Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
On Behalf of
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
as represented by
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
Canada.
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2011 © Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale,
2011
Humansystem
Abstr
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
nctions.
nments such aomplex” by reher research i
ally experiencanadian Forcenvironments athat changes
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
Complex dedecisions, idecision mathe complexcomplex enincluding:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
We interviecomplex, an(“scenarioswere presenpersonnel d
Further reseThe broadeeffectively,cultures (e.planning anwhich of th
ms® Incorpora
utive S
g the Relevaons.
hak, Tamsenronto CR201
g decision manly being chaary military o
uch as chemistthe study of Cvestigating cod by Canadian
Forces educati
ecision makinn a context thaker, and whexity literature
nvironments. T
Connectivityunpredictabl
Dynamics: Tenvironmenchange may
Multiple conachievable a
Underspecif
Independent(they may h
ewed CF persnd then create”). We then ent; in all casesdo indeed exp
earch also ideest and most im whether withg., Afghan nand dealing withe complexity
ted
Summa
ance of Co
n E. Taylor a11-079; Defen
aking environaracterized as operations exhtry, physics, a
CF decision momplex decisin Forces persion and traini
ng environmehat changes bere timing is ae, and identifiThe project fo
y: Things in tle ways,
The system hat changes ove
y be variable;
nflicting goalat the same tim
fied goals: Go
t agents: Therhave different
sonnel who haed descriptionexamined the s the five fact
perience the ch
entified manymportant of thhin their own ationals). Addth resource ch
y factors have
ary
mplex Dec
and Lora Brunce R&D Ca
nments such a“complex” b
hibit characterand biology, a
making. The mion making issonnel, and hong related to
ents are charaoth autonomoa key elementied componenfocused on fiv
the environme
as aspects thaer time even wthere may be
ls: Having to me,
oals may be d
re are indepengoals than th
ad experiencens of decisionscenarios to d
tors were founhallenges iden
y additional chhese additionteam, with o
ditional areas hallenges. Futhe most imp
cision Maki
uyn Martin, anada – Toro
as those experby researchersristics that haand research
main goal of ths relevant to thow that researdecision mak
acterized by reously and as at. In this projents which inflve of these fac
ent influence
at unfold overwhen you do delays betwe
achieve multi
difficult to ach
ndent entitieshe decision ma
es that were inn making situadetermine whnd. This indicntified by com
hallenges facenal challengesther Canadianwhere decisi
uture work shopact on decisi
ing to Can
Humansysteonto; March
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.
Pa
DdecocapoOpldeFoêtd’fo
age vi
D’autres étudees Forces canollaboration eanadiennes, oourrait amélio
On devrait entrlus forte incidevraient être aorces canadietre appelés à p’instruction donctions coura
es ont permis nadiennes. Le efficace, que cou avec d’autrorer la prise dreprendre d’adence sur le paxées sur la reennes qui sontprendre les dé
devrait probabantes à l’éche
de relever de plus répandu
ce soit au seinres cultures (pde décisions sautres études aprocessus décienforcement t engagés danécisions les plblement viser elle nationale.
nombreuses u et le plus imn de sa proprep. ex., les Afgont la planificafin d’examinisionnel des Fdes compéten
ns des opératilus complexeces personne.
autres difficumportant de cee équipe, avecghans). D’autrcation et les dner lesquels dForces canadinces décisionnons nationale
es, les premieres plutôt que d
Human
ultés qui se poes défis est celc d’autres orgres secteurs ddifficultés liéedes facteurs deiennes, et les inelles. Comm
es et expéditiors efforts d’éddes militaires
nsystems® Incor
osent au persolui d’obtenir u
ganisations dans lesquels oes aux ressoue complexité interventions
me les membronnaires sembducation et qui exercent
rporated
onnel une
on urces.
ont la
res des blent
des
Humansystem
Table
Abstract ....
Résumé ....
Executive S
Sommaire .
Table of Co
List of Tab
Acknowled
1. Introdu
1.1 B
1.2 O
1.3 O
2. Metho
2.1 R
2.2 W
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.3 K
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4 A
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
3. Result
3.1 R
3.2 W
3.2.1
3.2.2
ms® Incorpora
e of Co
.....................
.....................
Summary ......
.....................
ontents ..........
les ................
dgements.......
uction ..........
Background ...
Objectives, Sc
Outline of repo
odology .........
Review of com
Workshop ......
Prioritiza
Potential
Knowledge eli
Phase 1: I
Phase 2: P
Phase 3: D
Analysis meth
Scenarios
Mapping
Challenge
Collectiv
ts ..................
Review of com
Workshop ......
Prioritiza
Potential
ted
ontents
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
cope, and Del
ort ................
.....................
mplexity litera
.....................
ation and defin
scenarios and
icitation ........
Introduction o
Project introd
Description a
hodology .......
s ....................
of five comp
es analysis ....
e analysis .....
.....................
mplexity litera
.....................
ation and defin
scenarios and
s
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
iverables .......
......................
......................
ature .............
......................
nition of com
d SMEs .........
......................
of interview p
duction and ba
and discussion
......................
......................
plexity factors
......................
......................
......................
ature .............
......................
nition of com
d SMEs .........
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
mplexity factor
.....................
.....................
participants a
ackground ....
n of scenario
.....................
.....................
s to scenarios
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
mplexity factor
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
rs ..................
.....................
.....................
and demograp
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
rs ..................
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
phics ..............
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
Page vii
................ i
............... ii
............. iii
............... v
............. vii
............... x
.............. xi
............... 1
............... 1
............... 1
............... 2
............... 3
............... 3
............... 4
............... 4
............... 4
............... 4
............... 5
............... 5
............... 6
............... 9
............... 9
............. 10
............. 12
............. 14
............. 17
............. 17
............. 18
............. 19
............. 19
Pa
4.
5.
R
A
A
age viii
3.3 Know
3.4 Anal
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
. Discussio
4.1 Do Ccomplexity l
4.2 Are tnot covered
4.3 Whamaking? ......
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.4 Can
4.5 Addi
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.6 Limi
. Conclusio
5.1 Futu
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
References ......
Annex A: Min
Annex B: Oper
1. Scenari
2. Scenari
3. Scenari
4. Scenari
5. Scenari
wledge elicita
lysis .............
Scenarios ....
Mapping of f
Challenges A
Collective A
on ..................
CF personnel literature? ....
there challengby the compl
at challenges n.....................
Challenges f
Challenges f
microworlds
itional insight
The importan
Poor and goo
Knowing wh
itations .........
ons and Recom
ure Work .......
Data collecti
Data analysi
Additional to
.....................
nd Map of Com
rational Scen
io Description
io Description
io Description
io Description
io Description
ation .............
.....................
.....................
five complexi
Analyses .......
Analyses ........
.....................
experience th.....................
ges that CF plexity literatu
need to be add.....................
from SME sug
from complex
likely be use
ts ..................
nce of social
od actor beha
hen to do wha
.....................
mmendations
.....................
ion ................
s ...................
opics .............
.....................
mplexity Fact
arios that Con
n: Military Li
n: NSE Office
n: Liaison Of
n: CoE Traini
n: Chief of St
.....................
.....................
.....................
ity factors to
.....................
.....................
.....................
he types of de.....................
ersonnel typicure? ................
dressed in CF.....................
ggestions ......
xity literature .
d to facilitate
.....................
factors ..........
viours ...........
at ...................
.....................
s ....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
tors and Beha
ntain Comple
iaison and Ad
er, Afghanist
fficer, Afghan
ing Develope
taff, Strategic
......................
......................
......................
scenarios ......
......................
......................
......................
ecision makin......................
cally face in t......................
F education an......................
......................
......................
e this educatio
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
aviours ..........
exity ..............
dvisor, Interna
an .................
nistan .............
er ...................
c Advisory Te
Human
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ng challenges .....................
their decision.....................
nd training to.....................
.....................
.....................
on and trainin
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ational Event
.....................
.....................
.....................
eam, Afghani
nsystems® Incor
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
described in .....................
n making that .....................
o support deci.....................
.....................
.....................
ng? ................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
t ....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
stan ..............
rporated
........ 20
........ 21
........ 21
........ 23
........ 28
........ 39
........ 51
the ........ 51
are ........ 51
ision ........ 52
........ 52
........ 53
........ 53
........ 54
........ 54
........ 56
........ 56
........ 57
........ 59
........ 59
........ 59
........ 60
........ 61
........ 63
........ 65
........ 69
........ 69
........ 72
........ 74
........ 76
........ 79
Humansystem
6. Scen
7. Scen
8. Scen
9. Scen
10. S
Annex C: O
1. ExpEvent ....
2. Exp
3. Exp
4. Exp
5. ExpAfghanis
6. Exp
7. Exp
8. Exp
9. Exp
10. E
Annex D: B
Acronyms .
Glossary ...
ms® Incorpora
nario Descrip
nario Descrip
nario Descrip
nario Descrip
Scenario Desc
Operational E
perience to co.....................
perience to co
perience to co
perience to co
perience to costan ...............
perience to co
perience to co
perience to co
perience to co
Experience to
Bottom-up Ch
.....................
.....................
ted
ption: PME R
ption: CoE Tr
ption: HF Eng
ption: PME R
cription: PSYO
xperience Ma
mplexity fact.....................
mplexity fact
mplexity fact
mplexity fact
mplexity fact.....................
mplexity fact
mplexity fact
mplexity fact
mplexity fact
complexity f
hallenges List
.....................
.....................
Revitalization
raining Devel
gineer, Capita
Revitalization
OPS Training
apped to Five
tor mapping: ......................
tor mapping:
tor mapping:
tor mapping:
tor mapping: ......................
tor mapping:
tor mapping:
tor mapping:
tor mapping:
factor mappin
t ....................
......................
......................
