relevance actually being affected) Challenge Planning Updated information required
247 CoE Supervisor Use social networks to get needed personnel resources Training Collaboration Networking248 CoE Supervisor The job requires people with personalities which can accept not having real authority Training Personality Authority
249 CoE SupervisorThe personnel recruited to run training must change over time, due to current experience levels, scheduling conflicts, etc. Challenge Collaboration Turnover
250 CoE Supervisor
CF staff in the training programs change cyclically and frequently over time so certain things have to be done repeatedly (e.g., building relationships, informing people about what works and what doesn't) Challenge Collaboration Turnover
251 CoE Supervisor Requests to inject other groups into training can cause scheduling and other resource conflicts Challenge Resources Scheduling252 CoE Supervisor Use personal networks to get needed people involved Training Collaboration Networking253 CoE Supervisor Ensure that people creating training exercises have proper and recent experience Training Experience Right person in right job
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme
254 CoE SupervisorIdentify personnel/SME needs as soon as possible and inform the relevant groups as early as possible to facilitate their involvement Training Collaboration Inform collaborators early about desired involvement
255 CoE SupervisorIdentify personnel/SME needs as soon as possible and inform the relevant groups as early as possible to facilitate their involvement Training Planning Identify needs early
256 CoE SupervisorNeed to know how Ottawa works ‐ different from the tactical level. Dealing with public servants, the procurement world, etc. Training Experience Need relevant experience
257 CoE Supervisor If required, write your own terms of reference for yourself and your staff Training Direction Need to create clarity258 CoE Supervisor Must be flexible to adapt to new situations and deal with ambiguity Training Planning Flexibility
259 CoE SupervisorCan't have type‐A personalities in full‐time CoE positions because they may butt heads with the military Training Personality Type A
260 CoE SupervisorNeed to coordinate as much as possible with higher command (e.g., CANOSCOM) to get information needed to form training objectives Training Direction Get needed information
261 PSYOPS trainingIt was the first time such a thorough training program was being developed ‐ previous courses were not available to use to guide planning Challenge Planning Lack of previous similar events
262 PSYOPS training Short timeline to plan Challenge Planning Short timeline263 PSYOPS training Short timeline to plan Challenge Resources Short timeline
264 PSYOPS training
Because of short planning timeline changes in one resource meant that other changes had to be made to accommodate it (e.g., instructor availability changes meant that the order of course material might have to change Challenge Resources Balancing
265 PSYOPS trainingSome elements of planning occurred before the DM took over which meant they were not in his control or of his choosing Challenge Planning Lack of control
266 PSYOPS training Pressure to have the trainees ready to go right after training (ready to prove their worth) Challenge Planning High stakes
267 PSYOPS trainingTrainees were a diverse group of people with very different backgrounds and levels of military experience (although none were new soldiers) ‐ note that this was both a challenge and an asset Challenge Collaboration Diverse experience
268 PSYOPS training Demands by the training course location to not have the trainees in uniform Challenge Location
269 PSYOPS training Have and use a network of resources through personal contacts etc. to provide training opportunities Training Collaboration Networking
270 PSYOPS trainingTake advantage of local resources as much as possible (e.g., training located where there is a large Afghan community so could get them involved as actors etc.) Training Planning Use available resources
271 PSYOPS trainingInstructor schedules produced constraints on information delivery ‐ information was not delivered in optimal order Challenge Resources Scheduling
272 PSYOPS training Take care of group cohesion Training Collaboration Team cohesion273 PSYOPS training Planning had to remain an ongoing process during the training itself Challenge Planning Ongoing274 PSYOPS training Be aware that some of the benefits of training may not be appreciated at the time Training Evaluation Time delay
275 PSYOPS training
