I just received this e-mail from someone involved in an Army-based web forum called "CompanyCommand.com" (whose sister site is "PlatoonLeader.com"). Seems that, with projected budget "cuts", the first thing to go isn't bloated programs like the F-22 Raptor or the Army's Future Combat System, but rather, inexpensive projects which have actually yielded impressive results by spurring innovation from the field...
Again, I don't know how serious the recommendation was to shut down CompanyCommand.com, but should anyone question the power of "The New Media" on combat operations, I merely direct them to this article in Small Wars Journal. (Includes interviews from Zenpundit, David Kilcullen, Thomas Ricks, Abu Muqawama, and, of course, from me).
Starbuck goes on to recommend that if you have an account at CompanyCommand or PlatoonLeader, log in and tell the admins not to shut the site down.
Comments
In a recent grad school course that I finished, we did a project dealing with knowledge management networks and how an organization can leverage them to help educate its workforce. The Army's PL, Co Cmd, and BCKS networks were the best examples that we could find of effective knowledge sharing. There were a few "best practices" lists written by a few different consulting groups (McKinsey, etc). Those lists differed slightly, but the Army networks nonetheless met each item on each list.
Conditioned by experience to be cynical about the Army's ability learn and adapt as an organization, I was surprised. It was surprising and reassuring to see just how quickly and effectively the Army got it right in this case.
Clearly, the community's membership thought it was serious enough. Take a look at this months' ARMY Magazine - it has an article featuring a sample of the deluge they received in response.
http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/armyarchive/august2009/Do…
I have to reiterate that I don't know exactly how serious the recommendation was to shut down the Milspace sites due to funding issues, so this may have been a little alarmist at best. I'm hoping that the recommendation was just an ill-advised off-the-cuff remark made by a senior official. I can't believe that someone would fail to realize the cost/benefit ratio of sites like this.
I think it is important to let the Army know that, with funding shifted from the generating force to the operating force, these sites have an incredible impact on the way we operate in Iraq and Afghanistan, and need to be preserved.
For those of you who did not get the e-mail from the forums (sent by Tony Burgess), here it is below (dated 28 May 09)
<i>Fellow member of the CC professional forum:
We need your help!
Budgets & personnel are on the chopping block. One colonel told us this month that his plan to meet the cuts was to get rid of us and asked, "What does a website have to do with the mission?"
This isn't just a website or another Army organization. This is a grass-roots movement of leaders who are sold out to the cause of leading and loving Soldiers and growing combat-effective teams. Thousands of Company Commanders and Platoon Leaders (past, present, and future) are already engaged in a vibrant, ongoing conversation--sharing our hard-earned knowledge and experiences with each other, becoming more effective, and advancing our profession.
Take a moment and consider the MilSpace Platform. MilSpace provides the foundation of CompanyCommand and PlatoonLeader and also hosts your personal area (dog tag) and the Pro-Reading Forum. Soon, we will launch LeaderCast, which is a place for video clips of leaders like you talking about their experiences (we already have hundreds of clips set to post). The team also takes responsibility for monthly articles in ARMY Magazine and other projects such as the MCCC Yearbook, the Iraq Cdr AAR Book, and the Afghan Cdr AAR Book--all possible because of a groundswell of leaders like you who are on a mission to share their knowledge and to learn from others.
The Army's senior leaders have been incredibly supportive over the last 9 years, which has allowed us to stay laser-beam focused on serving Company Commanders and Platoon Leaders. But we need your help now. Actually, we--the collective community of professionals--need to help ourselves. We need to step up to the plate and communicate the value of the CC/PL capabilities to the Army so that we can take things to the next level and create something that is even more valuable and cutting edge.
Please hit reply now and share a real-life story/concrete example of how the forum(s), the books, etc. have made a difference for you and your unit. Armed with your stories, we can make a powerful case to justify the support the Army provides the team. It is not enough for us to talk about 18,000 members and the 60,000 page views a month--we need real-life, concrete stories about how you and your units have been impacted.