Supervisor ...
opment Supe
al Acquisition
Staff Membe
g Program De
e Key Comple
Military Liai.....................
NSE Officer,
Liaison Offic
CoE Training
Chief of Staf.....................
PME Revital
CoE Training
HF Engineer
PME Revital
ng: PSYOPS T
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ervisor ...........
n ....................
er ...................
eveloper ........
exity Factors .
ison and Advi.....................
, Afghanistan
cer, Afghanis
g Developer..
ff, Strategic A.....................
lization Super
g Developme
r, Capital Acq
lization Staff
Training Prog
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
isor, Internati......................
n ....................
tan ................
......................
Advisory Team......................
rvisor ............
ent Supervisor
quisition ........
Member .......
gram Develop
......................
......................
......................
Page ix
............. 81
............. 83
............. 85
............. 87
............. 88
............. 91
ional ............. 91
............. 95
........... 100
........... 103
m, ........... 106
........... 109
r ......... 112
........... 115
........... 116
per ...... 119
........... 123
........... 135
........... 137
Pa
L
TTTTTTTTT(LTTTTTTTTTTT
age x
List of
able 1: Tempable 2: Tempable 3: Bottomable 4: Bottomable 5: Generable 6: Potenable 7: SME able 8: Compable 9: Exam
Liaison Officeable 10: Scenable 11: Scenable 12: Scenable 13: Scenable 14: Scenable 15: Scenable 16: Bottable 17: Bottable 18: Overable 19: Themable 20: Gap
Tables
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.....................
o the five com.....................
ores .........................................................
goals ratings .s ratings ........atings ............hemes ............ns ...................alyses ...........
mplexity facto.....................
scenarios .......eria ......................................ons template .p analysis temion .................n sessions ...........................
mplexity facto............................................................................................................................................................................................................................rs ........................................
Human
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................mplate ..........................................................................
ors ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
nsystems® Incor
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
rporated
........ 10
........ 11
........ 14
........ 14
........ 15
........ 20
........ 21
........ 23
........ 25
........ 28
........ 30
........ 30
........ 31
........ 31
........ 32
........ 33
........ 37
........ 40
........ 44
........ 44
Humansystem
Ackn
The authorscontributioncrucial to en
We would amembers fothey found decision marisk and chamembers repossible.
ms® Incorpora
owledg
s would like tns to this projnsuring this p
also like to thound themselvthemselves inakers handledallenge – learepresent our c
ted
gemen
to sincerely thject. His miliproject remain
hank those whves reliving un, humbled byd their circumrning of their country. With
nts
hank our milititary knowledned relevant a
ho agreed to bunpleasant mey their action
mstances. Thosexperiences c
hout their cont
tary Subject Mdge, constant and relatable t
be interviewedemories. We ws, and impresse who we incontinues to itributions this
Matter Expertsupport and eto the Canadi
d. During ourwere moved bssed by the wanterviewed havincrease our ps project wou
t, Robert Vokexpert input wian Forces.
r interviews, sby the conditiay in which thve chosen a ppride in how Culd, obviously
Page xi
kac, for his were
some CF ions that he
path full of CF y, not be
Pa
age xii
This pagge intentionallly left blank.
Human
.
nsystems® Incorrporated
Humansystem
1. In
This sectionproject.
1.1 Ba
The Canadiand their stare made chcaring for ththe need to other organ(Godefroy,
Challengingbeing charaResearcherbeen studiein these dom
Although thcomplex deinterrelatedExisting reslaboratoriesBrehmer, 1microworldeffects can the speed oyet clear thin environm
This projeccomplex defor identifyapplied in odecision maand the actutoward appto decision
1.2 Ob
The overallcomplex demilitary edubrief literatmaking as d
ms® Incorpora
ntroduc
n contains inf
ackground
ian Forces (Caffs in contemhallenging byhe welfare ofconsider seco
nizations and n2007).
g decision maacterized as “cs have propos
ed extensivelymains could b
here is some decision makind factors if decsearch investis using “micr992; Dörner &
ds offers certabe examined f environmenat findings ob
ments such as
ct is intended ecision makinying these simorder to facilitaking. Establiual decision mlying complemaking.
bjectives,
l objective of ecision makinucation and trure review wdescribed in t
ted
ction
formation abo
d
CF) are interesmporary operay many factorf a civilian poond and thirdnations in Joi
aking environcomplex” by sed that contey in domains sbe applied to t
debate in the ng typically incisions are to igating comploworlds” (i.e& Brehmer, 1ain advantage
that might nontal change tobtained in thethose experie
to find similang and the decmilarities is to
tate and imprishing a link bmaking experex decision ma
Scope, an
this project wng (in particulraining relatedas performedthe research li
out the backgr
sted in improvations. The ms. Some of thpulation whil
d-order effectsint, Interagenc
nments such aresearchers (e
emporary milisuch as chemthe study of C
literature connvolves decisi
have the effelex decision m., computer si
1993). In conts such as morot be predicta
o examine mo laboratory wenced by the
arities betweecision makingdetermine the
rove the CF edbetween existienced by CFaking researc
nd Delive
was to determlar, findings fd to decision
d to determineiterature. Seco
round, scope,
ving the decismissions facedhese challengele dealing wits of tactical accy, Multinatio
as those expere.g., Grisogonitary operatio
mistry, physicsCF decision m
ncerning whation making thects intended making has frimulations oftrast to “real-re control ove
able in the reaore effects in awith microwor
CF.
en the resultsg performed be extent to whducation and ting complex
F personnel isch to improvin
rables
mine the usefufrom researchmaking. To a
e the main comond, a worksh
, objectives, a
sion making sd by the CF, bes include inteth a “non-conctions, and thonal, and Pub
rienced by theno, 2010; Mo
ons exhibit chs, and biologymaking.
t makes decishat must take by a Decision
requently beef decision makworld” decisier the environal world; expea limited timerlds are releva
from existingby CF personnhich the existtraining procdecision mak a logical andng CF educat
ulness of existh using microwachieve this omponents of chop was held
and deliverabl
skills of commboth present aeracting with
nventional” adhe need to inteblic (JIMP) op
e CF are comoffat, 2003). haracteristics ty, and researc
sion making cinto account
n Maker (DMn conducted iking environmion making, tnment (e.g., sperimenters cane). However, ant to decisio
g research invnel. The mainting research cesses with reking research d necessary firion and traini
ting research worlds) for enoverall objecticomplex deci
d with the proj
Page 1
les for the
manders and future, h and dversary, eract with perations
mmonly
that have h findings
complex, many
M). in ments; see the use of pecific n increase it is not n making
vestigating n reason can be
espect to findings rst step ing related
in nhancing ive, first, a ision ject team,
Pa
soobrecowSManexwsutrgu
Topdaremlitin
D
1
Tanwlitre
age 2
ome of whombjectives of theview, determollection and
who should beMEs identifienalyses were xperiences on
were producedufficient to reraining as weluide future ch
he scope of thperations), anay functions. esearch. Rathe
making educatterature were
ncomplete).
Deliverables in
1) A
2) Dema
3) A
4) A ch
5) A
6) Po
.3 Outli
he first chaptnd deliverable
workshop, the terature revieecommendatio
m had experienhe workshop
mine which of data analysis interviewed)ed in the workconducted to
nto the selected based on thecommend thall as to determhanges in the
his project wand included coIt was beyoner, we assessetion and trainicorrect (altho
ncluded:
Mind Map co
escriptions ofaking context
mapping of s
ranking of thhallenges pres
summary of t
ossible educat
ine of repo
ter of this repoes. The seconknowledge e
ew, workshopons suggested
nce in complewere to revie
f the identified, and to deter). Third, data kshop as havidescribe the
ed complexitye analyses, anat complexity
mine the mainCF education
as land force ontingency opd the scope oed the usefulning based on ough we note
ontaining a su
f CF scenariosts;
selected main
he relative conent in the sce
the main chal
tion and traini
ort
ort contains and chapter deslicitation, and, and analysed by the analy
exity researchew the compled complexity rmine an apprwere collecte
ing appropriatactual experi
y componentsnd included a dy research cann challenge aren and training
focused (rathperations (bot
of this project ness of complthe assumptio
ed some cases
ummary of the
s which were
ideas in com
ntribution of tenario;
llenges presen
ing interventi
a brief backgrscribes the med the analysess, and the fou
yses.
h and some whexity componcomponents
ropriate approed through knte experienceences of the C
s. Finally, recodiscussion of
n be logically eas actually e
g processes.
her than focusth domestic anto validate th
lexity researchon that the fins in which the
e characterist
anticipated to
mplexity theory
the main com
nt in the scena
ions/enhancem
ound and discethodology uss. The third churth chapter c
Human
ho had militanents summarto focus on d
oach for data cnowledge elices. Fourth, sevCF personnelommendation
f whether the extended to C
experienced b
ed on air forcand expeditionhe findings ofh findings for
ndings in the ee research find
tics of comple
o qualify as c
y to the scena
mplexity ideas
arios; and
ments.
cussion of thesed for the lithapter describontains the co
nsystems® Incor
ary experienceized in the lit
during data collection (e.itation sessionveral sets of l and to map tns and conclumapping wasCF educationby CF personn
ce or naval nary) and dayf complexity r military decexisting reseadings appeare
ex decision m
complex decis
ario descriptio
to the overal
e objectives, sterature reviewbes the resultsonclusions an
rporated
e. The terature
g., ns with
these usions s , and nel to
y-to-
cision-arch ed
making;
sion
ons;
ll
scope, w, the s of the
nd
Humansystem
2. M
In this sectiknowledge are not incl
2.1 R
This was noguided revithat were thseveral doc
BreEscCom
Depcon
Dö
FunRea
Gri(dr
GriPap
MoSer
Previous rereviewed (Bcomplex decharacteristand compledifferent semaking we dynamic de
The definititaken to defthe complexfrom decisimaking). Thin the work
ms® Incorpora
Method
ion, we reviewelicitation se
luded here, bu
eview of c
ot intended toiew to gain anhought to makcuments to rev
ehmer, B. & Dcaping both thmputers in Hu
partment of Dncept, Austral
rner, D. (199
nke, J. (2001)asoning, 7, 69
isogono, A. Maft).
isogono, A. Mper presented
offat, J. (2003ries, available
esearch conduBrown, Karthecision makintics (e.g., theyex decision mets of research
are focussingecision makin
ions of complfine complex x decision maions which arehis factor list
kshop (see Sec
ted
ology
w the methodessions, as weut can be foun
complexit
o be a complen overview ofke decision mview, includin
Dörner, D. (1he narrow strauman Behavi
Defence (2009lian Army, Ca
6). The logic
). Dynamic sy9-89.