Need to be prepared (and prepare trainees) to justify their role ‐ often PSYOPS is not understood (e.g., get an order to "go PSYOPS those guys and be done in an hour" or appreciated ‐ need to be able to relate to a strategic/political end goal Training Role justification
276 PSYOPS training Need to be able to do job and give limelight to the people who feel they deserve it Training Collaboration Credit
277 PSYOPS training Can learn more from interacting with the actual civilian community than you can from training Training Information Real world278 PSYOPS training Had go/no go criteria for each exercise Training Planning Use go/no go criteria
279 PSYOPS trainingSome instructors gave too much information too quickly and at too high a level ‐ took time to absorb after training Challenge Information Overload
280 PSYOPS trainingAttempted to integrate other needed skills into PSYOPS training to increase their usefulness ‐ close quarter combat training, combat casualty care Training Planning Interdependence
281 Logistics ‐ NSE Logistics staff and other resources were extremely limited Challenge Resources Staff
282 Logistics ‐ NSE CONOPS required dispersed logistics whereas for logistics it is always easier to be centralized Challenge Resources Location
283 Logistics ‐ NSEDifficult to move resources (locations far apart; difficult terrain; requirement to travel through areas inhabited by the enemy) Challenge Resources Location
284 Logistics ‐ NSE Logistics extremely brittle and vulnerable to unexpected events (due to lack of resources etc.) Challenge Planning Vulnerability to the unexpected
285 Logistics ‐ NSEIndividual differences in BG members meant that it was difficult to track resource usage (e.g., rate of artillery usage) Challenge Collaboration Individual differences
286 Logistics ‐ NSEIndividual differences in BG members meant that it was difficult to track resource usage (e.g., rate of artillery usage) Challenge Information Updates
287 Logistics ‐ NSE Enemy actions were unpredictable Challenge Planning Unpredictability288 Logistics ‐ NSE Logistics considered secondary to combat forces Challenge Role justification289 Logistics ‐ NSE Time lags between resource requests and replenishment from Canada Challenge Resources Replenishment
Initial Order Scenario Challenge/training recommendation Challenge or Training General theme Subtheme290 Logistics ‐ NSE Very limited logistics staff Challenge Resources Staff291 Logistics ‐ NSE Need to consider resources of allies Challenge Collaboration Resources
292 Logistics ‐ NSE Lack of information to support planning (mission type relatively different from recent missions) Challenge Planning Lack of previous similar events293 Logistics ‐ NSE Political/strategic concerns limited resource options Challenge Strategic issues294 Logistics ‐ NSE Environmental effects (e.g., maintenance more frequent) Challenge Location Harsh conditions
295 Logistics ‐ NSELocation of resources (e.g., FOBs and contents) change relevance based on actions of the enemy and orders from higher command (e.g., where to deploy) Challenge Resources Location
296 Logistics ‐ NSE Logistics could not influence locations of FOBs but had to keep them supplied Challenge Planning Lack of control297 Logistics ‐ NSE Psychological well‐being of logistics staff endangered due to lack of sleep and rest Challenge Resources Sleep and rest
298 Logistics ‐ NSETrue sustainment not practiced by BG ‐ led to lack of information for planners and lack of prep for soldiers Challenge Planning Lack of required information
299 Logistics ‐ NSELocation of conflict (Afghanistan) had large impact on flexibility to replenish resources (e.g., land‐locked country) Challenge Location Lack of flexibility
300 Logistics ‐ NSERadical change to CONOPS that the DM was unaware of prior to deployment had profound negative effects on logistics (e.g., went from centralized to decentralized logistics) Challenge Planning Lack of required information
301 Logistics ‐ NSEThe use of resources varied greatly over time and made it very difficult to keep track of when replenishment needed Challenge Information Updates
302 Logistics ‐ NSEThe use of resources varied greatly over time and made it very difficult to keep track of when replenishment needed Challenge Resources Information
303 Logistics ‐ NSE Have to be able to handle whatever level of independence given by higher command Training Personality Independence
304 Logistics ‐ NSE Need to understand and know how to deal with the personalities of those you have to work with Training Collaboration Personality
Pa
age 134
This pagge intentionallly left blank.
Human
.
