Formalization and Agility in Military Headquarters Planning

In the conduct of operational planning in military headquarters, formalization of organizational structures and processes and the requirement for agility are often in tension. Adaptation to contingencies can, however, be achieved by manipulating the degrees of formalization, decision centralization, and distribution of skill specializations such that innovation is not suppressed. To this end, we suggest complementary additions to the variables in the NATO C2 Reference Model and propose their relationships in light of Structural Contingency Theory, Perrow’s “Normal Accident Theory” and Rittel and Webber’s “Wicked Problems.” We argue that the degree of process centricity of military planning can be varied to match the contingency, while at the same time the structure of planning teams is varied between Mechanistic, Organic and certain hybrid modes, in step with the process-centricity. We also consider whether the organizational structures and processes to best respond to a variety of scenarios are discretely separate or lie on a continuum through which the same headquarters can move. The importance of this for agility is emphasized.

[1]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[2]  Dustin K. Jundt,et al.  The Impact of Hybrid Team Structures on Performance and Adaptation: Beyond Mechanistic and Organic Prototypes , 2004 .

[3]  A. Kalloniatis,et al.  Bounding Wicked Problems: The C2 of Military Planning , 2009 .

[4]  R. Pigeau,et al.  Redefining Command and Control , 2000 .

[5]  C. Mills,et al.  The Theory of Social and Economic Organization , 1948 .

[6]  David S Alberts,et al.  Planning: Complex Endeavors , 2007 .

[7]  Carol McCann,et al.  RE-CONCEPTUALIZING COMMAND AND CONTROL , 2002 .

[8]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The structuring of organizations : a synthesis of the research , 1980 .

[9]  Jeff Conklin,et al.  Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems , 2005 .

[10]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  Hierarchy and History in Simon's "Architecture of Complexity" , 2003 .

[11]  Viktor Mikhaĭlovich Glushkov,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957, The Mathematical Gazette.

[12]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[13]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[14]  Ruth Sara Aguilar-Savén,et al.  Business process modelling: Review and framework , 2004 .

[15]  Adel Guitouni,et al.  An Essay to Characterise Models the Military Decision-Making Processes , 2006 .

[16]  J.D. Enderle,et al.  Virtual instruments in undergraduate biomedical engineering laboratories , 2003, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[17]  Richard E. Hayes,et al.  Understanding Command and Control , 2011 .

[18]  Lawrence Freedman,et al.  The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World , 2005 .

[19]  Richard E. Hayes,et al.  Power to the Edge: Command, Control in the Information Age , 2003 .

[20]  Barbara Austin,et al.  The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning , 1994 .

[21]  Mark E. Nissen,et al.  12 TH ICCRTS Adapting C 2 to the 21 st Century Hypothesis Testing of Edge Organizations : Laboratory Experimentation using the ELICIT Multiplayer Intelligence Game , 2007 .

[22]  Jens Christian Claussen,et al.  Offdiagonal complexity: A computationally quick complexity measure for graphs and networks , 2004, q-bio/0410024.

[23]  Henry Moon.  ASYMMETRIC ADAPTABILITY : DYNAMIC TEAM STRUCTURES AS ONE-WAY STREETS , 2004 .

[24]  Benoît Pelopidas,et al.  Normal Accidents Living with High-Risk Technologies , 2012 .

[25]  L. Donaldson.  The Contingency Theory of Organizations , 2001 .

[26]  P. Adler,et al.  Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive , 1996 .