M. (2010). Ov
M. (2006). That CCRTS: T
3). Complexitye for downloa
ucted by HSI®
haus, Rehak, &ng from dynamy both involve
making appearhers. For the rg on as complng literature fo
lex decision mdecision mak
aking literature difficult forwas then pre
ction 3.1 for a
dologies used ll as the proc
nd in next sec
ty literatur
te review of tf the character
making compleng:
993). Experimaits of the labior, 9, 171-18
9). Adaptive canberra.
of failure. Ne
ystems as tool
verview of Co
e implicationThe State of th
y theory and nad at www.do® which inves& Adams, 200mic decision me interrelated
r to be very simremainder of tlex, although or background
making are vaking was to core, and see whr other reasonesented in mina detailed des
for the literatesses followe
ction (Section
re
the complexitristics of comex. The Scien
ments with coboratory and t84.
campaigning
ew York, Me
ls for analysin
omplex Decis
ns of complexhe Art and th
network centdccrp.org.
stigated dynam09). It is unclmaking, as thdecisions). Tmilar phenomthis report wewe will still ud.
aried and comompile a list ohich compon
ns (i.e., “compnd map formascription of th
ture review, ted during the n 3).
ty literature, bmplex decisionntific Authori
omputer-simuthe deep blue
09: Army’s f
etropolitan Bo
ng human jud
ion-Making (
x adaptive syse State of the
tric warfare. C
mic decision mlear what if anhey share manThat is, dynammena called twe will refer touse some of t
mplex themselof componen
nents separate plex” vs. “comat and used ashe results of th
the workshopdata analysis
but was instean making andity (SA) provi
ulated microwsea of the fie
future land op
ooks.
dgement. Thin
(CxDM) prog
stems theory fe Practice.
CCRP Publica
making was anything separny of the samemic decision mwo different to the type of dthe findings fr
lves. The appnts that can be
complex decmplicated” des a basis for dhe literature r
Page 3
, the . Results
ad a d factors ided
worlds: eld study.
perating
nking and
gram
for C2.
ation
also rates e making things by decision from the
proach e found in cisions ecision discussion review).
Pa
2
Tscinasinin
TCprre
2
Tpa
Odeincoin
2
OC(esclik(Pwpa
2
Tacexan
KcoseT(Jin
age 4
.2 Work
he goals of thcope of the prn the knowledspects of comnterview) and nterest so that
he workshop Canada (DRDC
roject team, inesearchers fro
.2.1 Priori
he mind maparticipants, an
Once the resultetermine whicnterest. Once onflicting goan Section 3.2)
.2.2 Poten
Once primary CF operation tye.g., were we cope?). Once kely contain tPoCs) were id
workshop memarticipants (fu
.3 Know
he goal of thectually experixperiences annd those CF e
Knowledge eliontexts intuitiemi-structuredhe interviews
Jarmasz, J., Rnterviews are
kshop
he workshop wroject, particudge elicitation
mplexity to focto determine
t SMEs could
took place onC) – Toronto,ncluding the
om DRDC To
tization and
produced frond minor edit
ts from the litch of the commain complexals, Under-spe), the definitio
ntial scenar
complexity faypes were disinterested in these main tythe complexitdentified. Basmbers were asull description
wledge eli
e knowledge eienced by CF nd to facilitateexperiences.
icitation involively identified, individual s were perform
Rehak, L., Taydescribed in t
were to reviewularly with resn sessions. Spcus on (as it we which CF en
be recruited
n Thursday, A, from approxScientific Au
oronto attende
d definition
om the literatus were sugges
terature reviemplexity facto
xity factors wecified goals,ons of those fa
ios and SM
actors had beescussed to detdomestic ope
ypes of CF opty factors of ped on who ha
ssigned to folln of scenarios
icitation
elicitation sespersonnel, bo
e a compariso
lved interviewed during the interviews bamed accordinylor, T., Bruynthe sections t
w the findingspect to the coecifically, mo
was unlikely tnvironments ato be intervie
August 26, 20ximately 10amuthority and thed part of the
of complex
ure review (sested.
w had been ars identified i
were selected and Indepen
factors were re
Es
en selected fotermine overaerations, expeperations wereprimary interead previous knlow up with ts and SMEs c
ssions was to oth to allow th
on between th
wing SMEs wworkshop as
ased on the Crng to DRDC en Martin, L., hat follow.
gs of the literaomplexity conore informatiothat they couland decision mewed for the p
010, at Defencm to 3pm. Thehe HSI projeworkshop as
xity factors
ee Annex A)
agreed upon a in the literatu(Connectivitydent agents –e-examined to
or the knowleall areas whiceditionary opee discussed, sest were listednowledge of tthe identified can be found i
obtain informhe creation ofe selected com
who had expercomplex. Th
ritical Decisioethics guidelinKarthaus, C.,
Human
ature review, ancepts that won was requirld all be covermaking conteproject.
ce Research ae workshop wect team. As wthey were av
was reviewed
a discussion wure review wery, Dynamics, – a full descripo ensure agre
edge elicitatioch should be cerations, or shspecific examd, and possiblthe potential SMEs and Po
in Section 3.2
mation about tf descriptionsmplex decisio
rience in the dhe interview teon Method (Cnes, under Pro, 2011). The p
nsystems® Incor
and to finalizwould be focus
red about whired easily in e
exts were of m
and Developmwas attended bwell, a few otvailable.
d by the work
was held to re of primaryMultiple
ption can be feement.
on sessions, poconsidered in hould both be
mples that woule Points of CSMEs or PoCoCs to recruit2.2).
the decision ms of those on making fac
decision makiechnique used
CDM) techniqotocol L-763 phases of the
rporated
ze the sed on ich each
major
ment by the ther
kshop
y
found
otential scope in
uld Contact Cs, t
making
ctors
ing d was que.
Humansystem
2.3.1 Ph
This phase discussion. interview toincluded1:
Wh
Ho
Wh
Ho
Wh
In general, the discussiexperience,most cases,for further dthe one we
2.3.2 Ph
Phase 2 intrknowledge participate. considered project purpbefore he o
The specifi
This projecresearch inpersonnel. results in or
It should bethis time, wdecision ma
After the SMquestions thtimeline wa
Dem
Pro
Sce 1 Note that in
ms® Incorpora
hase 1: Intro
consisted of iEach SME w
o provide a re
hat is your ran
w long have y
hat is your cur
w long have y
hat other posi
the decision-mion of demog, and that they, the interviewdiscussion if tidentified.
hase 2: Proje
roduced the pabout the proHowever, dubeneficial to pose allowed r she began to
c goals of the
ct is intended n complex, dynThe main advrder to facilit
e noted that ifwe mentioned aking which w
ME indicatedhat the SME has provided:
mographic qu
oject context a
enario selectio
n this and follo
ted
oduction of
introducing thwas asked to aecord of their
nk?
you been in th
rrent position
you held your
tions have yo
making conteraphic detailsy understood wer also indicthe SME thou
ect introduc
project backgroject and its gue to the time refresh his orthe SME to a
o answer que
e project were
to find similanamic decisiovantage of idetate and impr
f the SME hadthat we woul
would give th
d that he or shhad had been
uestions and g
and key comp
on and genera
owing sections,
interview p
he intervieweanswer demogexperience. D
he military?
n?
r current posi
ou held?
ext that had prs to ensure thathe decision m
cated that otheught that anot
ction and b
round and goagoals which h
which elapser her memoryask the intervstions.
e stated, some
arities betweenon making andentifying theserove the CF ed
d questions abld shortly be dhe SME a clea
he understoodanswered, a b
general introd
plexity factors
al scenario de
, italicized text
participants
ers to the SMEgraphic questDemographic
ition?
reviously beeat the SME acmaking conteer decision mther of their e
background
als to the SMe or she was ged since the Sy. As well, thiiewers questi
ething similar
n the results od the decisione similarities ducational pr
bout the naturdiscussing fivarer understan
d the general rbrief overview
duction (intro
s (Phase 2): 1
etails (Phase 3
t indicates thin
and demog
E and vice vetions at the bec questions wh
en identified wctually had thext that we tho
making contextexperiences w
ME. The SME given when th
SME agreed tois face-to-faceions about the
r to:
of existing labn making perfwould be to e
rocess.
re of complexve main factonding of what
reason for thew of the antic
and Phase 1)
15 minutes
3, Step 1): 15
ngs that were ac
graphics
ersa, to facilitaeginning of thhich were ask
was reviewedhe anticipatedought was cots would be c
was more com
had some levhey were recro be interviewe discussion oe project in ge
boratory-baseformed by CFextend the res
x decision maors involved int we meant by
e interview, ancipated interv
): 5-10 minute
minutes
ctually said to
Page 5
ate the he ked
d during d mplex. In
considered mplex than
vel of ruited to wed, it was of the eneral
ed F search
aking at n complex y the term.
nd any view
es
the SME.
Pa
Acohifa
K
Ofa3.