nsystems® Incorrporated
Humansystem
Acron
Acron
AAR
ANA
ANP
ATL
BG
C2
CANOSCOM
CAS
CDA
CDM
CEFCOM
CF
CFC
CIDA
CIMIC
CLFCSC
CMP
CoE
COIN
CONOPS
COP
DFAIT
DL
DM
DND
DRDC
EQ
FOB
HF
HSI®
ms® Incorpora
nyms
nym
Af
Af
Af
Ad
Ba
Co
Ca
Co
Ca
Cr
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ci
Ca
Ch
Ce
Co
Co
Co
De
Di
De
De
De
Em
Fo
Hu
Hu
ted
fter Action Revie
fghan National A
fghan National P
daptive Thinking
attle Group
ommand and Co
anadian Operati
omplex Adaptive
anadian Defence
ritical Decision M
anadian Expedit
anadian Forces
anadian Forces
anadian Internat
ivil Military Coop
anadian Land Fo
hief of Military P
entre of Excellen
ounter Insurgenc
oncept of Opera
ommon Operatin
epartment of Fo
istance Learning
ecision Maker
epartment of Na
efence Researc
motional Quotien
orward Operatin
uman Factors
umanSystems In
ew
Army
Police
g and Leadership
ontrol
onal Support Co
e Systems
e Academy
Method
tionary Force Co
College
tional Developm
peration
orce Command
Personnel
nce
cy
ations
ng Picture
reign Affairs and
g
ational Defence
h and Developm
nt
g Base
ncorporated
Full Te
p
ommand
ommand
ment Agency
and Staff Colleg
d International T
ment Canada
rm
ge
Trade
Page 135
Pa
HQ
IE
IP
IS
LA
LC
ND
NG
NS
O
PD
PM
PM
Po
PS
R&
RC
SA
SO
SM
TF
TL
UN
age 136
Acronym
Q
EC
PP
SAF
AV(s)
CC
DS
GO
SE
PP
D
MB
ME
oC(s)
SYOPS
&D
CMP
A
OP
ME(s)
FA
LCTS
N
Headq
Indepe
Intuitiv
Intern
Light A
Local
Nation
Non-G
Nation
Opera
Profes
Progra
Profes
Point(
Psych
Resea
Royal
Scient
Stand
Subje
Task F
Tactic
United
quarters
endent Electoral
ve Planning Proc
ational Security
Armoured Vehic
Command Cent
nal Directorate o
Governmental Or
nal Support Elem
ational Planning
ssional Developm
am Managemen
ssional Military E
s) of Contact
hological Operati
arch and Develo
Canadian Moun
tific Authority
ard Operating P
ct Matter Expert
Force Afghanista
cal Iraqi Languag
d Nations
l Commission
cess
Assistance Forc
cle(s)
tre
of Security
rganization
ment
Process; Ontario
ment
nt Board
Education
ions
pment
nted Police
Procedure
t(s)
an
ge and Culture T
Full Term
ce
o Provincial Poli
Training System
Human
ice
nsystems® Incorrporated
Humansystem
Gloss
Complexity
Connectivity
Critical Decisi
Dynamics
Independent a
Microworlds
Multiple confli
Underspecifie
ms® Incorpora
sary
Te
on Method
agents
cting goals
ed goals
ted
rm
According to Dsystem and thecomplex that s
A factor that inmaking situatioenvironment inunpredictable w
The Critical Deknowledge elicincident in theidecision relateinterviewee is aelicit informatio
A factor that inmaking situatioaspects that unenvironment chnothing; the ratthere may be d
A factor that inmaking situatioindependent en(they may have
Microworlds arenvironments. used to examininteract with co
A factor that inmaking situatioachieve multipat the same tim
A factor that inmaking situatioto achieve bec
Defini
Dörner (1996), the greater their insystem is.
fluences the comon. The extent tonfluence one anoways.
ecision Method (citation that focusr experience whd to the topic unasked to elaboraon of interest to t
fluences the comon. The extent tonfold over time. hanges over timte at which thingdelays between a
fluences the comon. The extent tontities in the enve different goals
re computer sim They generally ne the effectivenomplex and dyna
fluences the comon. The extent tole objectives wh
me.
fluences the comon. The extent tocause they are to
ition
he more variablendependence, th
mplexity of a deco which things inother in complica
or CDM) is a meses the interview
hich contained a nder discussion. ate on their expethe interviewer.
mplexity of a deco which the systeFor example, thee even when yo
gs change may bactions and effe
mplexity of a deco which there arevironment who in than the decisio
ulations of compallow interaction
ness with which amic domains.
mplexity of a deco which the DM hhich may not be a
mplexity of a deco which goals maoo vague.
Page 137
s in a e more
cision n the ated and
ethod of wee on an critical The erience to
cision em has e
ou do be variable; ects.
cision e nfluence it on maker).
plex n and are people can
cision has to achievable
cision ay be difficult
Pa
age 138
This pagge intentionallly left blank.
Human
.
nsystems® Incorrporated
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA(Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)
1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document, Organizationsfor whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's document, or taskingagency, are entered in section 8.)
2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION(Overall security classification of the documentincluding special warning terms if applicable.)
