Design and the Prospects for Mission Analysis
Design and the Prospects for Mission Analysis
by Christopher R. Paparone
Download the Full Article: Design and the Prospects for Mission Analysis
This is the third article in a series exploring the impact of design philosophy and whether a military renaissance is potentially afoot. This episode attempts to expose the myth that design is a "methodology" that leads to "understanding" that eventually leads to good military planning as suggested in the US Army's latest doctrine, particularly its Field Manual 5-0, The Operations Process. The focus is to reveal the issues associated with "mission analysis," that is, the breaking down of a "problem" into manageable tasks that, when all put together into a military plan or order, serve to solve the overall "problem." Beyond conventional, "force-on-force" fights, this essay argues that mission analysis is a misconception when it comes to framing complex operations.
In short, design is not a methodology toward understanding. It is a philosophy associated with embracing the unpredictability of tasks yet to be accomplished.
Download the Full Article: Design and the Prospects for Mission Analysis
Christopher R. Paparone, Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired, is an associate professor in the Army Command and General Staff College's Department of Joint, Interagency and Multinational Operations at Fort Lee, Virginia. He holds a B.A. from the University of South Florida; master's degrees from the Florida Institute of Technology, the U.S. Naval War College, and the Army War College; and a Ph.D. in public administration from Pennsylvania State University. On active duty he served in various command and staff positions in the continental United States, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and Bosnia.
Editor's Note: This essay continues the SWJ conversation on Design and Wicked Problems. Chris's previous essays include "Design and the Prospects of a Military Renaissance" and "Design and the Prospects for Deviant Leadership." Recently, Andrew Nocks offered an alternative viewpoint in "The Mumbo-Jumbo of Design," and Dale Eikmeier submitted a contrarian viewpoint in "Design For Napoleon's Corporal."