2
Tinsccl
Tdras
Stthpropw
Ainas
Yosi
age 6
Scenar
Scenar
Scenar
After the timelomplexity facis or her own actors discuss
Key factors rel
Conneunexpe
Dynamchangevariab
Multipachiev
Under
Indepe(they m
Once the discuactors and the.
.3.3 Phase
he majority onformation abcenario descrilosely as pos
he interview rawing out des we used the
tep 1: Scenarhe SME to detromising to uptions, and th
was chosen an
As an examplenterview, withs a liaison off
You have beenituation in Afg
rio timelines a
rio challenges
rio strategies
line was discuctors and definexperience th
sed with the S
lated to comp
ectivity: Thingected ways
mics: The systes over time e
ble; there may
ple conflictingvable at the sa
r-specified goa
endent agentsmay have diffe
ussion of the keir definitions
e 3: Descrip
of the data wabout a specificiption and masible.
format was a etails of SMEm are as follo
ios to exploretermine which
use as a complhe one that appd discussed fu
e context, the h the assumptficer:
deployed to Hfghanistan is c
and critical de
s and errors (P
and learning
ussed with thened them onehat seemed to
SME, along w
plexity that we
gs in the envir
tem has aspeceven when youy be delays be
g goals: Haviname time
als: Goals ma
s: There are inferent goals th
key factors w (the material
ption and di
as collected duc complex decap the five key
modified CDE’s experienceows:
e further wereh of the potenlex decision mpeared to con
further.
following wation that the S
HQ Afghaniscomplex, and
ecisions (Pha
Phase 3, Step
(Phase 3, Ste
e SME, the ine at a time, ano show the fac
with the definit
e are looking f
ronment influ
cts that unfoldu do nothing;
etween action
ng to achieve
ay be difficult
ndependent enhan the decisi
as complete, l in italics abo
iscussion o
uring this phacision makingy complexity
DM techniquees related to d
e identified. Antial decisionmaking scenantain as many
as developed rSME being int
tan as the Caincluded issu
ase 3, Step 2):
3): 30 minut
ep 4): 30 minu
nterviewer intnd asked the Sctors. The keytions provide
for include:
uence one ano
d over time. F; the rate at ws and effects
e multiple obje
t to achieve b
ntities in the ion maker)
the SME wasove), and the
of scenario
ase. The goal g context expfactors onto
e. This techniqdecision makin
At this point, as they discuss
ario. In genera of the five ke
related to theterviewed wa
anadian Commues such as de
Human
: 15 minutes
tes
utes
troduced the fSME to providy complex deed, were as fo
other in comp
For example, which things c
ectives which
because they a
environment
s handed a sheinterview pro
was to obtainperienced by tthe scenario d
que has proveng. The comp
a brief discussed earlier waal, there were ey complexity
Liaison Offias deployed to
mander’s Liaetermining th
nsystems® Incor
five main de examples fcision makingllows:
licated and
the environmchange may b
h may not be a
are too vague
who influenc
eet containingoceeded onto
n enough the SME to crdescription as
en to be effecponents of the
sion was heldas the most usually sever
y factors as p
cer, Afghaniso HQ Afghan
ison Officer. e validity of
rporated
from g
ment be
all
e
ce it
g the Phase
reate a s
ctive in e CDM
d with
ral possible
stan nistan
The
Humansystem
informationhow to deci
Caiss
Cach
Wh
At lia
Wh
Wh
Whove
Did
Did
Whperof fadd
Duthewo
Cansudheretc
DoY; B
Hoeffe
ms® Incorpora
n and making ide what need
an you begin tsues may inclu
o How torecomm
o How to
o How to
o How to
o How totheatre
an you describallenging?
What was your
what point daison officer)?
What was your
hat factors ma
ho were the orer time?
d the stakehol
d the stakehol
hat was your prception of whfactors you knditional factor
ring this scenere appeared tuld start to ha
n you think ofddenly there wre could be th.)
you have anyBlue Forces i
w you ever haects may be im
ted
g decisions abds to be done.
to list out theude (to be use
o determine wmendations
o determine w
o communicat
o determine m
o determine w.
be a specific s
role during th
did you becom?
decision mak
ade this partic
riginal stakeh
lders agree ab
lders influenc
perception of hat was involvnew were invors were at pla
nario, were thto be strong fave an effect,
f any examplewas a dramatihought of as h
y examples ofincrease X, R
ad a scenariommediate, sec
out what to re
factors increed as example
what factors sh
whom to trust a
te effectively w
mentoring need
which activities
scenario that
his scenario?
me involved in
king authority
cular scenario
holders in this
bout what wa
ce the scenari
f what was invved in this sitolved when yoay later on?)
here times whfactors mainta but then the
es where theric increase or
higher level in
f a 2 sided esced Forces inc
o where the sacond, or third
ecommend. T
easing the comes if the DM h
hould be given
and what info
with members
ds
es best suppor
t took place o
?
n the context u
y in this scena
o challenging
s scenario, an
as important?
io? Were thes
volved in this tuation changou first starte
en your decisaining status scenario retu
re was a long r decrease in nterest, chang
calation whercrease Y cont
ame action had-order, etc.
This was a com
mplexity of thhas difficulty
n most weigh
ormation to tr
s of a differen
rt achievemen
ver weeks or
under discuss
ario?
g?
nd did other s
?
se influences a
situation origge over time? ed, and then y
sions would hquo)? Or a ti
urned back to
trend of no csome scenari
ge in funding,
re Blue Forcetinuously?
ad different ef
mplex problem
he situation? Sy):
ht when makin
rust
nt culture
nt of Canada’
months that y
sion (e.g., acti
stakeholders e
anticipated?
ginally? D id(E.g., were th
you realized th
have no effectsime when youstatus quo?
change, and thio aspect? ("achange in ma
es do X, Red F
ffects? Differe
Page 7
m about
Specific
ng
’s goals in
you found
ing as a
emerge
d your here a set hat
s (i.e. ur actions
hen aspect" anning,
Forces do
ence
Pa
Oin
Stustimcosi
Tsidecrfoac
Dmpoch
Oth
Stw
Le
age 8
Or whfurtherexampeffect w
Any ex
Once a more dntended to unc
tep 2: Once ased, and situameline of critomplexity behimilar to the f
What w
At eac
he intervieweituation with tepending on tritical points aorth between ccommodated
During this pormemory cue fo
ost-it notes anhanges along
Once the SMEhe interviewer
tep 3: Issues wwished to get o
et’s focus on
What m
Were y
Did yo
Did yo
Did yo
What d
o
What eeasier f
en there werer questioning
ple, what if thewas achieved
xamples of ac
detailed scenarcover critical
a detailed scenational featuretical points whaviours aroufollowing wer
were the critic
h critical poin
ers reviewed tthe interviewethe thought prand then thinkcritical pointsd by the interv
rtion of the inor both the SMnd added to ththe timeline a
E indicated thar moved on to
which neededout of this step
the decisions
made the deci
your goals un
ou have to ach
ou have a clea
ou consult oth
did you NOT
Was there a
else (besides mfor you?
e delays betwemay be desir
e action actuad regardless?)
tions having
rio was agreepoints and ad
nario was agres that affecte
was verified. Tund those critire asked:
cal points wh
nt, what decis
the scenario aee to ensure arocesses of thk about relates and decisionviewer.
nterview, a timME and the inhe timeline. Tas required.
at the critical o Step 3.
d to be elaborp included ch
s made at the f
ision challeng
nderstood?
hieve more th
ar understand
hers for their i
know that you
any way you c
more informa
een your actired to verify thally had no be)
the opposite e
ed upon, the indditional desi
eed upon, theed performancThe goal of thiical points co
hich happened
sion(s) or ass
and each critica common unhe SME. Somed decisions, ans. However t
meline was crnterviewers. CThe use of pos
points and re
rated were dishallenges and
first critical p
ging?
an one goal a
ding or menta
input?
u really neede
could you hav
ation from las
ons and the dhe link betweearing on the
effect than wh
nterviewers foired informati
e goals, decisice during the is step was tould be focuse
d during this s
sessment(s) di
cal point that nderstanding. metimes the SM
and sometimethe SME seem
reated on a blCritical pointsst-it notes ena
elated decision
scussed. The mpotential erro
point…
at a time?
al model of the
ed to know?
ve gotten that
st question) w
Human
desired effectseen the actione desired effec
hat was intend
followed up wion in Step 2.
ions that are mscenario wer
o identify all ted on during S
scenario (in s
id you have to
occurred durThe procedur
ME preferred es the SME mmed to wish t
lank sheet of ps and decisionabled order ch
ns had been n
main pieces oors.
e issues invol
t information?
would have ma
nsystems® Incor
s? [Note: Som and the effec
ct, but the des
ded or anticip
with questions
made, informre identified athe critical poStep 3. Ques
sequence)?
o make?
ring the decisre in this stepto review all
moved back anto proceed wa
paper to act ans were writtehanges and sp
noted satisfact
of information
lved?