We are on the brink of a major breakthrough. Our desire is that this challenge becomes a galvanizing force and catalyst for us, collectively, to move powerfully into the future. Given what is at stake, please consider this more than an invitation to engage in your forum; please consider it a call to action that will only realize its potential if you contribute. Let's push forward together!
Thanks for all you do. Leadership Counts! </i>
If the Army were to lose companycommand.com (now milspace), then we will set back an already innovative way that our company level leaders have been learning over the last 8 years.
Since its inception, milspace has connected thousands of like-minded officers to share, discuss, and gain insight about our profession while leading and commanding American soldiers. Lack of mentorship by senior leaders has been discussed across forums in the Army, and collaborative sites like milspace have filled those voids.
Prior to taking command in 2004, I used milspace to help build my vision of command. While in command I took from the site to help lead my organizations and develop leaders, and when I relinquished command in 2006, I stayed on to help facilitate discussion on the Training site. It has been professionally fulfilling to give back in that capacity.
Keep these sites, keep encouraging peer-to-peer learning and growth, and continue to allow our Armys junior leaders to connect and lead.
Major Chanda Ian Mofu
Small Group 29C
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."
I've been affiliated with CompanyCommand for quite some time, and I see it as a quintessential element of the military profession - a place where leaders, with extremely limited time, can become more efficient, learn valuable lessons before the moment of truth, and concentrate on the elements of their jobs that are critical and relevant to them, their Soldiers, and their mission.
It is quite difficult for me to fathom our Army without CompanyCommand and PlatoonLeader - literally thousands of leaders have learned, taught, and shared on these sites, and material is available for years to come. I am one of those leaders, and I was much better for the dialog and tools I took from CompanyCommand, and learned even more when it came time to give back.
I'm quite sure our citizens want, if not demand, an Army where thinking, learning, experience, candor, and collaboration reign supreme among leaders directly responsible for the lives of their Soldiers. If that belief is correct, then an embodiment we need to preserve is the CompanyCommand and PlatoonLeader forum.
Jay
I am currently a CGSC student at the Fort Gordon, Georgia satellite campus. I was told about the Small Wars Journal site by one of my instructors, and after reading the blog titled "Goodbye CompanyCommand.com?" I felt the need to comment. As with the others who have commented on this blog, I agree that CompanyCommand.com is an invaluable resource and its elimination would be a mistake. Personally, I referenced this site a number of times throughout my company command, and the knowledge I gained made me a better Company Commander.
Leader development is a continuous process that is emphasized in all professional military education. In fact, CGSC devotes an entire block of instruction to leadership. The difference between this block and the block of instruction I received in my basic and advanced courses is that it focuses on organizational level leadership as opposed to direct level leadership. The similarity between the three is that the majority of my learning was through my peers. In other words, I gained more from my peers than the instructors or texts. This type of peer to peer learning is the value of CompanyCommand.com; it is what makes it an invaluable resource. Further, CompanyCommand.com is always accessible; it is available long after the professional military education is complete.
The bottom line is the cost of CompanyCommand.com is more than justified when looking at the importance of strong leaders in todays Army. This means that leader development through sites like CompanyCommand.com must continue.
MAJ David A. Thomas
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."
Rob, Ryan, Scott, and Ray have said it all.
Bottom line: An entire generation of company commanders and platoon leaders are better because of LTC Burgess and LTC Allen's brainchild. I certainly was a much better commander because of companycommand's tremendous resources and the advice provided there. I believe some of my soldiers are alive because of the knowledge I gleaned there. They were certainly better prepared.
CC's support costs don't amount to a fraction of an MRAP.
I was on another site where a group of retired officers were lamenting the demise of the officer club system, where lessons and skills were shared over beers. This is the modern o-club for commanders, where those conversations occur. The Army shouldn't even consider taking it away.
Thanks to SWJ for posting on this. Below are some additional thoughts from the CC Team:
The chain of command, from the Army Chief of Staff (three in a row) on down, have been hugely supportive of professional forums like Company Command. They get it and want to maintain the grass-roots, voluntary, by-and-for-the-profession nature that has made the forums so effective.
