To Design, or not to Design
To Design, or not to Design:
An Introduction to a Six Article Series
by Ben Zweibelson
Download The Full Article: To Design, or not to Design
Are the Joint Operational Planning Process (JOPP) and the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) unable to address the growing complexities of modern, ill-structured conflict? Does the U.S. Army's design methodology provide the military institution a more effective structure, format, vocabulary, and process that are understandable to the force and applicable? Many military professionals charge that design is 'just MDMP's mission analysis on steroids,' while others claim design is merely 'Effects Based Operations (EBO) by another name.'
By publishing the recent March 2010 edition of Field Manual FM5-0; The Operations Process with Chapter 3 entitled Design, the U.S. Army answers the former question with an affirmative. As to the latter, this six article series on 'Army Design' proposes that by making too many compromises on design content, structure, and theoretical underpinnings, the military confuses the majority of the force on what design actually is, and how it works. Critics in both the pro-MDMP and pro-EBO factions continue to resist design methodology for precisely what the Army fails to deliver in the brief fifteen pages of design doctrine.
Design theory reflects a paradigm shift in military theory that directly challenges previously guarded concepts regarding doctrine, tactical fixation, heroic leadership, and institutional anti-intellectualism. Yet Army design doctrine does not clearly identify which academic or scientific field it originates. Is it a military adaptation of General Systems Theory, or descendent from sociological Game Theory? Did mathematical Chaos Theory provide the genesis for Army design doctrine, or did postmodern philosophy pull French and Greek concepts into the paternal form for design? Did postmodern economic theory, modern architectural design, or socio-educational theory inspire military concepts? Which military adapted design first? Some argue the Soviets during the Interwar Period, whereas others credit the Israeli Defense Force in the 1990s. FM 5-0 is unsurprisingly silent on whether design is the conceptual offspring of another nation's military institution. As to answering the origin question, this six article series on Army Design responses 'all of the above' and holds that due to U.S. Army attempting to satisfy all rival factions within the military institution, it pleased no one and published an orphaned design doctrine that suffers from multiple personality disorder of methodologies.
Download The Full Article: To Design, or not to Design
Major Ben Zweibelson is an active duty Infantry Officer in the US Army. A veteran of OIF 1 and OIF 6, Ben is currently attending the School for Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has a Masters in Liberal Arts from Louisiana State University and a Masters in Military Arts and Sciences from the United States Air Force (Air Command and Staff College program). Ben deploys this June to support Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as a planner.