?
ade this decis
rporated
me ct – for sired
pated?
s
mation and the oints so tions
ion varied
l of the nd as
as a en on pacing
torily,
n we
sion
Humansystem
We
We
If y
Did
Each criticadecision ha
Step 4: Durperformingwere identi
Wh
Wawo
Did
Wh
Areexp
Wh
Didwhy
Near the enhow educatwith the chsuggestions
2.4 An
There wereThe first wadecision mafive complecomplexitythe main de
2.4.1 Sc
The scenariexperiencedexperiencesfrom micromay be thatmaking in t
ms® Incorpora
ere you able to
ere there any u
you could mak
d you modify y
al point and read been review
ring this step, tasks were dfied. Ways in
hat were impo
as there a timeuld have acte
d you get feed
hat would hav
e there any otperience simil
hat did you lea
d the decisiony not?
nd of the intertion or traininallenges theys.
nalysis me
e several analyas a descriptioaking situatioexity factors t
y factors to theecision makin
enarios
ios were creatd by CF persos and they pro
oworld researct these scenarthe CF.
ted
o think throug
unanticipated
ke this decisio
your approac
elated decisiowed, the inter
alternatives wdiscussed and n which errors
ortant factors
e during this ed differently?
dback about h
ve made this s
ther types of blar types of sc
arn from this
ns made in thi
rview, SMEs ng could be imy faced in this
ethodolog
yses performeon of the scen
on described bto each scenare general diffng challenges
ted to provideonnel. For theovide a basis ch are relevanrios can be us
gh the 2nd and
d consequence
on again, wha
ch to decision
on was discusrviewers move
were identifiefactors that in
s might have b
that you feel
or a similar s?
how your actio
scenario easie
behaviours thcenarios and
scenario that
is scenario fo
were explicitmproved so th
scenario, or i
gy
ed on the datanario, involviby each SME.rio, with a rat
ficulty of the sexperienced
e a descriptione purposes of for determini
nt to the actuaed to facilitat
d 3rd order eff
es of your dec
at would you
n making (e.g.
ssed using theed on to Step
ed and elabornfluenced thebeen prevente
affected your
scenario that
ons were affe
er for you?
hat should be decisions?
t your trainin
llow the miss
tly asked if thhat other peopif they had an
a acquired in ing the creatio. The second ting of the relscenario. Theby the SMEs
n of complexthis project th
ing whether thal experienceste education a
ffects of your d
cision?
do differently
., level of risk
e questions abp 4.
rated. Differene choice and ued were discu
r performanc
someone did
ecting the scen
taught to peo
ng didn’t teach
sion command
here were any ple would be bny other educ
the knowledgon of a descrianalysis involative contribue third analysis.
x decision makhey serve to ihe key compls of CF persoand training in
decision optio
y?
k aversion)?
bove. After ea
nt strategies fusefulness of ussed.
e during the s
something an
nario?
ople who are l
h you?
d philosophy –
ideas they habetter prepareation or traini
ge elicitation ption of the c
olved a mappiution of the fis was a comp
king situationillustrate CF lexity factors nnel. In futurn complex de
Page 9
ons?
ach
for strategies
scenario?
nd you
likely to
– if not,
ad about ed to deal ing
sessions. complex ing of the five key pilation of
ns actually
identified re work, it ecision
Pa
TinDdefuredeid
2
Othfape
Co
Thin
Dy
ThFoevthde
It prdy
M
Hano
Un
Goar
In
Thendif
Bscdi
age 10
he informationformation pr
DM, and a list ecision makinundamental toeview, and sceescriptive as pdentifying det
.4.2 Mapp
One of the maihe complexityacilitate this, aerformed. Th
Complexit
onnectivity:
hings in the envi complicated an
ynamics:
he system has aor example, the ven when you doings change maelays between a
is important to nresent (i.e., subsynamics which a
ultiple conflicting
aving to achieveot be all achieva
nder-specified g
oals may be diffre too vague
dependent agen
here are indepennvironment who fferent goals tha
Because it rapicenarios, a moifferent comp
on gathered frovided by theof the factors
ng. Factors tho complex decenarios were possible, althtails that they
ping of five c
in goals of thiy literature canan explicit maese are presen
Table 1:
ty Factor and D
ronment influend unpredictable
aspects that unfoenvironment chao nothing; the raay be variable; thctions and effec
note hierarchical systems that havare part of the DM
g goals:
e multiple objectible at the same
oals:
ficult to achieve b
nts:
ndent entities in influence it (theyan the decision m
idly became oore quantitativ
plexity factors
rom the interve SMEs. The s that were m
hat unfolded ocision makingrevised accorough the indidid not wish
complexity
is project wasn be mapped apping from tnted in tabula
: Template for
Definition
ce one another ways
old over time. anges over time te at which
here may be ts.
aspects if ve their own M context).
ves which may time
because they
the y may have maker)
obvious that eve approach ws to each of th
views was exascenarios conentioned by t
over time wereg. Each scenarding to the Sividual SME ito be include
factors to s
s to determineto the operati
the scenarios ar format usin
r complexity f
Fa
Examples of interrelated f
Situations thaprofoundly afincluded:
There were stheir own dynThese includ
The goals of
Examples of included:
Independent decision mak
examples of thwas attemptedhe scenarios. T
amined to crentain a generathe DM as plae pointed out
ario was submMEs’ suggesis not named ed.
scenarios
e whether fiveional experiento the five ke
ng the followin
factor mappin
ctor Examples
decisions whichfactors included:
at unfolded overffected decision
subsystems whicnamics in this co
ded:
the DM included
underspecified
agents who inflking included:
he complexityd to determinThat is, rather
Human
eate a summaral description aying a large rt as dynamic emitted to the astions. The scein them. The
e main factornces of membey complexityng template:
ng to scenarios
ImSc
L
h involved
r time that making
ch had ontext.
d:
goals
uenced
y factors coulne the relativer than just a y
nsystems® Incor
ry of the of the role ofrole in his or events are appropriate SMenarios were SMEs remov
rs identified frbers of the CFy factors was
s
mportance of Facenario (High, MLow) and Justifi
ld be found ine importance oyes/no assessm
rporated
f the her
ME for as
ved any
from F. To
actor for Medium, ication
n the of the ment
Humansystem
that the comassessment of a particuobjective cowhich the cthis projectscenario mocompared tinformationare profounwell as thei
There werecriteria werproject. Forone anotherbeing “Howother was “
Once these extent to whexamined tomaking a sidetermine wcriteria. Thcounts of mwell, an attecategories (differences
For the temcomplexitybelow) werdecision ma
Factor
Connectivity:
Things in the influence one complicated aways
Dynamics:
ms® Incorpora
mplexity factobe made abo
ular decision momplexity ratcomplexity fa. That is, a coore than in otho the other 9.
n provided byndly affected bir ability to co
e several stepsre created basr example, ther in complicatw many interr“How many 2
general criterhich the geneo determine tingle decisionwhat should bis assessment
maximum numempt was ma(i.e., HIGH, Mcould be dete
mplate used to y rating criterire centred on taker had man
Ta
and Definition
environment another in
and unpredictabl
ted
or was or wasout which commaking scenating system, thactors were promplexity fachers, and LOW It should be
y the SMEs abby the SMEsommunicate t
s used to creased on the defe Connectivitted and unprerelated factorsnd and 3rd ord
ria were detereral criteria apthe maximumn. Once these be consideredt was based o
mber of interreade to put appMEDIUM, anected (e.g., av
create the coia. Note that athe decision m
ny goals).
able 2: Templ
e
How mato be codecision
How mawere no
Were th
s not present implexity factoario. Because he rating systresent to diffetor was rated W for a scenanoted that the
bout their exp’ own interpreo the intervie
te a rating forfinitions of thty factor was edictable ways have to be c
der effects wer
rmined, each pplied to that
m number of inassessments as “HIGH”, n the overall elated factorsroximately eq
nd LOW) so thvoid floor or c
omplexity ratiall “General Cmaker (e.g., “
ate for creatin
General Crite
any interrelated onsidered when ns?
any 2nd and 3rd ooted?
here examples o
in the scenariors were primthere were notem was relatierent degrees
as HIGH forario if it was pese compariso
periences, andetations and u
ewers.
r the five come five compledefined as “T
ys”. From thisconsidered whre noted?”
of the 10 scescenario. For
nterrelated facwere made, t“MEDIUM”,range present
s related to a squal numbershat there wouceiling effect
ing criteria, seCriteria” (foun“Are there ma
ng complexity
eria
factors have making
order effects
of situations
o, it was desimarily respons
ot resources aive and only cin the final 10
r a scenario ifpresent less inons can only d it is likely thunderstanding
mplexity factoexity factors eThings in the es, two criteriahen making d
enarios was exr example, thectors that hadthey were com, and “LOW”t across the scsingle decisios of scenarios uld be a ranges).
ee Table 2: Tend in the midany goals?” is
y rating criteri
Rating (Hi
High
<Criteria>
Medium
<Criteria>
Low
<Criteria>
High
irable that an ible for the co
available to crconsidered th0 scenarios crf it was presenn that scenaritake into acco
hat the relativg of their exp
ors. First, geneexamined in tenvironment
a were createddecisions?” an
xamined to ase scenarios wd to be considmpiled and co” ratings for ecenarios (e.g.
on were compinto the three
e of ratings an
emplate for cddle column os asking whet
ia
igh, Medium, LoJustification
Page 11
omplexity reate an he extent to reated for nt in that io ount the
ve ratings erience, as
eral the influence
d, one nd the
ssess the were dered when ompared to ach of the ., all of the piled). As e rating nd
creating f Table 2
ther the
ow) and
Pa
Thunenevrabebe
It assudyDM
M
Haobac
Un
Gobe
In
Thth(thth
Oscis
2
Tpecodo
age 12
Factor and
he system has anfold over time. Fnvironment chanven when you doate at which thinge variable; there etween actions a
is important to nspects if presentubsystems that hynamics which aM context).
ultiple conflicting
aving to achievebjectives which mchievable at the
nder-specified g
oals may be diffecause they are
dependent agen
here are indepene environment whey may have dian the decision
Once these raticenarios. Thes provided in
.4.3 Challe
he goal of theersonnel in opomplex decisiown, the othe
Definition
aspects that For example, thenges over time o nothing; the gs change may may be delays and effects.
note hierarchical t (i.e., have their own are part of the
g goals:
e multiple may not be all same time
oals:
ficult to achieve too vague
nts:
ndent entities in who influence it ifferent goals maker)
ings were comse ratings werSection 3.4).
enges analy
e challenges aperations, wition making. T
er was bottom
G
e
that unfoldeprofoundly amaking?