Right now, the Army is seeking to expand the operating force, drawing from the generating force to make it happen. It is to be expected, and I think a good thing that every program is looked at--to include the structure that supports professional forums like BCKS and MilSpace (read CC and PL forums). If these forums are really valuable and making a difference then this is the perfect catalyst for us--the profession--to step up and communicate that value, like Rob, Ryan, and Scott have done here.
The email that went out to forum members, quoted here in SWJ by "Starbuck," was a call for that kind of feedback.
If you have benefited from the forums, books, etc., the MilSpace team would like to invite you to share your story. Post here in SWJ or send it via email to cocmd.team@us.army.mil with "Flash Traffic" in the subject line.
I have to echo what Rob said above. I want to go to specifics; I cant talk enough about what CompanyCommand.com has done for me and my Soldiers.
I joined it in 2000 prior to taking command. The CC forum has served as a vetting board for ideas, a place to vent to other commanders outside my brigade, and a social network of fellow commanders to talk about things that commanders talk about. In the forum I can talk about whatever I want to talk about in a relatively free setting - theres not a lot of moderating except from peers. There are commanders from every walk of life - active duty, Army Reserve, Army National Guard - and in every branch. There are former commanders who are now lieutenant colonels and colonels that every now and then chime in with a piece of wisdom. Where else can a captain get that - FOR FREE and not on any evaluation. And they can take it or leave it.
I, like Ryan Kranc above and many others, used the site as a small group instructor (SGI) at Fort Sill to give my students a resource base to draw from and use rather than beat their heads against a wall figuring out something that had already been figured out - or at least give them a further along starting point.
I, along with my friend and partner in crime Captain Kelly Jones, have been the topic leads for Professional Reading on the forum for the past four years. Both of us have a passion for professional reading and what it can do for our Soldiers and their units. I stepped up to help lead the Pro-Reading forum (http://ProReading.army.mil) because of what it did for me personally and my company in and out of combat. The Pro-Reading forum in one shape or another has enabled me and many other commanders to use books as a freebie rather than continue to repeat the same mistakes of others. I add this excerpt from the book, CompanyCommand: Unleashing the Power of the Army Profession because I cant write it any better than I spoke it five years ago. These are my words to the authors.
"I consider our reading program to be one factor in our success on the ground. For example, it helped give us a common reference point. It also helped my officers think deeper than just direct fire and maneuver of their forces. It taught them to use helicopters, recon assets, and anything else to avoid sending a man to do the job of a bullet. At the same time, it also taught them how one officer took his fight to the enemy, something that we have used several times. When we conduct split operations, when we have 'free radicals on the battlefield, or when we sense complacency settling in--we have a depth of shared understanding as a direct result of The Killing Zone conversations. I also think that reading this particular book helped connect my lieutenants with former Soldiers, which showed how we are part of a time-honored profession that is bigger than just ourselves. As we are finding, some lessons in war are timeless."
To take the forums away, or even to reduce the small support the Army is
providing to the forums, would be an injustice to our Soldiers.
The good news is that nothing has been decided yet. I believe that our
Army will wisely continue to fully resource BCKS and forums like CC. Like Rob mentioned above, when this decision comes before senior Army
leaders in the weeks ahead, they will support the forums. Stories like
these from members about the impact the forums have had will help shape that outcome.
Scott
Platoon Leader was my first peer-to-peer experience. It blossomed into a love affair with peer-to-peer information exchange networks, including SWJ, over the next 9 years.
I can't think of a day in the past 9 years where I haven't either referenced one of the PL/CC books, papers, or websites to increase my knowledge and proficiency as a Soldier. Platoon Leader and Company Command forums were at the forefront of the information age and the era of virtual communities. They predate such virtual communities as Small Wars Journal and Professional Soldiers.com, communities held in high esteem not just within the military, but throughout the national defense community, and constantly accessed by our junior and most senior leaders on a daily basis.
As a former instructor at The Armor School, I referenced my students, both lieutenants and captains alike, to both pl.com and cc.com regularly and encouraged them to share their experiences once they reached the force. One only needs to look at the wide range of topics on both websites to see the enormous tactical impact that both of these forums have had upon the force. No other place in the world can a young platoon leader seek and gain advise in such diverse topics as tactical employment of a scout platoon to supply management to dealing with FRGs. PL.com and CC.com offer young officers and company grade leaders a forum to speak candidly with each other, conduct informal AARs on personal performance, and share the lessons learned so that the mistakes of today do not repeat themselves within the force.