UNCLASSIFIED
3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification is indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C, R, or U) in parenthesis atthe end of the title)
Mapping the Relevance of Complex Decision Making to Canadian Land ForcesOperations (U)Mappage de la pertinence de la prise de décisions complexes pour les opérationsterrestres des Forces canadiennes (U)
4. AUTHORS (First name, middle initial and last name. If military, show rank, e.g. Maj. John E. Doe.)
Lisa A. Rehak, Tamsen E. Taylor, Lora Bruyn Martin
5. DATE OF PUBLICATION(Month and year of publication of document.)
March 2011
6a NO. OF PAGES(Total containing information, includingAnnexes, Appendices, etc.)
158
6b. NO. OF REFS(Total cited in document.)
18
7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of document,e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)
Contract Report
8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The names of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development − include address.)
Sponsoring:Tasking:
9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicableresearch and development project or grant under which the document waswritten. Please specify whether project or grant.)
12TH (Integrated Land Analysis Thrust)
9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under whichthe document was written.)
W7711−09−8158/001/TOR Task#8158−02
10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The officialdocument number by which the document is identified by the originatingactivity. This number must be unique to this document)
DRDC Toronto CR 2011−079
10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers under whichmay be assigned this document either by the originator or by thesponsor.)
11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on the dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)
Unlimited distribution
12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the DocumentAvailability (11), However, when further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.))
Unlimited announcement
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA(Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)
13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstractof classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph(unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text isbilingual.)
(U) Challenging decision making environments such as those experienced by the CanadianForces are commonly being characterized as “complex” by researchers (e.g., Grisogono,2010). The main goal of this project was to determine whether research investigatingcomplex decision making is relevant to the decision making actually experienced byCanadian Forces personnel, and how that research might be used to improve CanadianForces education and training related to decision making. Complex decision makingenvironments are characterized by requiring a series of interdependent decisions in acontext which changes both autonomously and as a function of the actions of the decisionmaker, and where timing is a key element (e.g., decision makers may have to act atparticular time in order to have their intended effect). Although factors identified in thecomplexity literature did appear to play a strong role in Canadian Forces decision making,further research is required to determine the relative role that these factors play inincreasing decision making difficulty. Research identified additional challenges faced byCanadian Forces personnel which were not noted in the complexity literature, includingchallenges related to collaboration and communication. Other areas which pose significantchallenges to CF personnel which appear to require additional education and traininginclude planning and dealing with resource challenges. Canadian Forces personnel whoare engaged in domestic and expeditionary operations appear to encounter the highestlevel of complexity in their decision making, and initial education and training effortsshould probably focus on these individuals rather than individuals engaged in domesticday−to−day functions.
(U) Les chercheurs (dont Grisogono, 2010) qualifient généralement de « complexes » lesmilieux décisionnels difficiles comme ceux dans lesquels les Forces canadiennes sontappelées à servir. Ce projet avait pour but premier de déterminer si l’étude de processusdécisionnels complexes serait utile à la prise de décisions qui constitue la réalité dupersonnel des Forces canadiennes, et comment ces travaux pourraient servir à améliorerl’éducation et l’instruction des militaires canadiens en ce qui concerne la prise dedécisions. Les milieux décisionnels difficiles exigent une série de décisionsinterdépendantes, dans un contexte qui change à la fois de façon autonome et en fonctiondes mesures que prend le décideur et dont la synchronisation est primordiale (p. ex., lesdécideurs peuvent devoir agir à un moment en particulier afin d’obtenir l’effet souhaité).Les facteurs relevés dans la documentation sur la complexité semblaient effectivementexercer un rôle important dans le processus décisionnel des Forces canadiennes, maisd’autres études s’imposent afin de déterminer le rôle relatif qu’exercent ces facteurs parrapport à la difficulté de la prise de décisions. Les études ont relevé d’autres défisauxquels se heurte le personnel des Forces canadiennes qui n’étaient pas mentionnésdans la documentation sur les décisions complexes, y compris des défis liés à lacollaboration et à la communication. D’autres secteurs qui posent des défis importants auxmembres des FC et dans lesquels une plus ample formation semble nécessaire sontnotamment la planification et les difficultés liées aux ressources. Comme les membres desForces canadiennes affectés à des opérations nationales et expéditionnaires semblentêtre appelés à prendre les décisions les plus complexes, les premiers efforts d’éducationet d’instruction devrait probablement viser ce groupe de personnes plutôt que les militairesqui exercent des fonctions courantes au Canada.
14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful incataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name,military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus ofEngineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of eachshould be indicated as with the title.)