How many sthe decision
Were there hierarchicaldynamics)?
Are there m
Are there prprioritization
Do these go
Are there siconflict evennecessarily
Are there go
To what extgoals comp
Were there impact deci
Did indepenthat conflict
Did indepenthat conflictsuch a way making was
mplete, they pre also used i
ysis
analysis was tth the goal of There were tw
m-up. The top-
eneral Criteria
ed over time thataffected decision
subsystems impn-making contex
subsystems tha aspects (e.g., th
many goals?
roblems with goan?
oals necessarily
tuations where tn if they wouldn’ have to?
oals that are vag
tent did the vagulicate decision m
independent agsion making?
ndent agents haved with the DM’s
ndent agents haved with one ano that the DM’s des affected?
provided an on the top-dow
to determine tf guiding futurwo componen-down challen
t n
pacted xt?
at had heir own
<Cr
Med
<Cr
Low
<Cr
al
conflict?
the goals ’t
High
<Cr
Med
<Cr
Low
<Cr
gue?
ueness of making?
High
<Cr
Med
<Cr
Low
<Cr
ents who
ve goals s goals?
ve goals other in ecision
High
<Cr
Med
<Cr
Low
<Cr
verview of thwn challenges
the types of cre CF educati
nts to this analnges analysis
Human
Rating (High, Just
riteria>
dium
riteria>
w
riteria>
h
riteria>
dium
riteria>
w
riteria>
h
riteria>
dium
riteria>
w
riteria>
h
riteria>
dium
riteria>
w
riteria>
he relative coms analysis (the
challenges expion and traininlysis: one appexamined the
nsystems® Incor
Medium, Low) tification
mplexity of the full list of ra
perienced by ng related to
proach was toe challenges
rporated
and
he 10 atings
CF
op-
Humansystem
identified vassess the rscenario. Thwere expecanalysis exaand examinrepresent brbottom-up apreconceivetwo types oliterature sewhen they a
Another goscenarios. Cdetermine iof challenginstruction that they ar
2.4.3.1 T
The top-dowcomplexitycreate thesedifferent sccomponent(“HIGH” =complexitypatterns wecomplexityto which ea
Once it waswere examiscenarios w
2.4.3.2 B
The bottombeing challeinformationcompiled froffered by tinto a spreawere examiwere then sthemes ana
ms® Incorpora
via the mappinrelative contrihat is, this ap
cted to play a amined the de
ned them to deroad challengas it was drived ideas abou
of identified ceemed to provare making de
oal was to deteChallenge ratiif there was a es occur in dimight be requ
re likely to fac
Top-down ch
wn challengey factors onto e ratings. Anocenario types as. To determi
= 2, “MEDIUMy score, and there noted (e.gy factor was exach factor man
s determined ined to determ
which were lik
Bottom-up c
m-up challengeenging about n gathered durrom them. Althe SMEs. Thadsheet using ined to determsummarized inlysis (e.g., se
ted
ng from the cibution of the
pproach was torole in makinecision makinetermine if th
ge areas that cven by the datut what wouldchallenges wevide an adequecisions durin
ermine if diffings and chaldistinguishab
ifferent types uired so that pce.
hallenges a
es analysis wathe scenarios
other importanappeared to dine this, the coM” = 1, and “hen the scenar., what types xamined in thnifested in the
which scenarmine if there wkely to contain
challenges a
es analysis wthe decisionsring the knowso included inhe list of challthe format pr
mine if there wn the table. Ne Table 5 in S
omplexity litefive main co
op-down as itng decision-mng challengeshere were anycould be addrea provided by
d make decisiore then comp
uate understanng operations
ferent types oflenge categorble pattern of of scenarios,
personnel are
analysis
as based upons. See Sectionnt question th
differ on their omplexity of “LOW” = 0), rios were ordeof scenarios a
he same way te different typ
rios rated as “were any comn that particu
analysis
as based upons they had to mwledge elicitatn this list are lenges and edresented in Tawere broader
Note that descrSection 2.4.4.
erature to theomplexity factt was guided b
making comples mentioned by categories oressed in CF ey the SMEs don making ch
pared to determnding of the ds.
f challenges wries were examf challenges. T, then specialie educated and
n the ratings cn 2.4.2 for a dhat can be addr overall levelthe scenariosthe scores weered based onappeared to bto determine pes of scenari
“HIGH” on dimmon charactular complexit
n things that tmake in the s
ation sessions specific educ
ducation and table 3. Once tthemes and s
riptions of the.1).
e scenarios, antors to the difby previouslyex. The botto
by the SMEs dr themes that education. Thduring the intehallenging. Thmine whetherdifficulties fac
were present imined across The idea was ization in decd trained to d
created for thedescription of dressed by thil of complexits were scoredere totalled ton their overallbe highest in cif there were ios.
ifferent compteristics whichty factor.
the SMEs expscenario they was examine
cation and tratraining suggthe list was csubthemes pree general them
nd the ratingsfficulty of eacy identified faom-up challenduring their inemerged whi
hat is, this apperviews, rathehe results fromr the complexced by CF per
in different tyscenario typethat, if differ
cision makingdeal with the c
e mapping of the procedureis analysis is wty or complex
d for each facto get an overal complexity complexity). Epatterns in th
plexity factorsh might distin
plicitly mentiwere describi
ed and challenining suggestestions were ompiled, the esent. These tmes are provi
Page 13
s used to ch actors that nges nterviews, ich
proach was er than m these
xity rsonnel
ypes of e to ent types
g challenges
e used to whether xity tor all and Each
he degree
s, they nguish
ioned as ing. The nges were tions compiled challenges themes ided in the
Pa
S
Osu
2.
Bboanexen
2
Mapanqu
2.
Odeidexaded
age 14
Scenario
Once these anaupport educat
.4.3.3 Bott
Because one oottom-up chand training suxamined, andntered in the t
General Theme
.4.4 Collec
Mapping the fippear to be renalysis) was puestions. The
1. What main c
2. What and tr
.4.4.1 Exam
Once the bottoetermine the edentified fromxperience of Cdditional wayducation and
Recommend
alyses were ption and traini
tom-up edu
f the key goalllenge analys
uggestions ford general suggtemplate pres
Table 4: B
Descriptio
ctive analys
ive main comelevant to the performed to se questions w
is the degree challenges thare the gaps i
raining suppor
mining ove
om-up challenextent to whic
m the complexCF personnelys of presentintraining.
Table 3: B
ation E
erformed, theing initiatives
ucation and
ls of this projis was complr each generalgestions were ented in Tabl
Bottom-up ed
on G
sis
mplexity factorexperiences ointegrate the were:
of overlap beat we examinin the complerting decision
rlap betwee
nges analysis wch they conta
xity literature can be effectng informatio
Bottom-up cha
Challenge oEducation/Train
ey were comps.
training su
ect is to supplete, the list wl theme was iderived from
le 4.
ducation and tr
General Educat
rs to the scenaof the SMEs. previous anal
etween the chned from the cexity literaturen making?
en complex
was performeained compon
review. This tively describ
on about chall
allenges templa
r ing?
Ge
pared and exam
uggestions
port CF educawas examined
dentified. Thm them. These
raining sugge
tion/Training Su
arios showed The collectivlyses and ans
hallenges idencomplexity lite that have to
xity research
ed, the generanents of the fiv
was done to bed using comenges would
Human
ate
neral theme
amined to form
ation and trainand the numb
he specific suge general sugg
stions templat
uggestions
d that the comve analyses (aswer several r
ntified by SMterature?
o be addressed
h and SME
al themes werve main compdetermine wh
mplexity ideasbe required t
nsystems® Incor
Subthe
m conclusions
ning, once theber of educatggestions wergestions were
te
Number oSpecific
Education/TrSuggestio
mplexity factoran overlap andremaining imp
MEs and the fiv
d in CF educa
experience
re examined tplexity factorhether the acts, or whether to facilitate
rporated
eme
s to
e tion re e
of c raining ons
rs d a gap portant
ve
ation
e
to rs tual
Humansystem
To determinexamples rerelated to ooverlap betobviously rnot overlap
General T
2.4.4.2 G
One of the literature anchallenges literature. Tprocesses a
To determinbottom-up ccomplexity
ms® Incorpora
ne whether thelated to eachne of the fiveween the gen
related to one p with the com
Table 5: G
heme Them
Gap analysis
important piend the actual to the decisio
These gaps neare to be adequ
ne if there wechallenges an
y literature wa
ted
he general theh theme were e main compleneral them and
of the five complexity facto
General theme
me Descriptio
s
eces of informexperience of
on making of eed to be idenuately suppor
ere gaps, the gnalysis were eas identified a
eme overlappeexamined. If exity factors, d the complexomplexity facor. See Table
es, definitions
on Subco
mation requiref CF personneCF personnel
ntified and invrted.
general themeexamined andand included i
ed with the cof an example c
it was providxity factor. If ctors, then tha5 for the temp
, overlap, and
omponents
ed from this cel is a determl are not well vestigated furt
es and relatedd anything notin the general
omplexity catcould be founded and takenf no example cat general themplate used for
d gap analysis
Overla
comparison ofmination of wh
captured in tther if the CF
d examples get apparently rl themes analy
tegory, the spnd which appen as evidence could be founme was consir this analysis
template
ap Gap
f the complexhat important the complexitF education an
enerated fromrepresented inyses (i.e., see
Page 15
pecific eared to be for
nd that was idered to s.
p Analysis
xity
ty nd training
m the n the Table 5).
Pa
age 16
This pagge intentionallly left blank.
Human
.
nsystems® Incorrporated
Humansystem
3. R
3.1 Re
To understashowed thawhat characthe complexcomplex de
According characterist
1)
2)
3)
4)
If these factmaking.