Paragraph 1-83, page 1-19 from FM 3-0, Operations, dated 27FEB08 describes the attributes required of today's Army leader. It includes the following bullets:
o Competent in their core proficiencies.
o Broad enough to operate across the spectrum of conflict.
o Able to operate in joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) environments and leverage other capabilities in achieving their objectives.
o Culturally astute and able to use this awareness and understanding to conduct operations innovatively.
o Courageous enough to see and exploit opportunities in the challenges and complexities of the operational environment.
o Grounded in Army Values and the Warrior Ethos.
All of these bullets are strengthened and enhanced by the free exchange of ideas and innovative solutions to complex problems through the exchanges taking place each day on both forums. I have personally used the forums to bounce ideas off others for enhancement prior to presenting the same to my chain of command. Technological advancements have allowed forums of this type to flourish in today's society. In a decentralized knowledge management system where all have equal say and freedom to express their perspectives on a wide variety of issues, PL.com and CC.com have afforded the deployed fighting force an opportunity to communicate with those who have gone before them so as to continue safe and effective tactical operations and cease bad practices and failed precepts.
The numbers speak for themselves: 18,000 members and 60,000 page views a month. There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 company grade officers in the Army. This means almost 1 of every 2 company grade officers are influenced and impacted by these systems. There is no other leadership development program in the Army outside of TRADOC assignments that can boast these numbers.
I can say, without reservation, that these forums have made me a better Soldier, leader, and officer throughout my 9 year career.
Both cc.com and pl.com have taken off lives of their own and become bigger and better than ever since been adopted into the BCKS system. In The Starfish and the Spider by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, the authors talk about the power of decentralized systems. The principles of decentralization, as explained in the book are:
1. When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized.
2. Its easy to mistake starfish for spiders.
3. An open system doesnt have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system.
4. Open systems can easily mutate.
5. The decentralized organization sneaks up on you.
6. As industries become decentralized, overall profits decrease.
One of the larger concerns I, as well as many other, have about the termination of services like pl.com, cc.com, and the BCKS system is the fact that our junior leaders have grown up in a culture with free exchanges of information. Since falling under the BCKS umbrella, these two forums in particular have enjoyed a vetting process through the AKO system that validates the identity of the user and protects information with the power of authentication through CAC cards and AKO logins. Termination of services or removing this outlet from the toolbag of our leaders will not prevent the free exchange of ideas. It will, however, potentially jeopardize OPSEC by forcing these same leaders to have similar discussions in less secure forums and outlets. As discussed in The Starfish and the Spider, one only needs to look at the status of peer-to-peer data sharing after the major recording industry took Napster to court and essentially shut it down to find a model of further decentralization, a decentralization that, in this case, may ultimately end up harming the United States Army by allowing our enemies less restricted access into our leaders concerns and contemporary issues. In essence, destruction of the Armys BCKS systems and, in particular, pl.com and cc.com could have potentially catastrophic affects at the tactical level for our young leaders and further put our Soldiers in harms way.
If the question is "what do these websites do to contribute to the mission" my answer is simple: They are a significant and vital tool in the professional development of our leaders that incorporate the three facets of leadership development defined in our doctrine and FM 3-0 (experience, education, and training) and allow for a melting pot of ideas and different perspectives that cannot be replicated elsewhere without serious, and potentially disastrous, degradation to the quality, control, and OPSEC found in the current format. Since the dissolving of CAS3 five years ago, the only chance for officers of varying backgrounds and branch specialties to come together and learn from each other at the company-grade level has been pl.com and cc.com. The knowledge gained in these sites is priceless and the free exchanges, while costing nothing but the time the user takes to type out his or her response, has allowed for the continual professional and tactical development of so many of our junior leaders, which has inevitably translated to Soldiers lives saved in combat during a time of persistent conflict.