A further recontexts, an
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
CollectivelyMap.
Grisogono actor behavmaking envbehaviours the world” “challenge behaviours
ms® Incorpora
Results
eview of c
and the natureat there are sevcterizes compxity of decisioecision makin
to Brown et atics of the dec
There are a
These decisi
The environactions, and
Timing is a dynamic dec
tors are not p
eview of the lnd which can
Connectivit
Dynamics (c
Intransparen
Information
Independen
Multiple goa
Underspecif
Challenges w
y, these main
(2010) lists bviours”) or relvironments. Twere combinand “challengown conceptswere added t
ted
s
complexity
e of complex veral importaplex decision on making, an
ng situations.
al. (2009; alsocision-making
series of deci
ions are interd
nment changed
key element, cisions must b
resent, then it
literature reveadd to the co
ty (a large num
constant chan
ncy (opaque r
overload (i.e
nt agents,
als which mig
fied goals, and
with self-refle
12 factors re
behaviours whlated to negat
These behavioned (e.g., “extges own concs and beliefs, to the Mind M
y literature
decision makant componenmaking envirnd behaviour
o see Brehmerg task in comp
isions,
dependent,
s both autono
where decisibe made.
t is unlikely t
ealed factors tomplexity of d
mber of diver
nge, even with
relationships b
e., a large amo
ght conflict,
d
ection.
elated to comp
hich are suppotive outcomesours were examtremely interecepts and belie
entertains altMap and assoc
e
king, we revients of decisionronments, whrs which can b
r & Allard, 1plex environm
omously and a
ion makers ha
that the enviro
that are typicadecision maki
rse, interactin
hout the input
between varia
ount of data),
plexity were u
osed to be rels (“poor actormined and, toested in informefs, entertainsternatives”. Tciated with th
ewed a numben making to chat additional be adaptive or
991), there arments, they ar
as a function
ave little cont
onment involv
al of complexing. These inc
ng component
t of a decision
ables),
used to create
lated to positir behaviours”o eliminate remation contras alternatives
These good anhe related com
er of articles. consider. Thes
factors can inr pathologica
re four generire:
of the decisio
trol over exac
ves complex
x decision maclude:
ts),
n maker),
e the skeleton
ive outcomes ) in complex
edundancy, simadicting own ” were combi
nd bad decisiomplexity facto
Page 17
These se include nfluence
al in
ic
on maker’s
ctly when
decision
aking
n of a Mind
(“good decision milar view of ined into on making or.
Pa
ObethUFobeplmunsuw
NexadcoMAthththbeinasorco
T(2adAre
TMcrthchch
3
Dcowenfo
age 18
Originally it wehaviours relahat CF person
Unfortunately,or example, Gehaviour, andlanning) as po
much planningnpredictable, uccessful outc
whether behav
Note that, due xtremely limidequately be omplex decisi
McLennan, & Although teamhis research whe CF. The sehe role of emoeen examinedntegrating pers of the writinr reviewed heomplex decisi
he complexit2001), and whddition, a prel
Australian Depelated comple
his Mind MapMind Map. Onritical for undhe decision mhallenges ontohallenges. Th
3.2 Work
During the woromplexity tha
was thought thnvironments aor the knowle
was hoped thatated to compl
nnel would be many of the
Grisogono (20d “over-plannioor actor behag is actually “and even the
come could bviours are goo
to resource liited. There areinvestigated hion making liThorsteinsson
m decision mawill be relevan
cond aspect ootional and md by researchersonality and mng of this repoere. Hopefullyion making an
y terms used here possible liminary reviepartment of Dexity factors to
p was then usne thing to notderstanding w
maker that mako human limi
hus, human lim
kshop
rkshop, the goat the SA thouhat not all factand decision mdge elicitatio
t we could galex decision m better able togood and poo
010) lists “abling” (i.e., tooaviours. Unfoenough”. By best decisione the result of
od or poor can
imitations, thee two aspectshere, but are witerature (e.g.,n, 2003; and Mking was bey
nt for understaof complex de
motivational faers, specificalmotivational ort that literaty future work nd integrate t
in the Mind Mthe terms useew of operati
Defence (2009o show that th
sed during thete is that, dur
what makes sokes things diffitations; for exmitations are n
oals were to nught were motors could be making conten sessions.
ather informatmaking, and do handle compor actor behavle to judge ho
o much planniortunately, theits nature, co
n makers will f chance even
nnot reasonab
e literature re of the complworthy of me, Artman, 199McLennan, O
yond the scopeanding some ecision makinactors in complly Dörner whelements with
ture is not reacan take adv
those findings
Map were doued in that articonal terminol
9) campaign mhese factors li
e Workshop aing this reviemething com
fficult. Howevxample, worknot explicitly
narrow the scst important (given equal w
exts were of m
tion about goodetermine whiplex decisionviours are verow much planing) and “banere is no guidmplex decisionot always h
n with poor dely be assessed
view performlex decision m
ention. The fir99; Clancy, EOmodei, Holge of the curreof the challen
ng research thplex decisionho is in the prh good/poor a
adily availablevantage of thes with the find
uble checked cle were usedlogy was perfmanual) and sikely are relev
as a basis for dw, we found
mplex, as it is cver, it was notking memory y a component
ope of the inv(due to time aweight), and tmajor interest
Human
od actor and pich of these s
n making situary difficult tonning is enougng-bang-decisdance as to hoon making is
have a successecision makind by examini
med for this prmaking literatrst is the team
Elliott, Ley, Ogate, and Weaent work, it is nges facing dehat could not bn making. Thirocess of creaactor behavioe in English, a
ese two areas dings reported
with the termd in the mind mformed (largesome terms wvant to the m
discussion. Sthat human licharacteristict possible to climitations pt of the Mind
vestigation toand resource cto determine wt so that SME
nsystems® Incor
poor actor should be taugations. empirically agh” as a good
sions” (i.e., toow to assess h
difficult and sful outcome,ng. Thereforeng outcomes
roject was ture that could
m component Omodei, Weararing, 2003). likely highlyecision makerbe reviewed hs has only rec
ating a framewours. Unfortunand so is not of research ind here.
ms used in Funmap and note
ely from the were mapped tmilitary domai
ee Annex A fimitations are
cs and limitaticleanly map layed a role i
d Map.
o the componeconsiderationwhich CF
Es could be rec
rporated
ght so
assess. d actor oo little how
, and a e,
only.
d not of the
ring,
y that rs in here is cently work nately, cited
nto
nke ed. In
to the n.
for the e ions of
n most
ents of ns it
cruited
Humansystem
3.2.1 Pri
The Mind MMind Map
After discufactors rela
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
These five environmendecisions) adecisions d
Once these the same uncomplexity
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
3.2.2 Po
Once the fivdetermine ooperations wexpeditionaoperations,
After discudomestic daoperations. noted by w
ms® Incorpora
ioritization
Map was reviis presented i
ssion, the woted to comple
Connectivity
Dynamics
Multiple con
Under-speci
Independent
factors were cnts (e.g., not jand also whatifficult (e.g.,
five main facnderstanding
y factors were
Connectivityunpredictabl
Dynamics: Tenvironmenchange may
Multiple conachievable a
Underspecif
Independent(they may h
otential scen
ve complexityoverall areas twere both conary operationsrather than a
ssion, four may-to-day funSeveral examorkshop parti
ted
and definiti
ewed and thein Annex A.
orkshop particexity. These f
y
nflicting goal
ified goals
t agents
chosen as thejust informatit CF personnedealing with
ctors were choof these facto:
y: Things in tle ways,
The system hat changes ove
y be variable;
nflicting goalat the same tim
fied goals: Go
t agents: Therhave different
narios and S
y factors had that should bensidered to bes, we should tir force or nav
main CF contexnctions, expedmples that wericipants (see T
ion of comp
e participants
cipants agreedfive factors w
ls
ey were thougon overload tel seem to talkcivilians).
osen, there wors, and defini
the environme
as aspects thaer time even wthere may be
ls: Having to me,
oals may be d
re are indepengoals than th
SMEs
been chosen,e considered ie within scoptry not to focuval operation
xts were consditionary offenre likely to beTable 6).
plexity facto
suggested a f
d that this projwere:
ght to be mostthat can occurk about when
was further disitions were cr
ent influence
at unfold overwhen you do delays betwe
achieve multi
difficult to ach
ndent entitieshe decision ma
, potential CFin scope. Dome. It was deteus only on Af
ns, were to be
sidered to be nsive operatioe complex an
ors
few minor cha
oject should fo
t characteristir in complica
n discussing w
scussion to enreated. The d
one another i
r time. For exnothing; the reen actions an
iple objective
hieve because
in the enviroaker).
F operation tymestic operatermined that, fghanistan, if the focus of t
within scope:ons, and expe
nd fit each of t
anges. The re
ocus on five m
ic of complexated as well aswhat makes th
nsure that eveefinitions of f
in complicate
xample, the rate at which nd effects,
es which may
e they are too
onment that in
ypes were discions and expewhen examin
f possible. Lanthe project.