To argue anything less would be a gross misunderstanding of the power and scope these online communities provide, a misunderstanding that may ultimately result in Soldier deaths and a far less developed and competent United States Army. Id like to believe that the leaders who lead my Army do not fall into the trap of falsely perceiving that a few dollars saved in the short term with budget cutting initiatives like this do not have a counterbalance affect down the road. Bluntly stated, the counterbalance and consequence to losing such programs is more memorial services, more hurt families, more fatherless and motherless children, more widows and widowers, and more brothers and sisters-in-arms making the ultimate sacrifice due to the negligence of their leaders failing to provide the information that could have kept them alive.
It is hard to quantify just how much CompanyCommand.com and its sister site has done for leadership, but there is no doubt in my mind they have advanced it in ways that could not have been done otherwise.
I (and many others who participate here on SWJ) first got involved with communities of practice on CC.com. We were excited by the prospect that a place had been carved out for us as company commanders where we could go and learn from former commanders and peers who faced the same challenges as ourselves - we were no longer limited to either discovery learning at the expense of those we were responsible for, or from peers whose experience was commensurate to our own. We had a place to go that was only limited by the amount of those willing to participate, and because of the nature of CC.com's founders and membership - this was nearly limitless.
For those who don't know the story Tony and Nate began CC.mil with a similar concept to Dave and Bill - provide a place where ideas could be shared and discussion could produce understanding on tough issues that faced the community. In this case it was focused on the Company Commander. Its worth mentioning that we've stated time and again how important the company grade officers are, and how their responsibilities and authorities on the battlefield have grown beyond what our pre-war doctrine anticipated and outlined.
I'm of the mind that CC.mil has played, and continues to play a strong role in preparing future, present and past company commanders to assume those responsibilities in ways that simply cannot be measured, or adequately expressed. CC.mil has never sought to be a place that blew its own horn because it respected the need to be a place where its participants can express themselves without fear of rebuke from the CoC. There are no pseudonyms, only names and contact info. There is both what you see on the site, and then there is the countless professional relationships and events the site fostered behind the site.
Not only does CC.mil foster discussion, but it provides a repository for tools (such as SOPs, best practices, reports, training ideas and briefs, etc.) that take time to develop and verify. This gives back the most precious resource to a commander, time -and places context around these tools because they come with an endorsement by the people who use and develop them.
What has always made CC.mil good is similar to what makes the SWJ discussion board good - its character is its membership who express a sense of loyalty and pride in it. Its not simply a lifeless site, or bank where things are deposited and withdrawn, but is a place where ideas are contested, haggled over, defended and advanced - the membership like here know the stakes and are willing to argue to get it right. I think most who frequent SWJ know how rare and valuable that is.
If leadership is truly the lever which we use to accomplish the mission, then there should be no question as to if CC.mil and PLTLDR.mil continue to provide the valuable service they have. I have not only used it, but have referred my subordinates to it and watched their knowledge and performance increase dramatically. I also saw an increase in their interest in the profession increase. I've had BN and BDE CDRs reflect the same comments about their Company Commanders. CC.mil has influenced leadership beyond its original audience and many of its participants are now BCT CDRs and GOs.
The "costs" of running the site are a infinitely small amount compared to some of our most basic hardware expenditures. This is a "no brainer" in my mind, that it would have to be considered shows that we don't really understand the connection between what we say we want out of our leaders and the means to accomplish it. The ability to continually advance leadership is priceless, and in this case is not even a drop in the budget.
What cc.mil really supports is targeted continued learning that is carried forward throughout a career (and beyond in many cases) - that the huge return on leadership for such a small dollar investment cannot be measured by methods accustomed to probability of kill ratio, MPG or mean time between failure is irrelevant - and may in fact indicate we focus on measuring the wrong things.
I would like to think that the question of closing down the sites was made by budget wonk or that it automatically popped up like when your operating system asks you a mindless question because it does not really think, or know your intent. I'd like to believe that as soon as it came to the attention of a leader - the thought of getting rid of them was crushed. If that is true, then good on us, it still gave me a chance to write about the value of some fantastic leadership communities.
Best regards, Rob