: domestic opeditionary humthese contexts
Page 19
evised
main
x s complex heir
ryone had five key
ed and
things
y not be all
vague,
nfluence it
cussed to editionary ning nd force
perations, manitarian s were
Pa
Do
Do
Ov
Ov
Rsp
3
Tmwth
age 20
Scenario Cate
omestic, Day-to-
omestic Operatio
verseas – Huma
verseas – Offen
Recruitment ofpecific contex
3.3 Know
he knowledgemaking experiewell as to facilhose experien
Tabl
egories
-day Pe
Ca
Ar
Inc
Ca
Di
Di
Pe
Int
CaEx
ons Ol
Ar
anitarian Ha
Di
Ci
sive Le
Int
“A
CI
Re
Co
Fo
Pr
f SMEs was dxts that involv
wledge eli
e elicitations enced by CF litate a compaces.
e 6: Potential
ersonnel
apital Acquisition
rmy of Tomorrow
creasing size of
anadian Forces
rectorate of Lan
rectorate Doctrin
eace Support Tra
telligence
anadian Land Foxcellence (CoE)
ympics
rctic Sovereignty
aiti
saster Assistanc
vil Military Coop
eaving Afghanist
tel
Attacking the netw
MIC
eintegration
ombat Logistics
orce Generation
re-deployment T
done with the ve complex de
icitation
sessions werepersonnel, to
arison betwee
CF contexts f
Pote
n
w - 2021
CF
Leadership Insti
d Concepts and
ne & Training
aining Centre
orce Command a
y
ce Response Te
peration (CIMIC)
tan
work” (counter-im
ask Force Train
goal of obtaiecision makin
e intended to allow the cre
en the five sel
for knowledge
ential Scenario
tute
Designs
and Staff Colleg
eam
mprovised explo
ing
ining interviewng.
obtain informeation of descected comple
Human
e elicitation
os
e (CLFCSC) – C
osive device)
wees who ha
mation about tcriptions of thex decision m
nsystems® Incor
Centre of
d experience
the actual dechose experienc
making factors
rporated
with
cision ces as
s and
Humansystem
The knowledecision madecision maon the CDMinterview st
SMEs were12 SMEs inproviding ewere concereluctant todiscussed afinal list of
Scenario
Domestic, Da
Domestic Ops
Expeditionary
3.4 An
3.4.1 Sc
The scenaricontain a gewhich wereunfolded ovmaking.
Note that thappropriatescenarios wissues revieBecause soomitted frothat were co
ms® Incorpora
edge elicitatioaking contextaking environM technique. tructure used.
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.
y
Scenari
Domestic Operation
rporated
ance for Medium, ication
uation
t agents sion
f s with d or
h the
es
y and
o exity, ores
s were ty
o Type
s
Humansystem
Scenario
Event NSE Officer, Afghanistan
Liaison OfficeAfghanistan
CoE Training Developer
Chief of Staff,Strategic AdvTeam, Afghanistan
PME Revitalization Supervisor
CoE Training Development Supervisor
HF Engineer, Capital Acquis
PME Revitalization Staff Member
PSYOPS TraiProgram Developer
As can be sappears to bcompared h
ms® Incorpora
o
IndepenConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
er, ConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
ConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
isory
ConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
ConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
ConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
sition
ConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
r
ConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
ining ConnecDynamiMultipleUnder-sIndepen
seen from the be almost comhere. The mos
ted
Rating Type
ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents ctivity cs conflicting goals
specified goals ndent agents
total complexmpletely sepast complex sc
HIGH HIGH HIGH
s HIGH MEDIHIGH HIGH MEDI
s MEDIMEDIHIGH MEDIMEDI
s MEDIHIGH MEDIMEDIMEDI
s MEDIMEDIMEDIMEDIMEDI
s MEDILOW MEDIMEDIMEDI
s MEDILOW MEDILOW MEDI
s MEDILOW LOW LOW MEDI
s LOW LOW MEDIMEDILOW
s LOW LOW LOW
xity scores prarated by genecenario was re
Rating
UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM
UM UM UM UM
UM
UM UM
UM
UM UM
resented in Taeral scenario telated to dom
ComplTotal
9
7
6
5
4
4
2
2
1
able 10, the otype, at least
mestic operatio
exity /10
Sce
ExpedOpera
ExpedOpera
DomeDay (T
ExpedOpera
DomeDay (T
DomeDay (T
DomeDay (Procu
DomeDay (T
DomeDay (T
order of compfor the 10 sce
ons, the next m
Page 29
nario Type
ditionary ations
ditionary ations
estic Day-to-Training)
ditionary ations
estic Day-to-Training)
estic Day-to-Training)
estic Day-to-
urement)
estic Day-to-Training)
estic Day-to-Training)
plexity enarios most
Pa
coty
Inon15
MIn
NS
Lia
Co
ChTe
PM
Co
PS
HF
PM
MEv
NS
Lia
Co
ChAf
PM
Co
HF
PM
PS
age 30
omplex scenaype appeared
n addition to tn their scores5 below.
Sc
ilitary Liaison anternational Even
SE Officer, Afgh
aison Officer, Af
oE Training Dev
hief of Staff, Straeam, Afghanista
ME Revitalizatio
oE Training Dev
SYOPS Training
F Engineer, Cap
ME Revitalizatio
S
ilitary Liaison anvent
SE Officer, Afgh
aison Officer, Af
oE Training Dev
hief of Staff, Strafghanistan
ME Revitalizatio
oE Training Dev
F Engineer, Cap
ME Revitalizatio
SYOPS Training
ario type appeto be domesti
the overall co on the five c
cenario
nd Advisor, nt
hanistan
fghanistan
veloper
ategic Advisory n
n Supervisor
velopment Super
g Program Deve
pital Procuremen
n Staff Member
Scenario
nd Advisor, Inter
hanistan
fghanistan
veloper
ategic Advisory T
n Supervisor
velopment Super
pital Procuremen
n Staff Member
g Program Deve
eared to be exic day-to-day
omplexity ratiomplexity fac
Table 11:
Conn
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIU
MEDIU
MEDIU
rvisor MEDIU
loper MEDIU
nt LOW
LOW
Table 12
Dy
national HIG
HIG
MED
MED
Team, MED
MED
rvisor MED
nt MED
MED
loper LOW
xpeditionary oy functions.
ngs of the scectors. These r
Scenario conn
nectivity Rating
UM
UM
UM
UM
UM
: Scenario dyn
ynamics Rating
H
H
DIUM
DIUM
DIUM
DIUM
DIUM
DIUM
DIUM
W
operations, an
enarios, the scratings can be
nectivity ratin
g
Domestic
Expedition
Expedition
Domestic
Expedition
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
namics rating
g
Domestic O
Expeditiona
Expeditiona
Domestic D
Expeditiona
Domestic D
Domestic D
Domestic D
Domestic D
Domestic D
Human
nd the least co
cenarios weree seen in Tabl
ngs
Scenari
Operations
nary Operations
nary Operations
Day-to-Day (Tra
nary Operations
Day-to-Day (Tra
Day-to-Day (Tra
Day-to-Day (Tra
Day-to-Day (Eq
Day-to-Day (Tra
gs
Scenario
Operations
ary Operations
ary Operations
Day-to-Day (Trai
ary Operations
Day-to-Day (Trai
Day-to-Day (Trai
Day-to-Day (Equ
Day-to-Day (Trai
Day-to-Day (Trai
nsystems® Incor
omplex scenar
e also orderedle 11 through
o Type
aining)
aining)
aining)
aining)
quipment Procure
aining)
o Type
ining)
ining)
ining)
uipment Procure
ining)
ining)
rporated
rio
d based Table
ement)
ment)
Humansystem
Military LiaisoEvent
NSE Officer, A
Liaison Office
CoE Training
Chief of Staff,Afghanistan
PME Revitaliz
CoE Training
HF Engineer,
PME Revitaliz
PSYOPS Trai
Military LiaisoInternational E
CoE Training
NSE Officer, A
Liaison Office
Chief of Staff,Afghanistan
PME Revitaliz
CoE Training
HF Engineer,
PME Revitaliz
PSYOPS Trai
ms® Incorpora
Scenario
on and Advisor, I
Afghanistan
er, Afghanistan
Developer
Strategic Advis
zation Superviso
Development S
Capital Procure
zation Staff Mem
ining Program D
Scenario
on and Advisor, Event
Developer
Afghanistan
er, Afghanistan
Strategic Advis
zation Superviso
Development S
Capital Procure
zation Staff Mem
ining Program D
ted
Table 13: Sce
nternational
ory Team,
or
upervisor
ement
mber
Developer
Table 14: S
Un
HIG
HIG
ME
ME
ory Team, ME
or LO
upervisor LO
ement LO
mber LO
Developer LO
enario multipl
Multiple ConflRatin
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
Scenario unde
nder-specified GRating
GH
GH
EDIUM
EDIUM
EDIUM
OW
OW
OW
OW
OW
le conflicting g
icting Goals ng
r-specified go
Goals
Domes
Domes
Expedi
Expedi
Expedi
Domes
Domes
Domes
Domes
Domes
goals ratings
S
Domestic Oper
Expeditionary O
Expeditionary O
Domestic Day-
Expeditionary O
Domestic Day-
Domestic Day-
Domestic Day-Procurement)
Domestic Day-
Domestic Day-
oals ratings
Scen
stic Operations
stic Day-to-Day (
itionary Operatio
itionary Operatio
itionary Operatio
stic Day-to-Day (
stic Day-to-Day (
stic Day-to-Day (
stic Day-to-Day (
stic Day-to-Day (
Scenario Type
rations
Operations
Operations
to-Day (Training
Operations
to-Day (Training
to-Day (Training
to-Day (Equipm
to-Day (Training
to-Day (Training
nario Type
(Training)
ons
ons
ons
(Training)
(Training)
(Equipment Proc
(Training)
(Training)
Page 31
g)
g)
g)
ent
g)
g)
curement)
Pa
MEv
NS
Lia
Co
ChAf
PM
Co
PM
HF
PS
Ainmthchchchdo
SecoteofjuHfoovcocofiov
3.
TbelisA
age 32
S
ilitary Liaison anvent
SE Officer, Afgh
aison Officer, Af
oE Training Dev
hief of Staff, Strafghanistan
ME Revitalizatio
oE Training Dev
ME Revitalizatio
F Engineer, Cap
SYOPS Training
Although this cn this project,
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
Subcomponepossible, havjob, using intexperience
e
Subcomponemultiple factoconflicting obterm effects
e t
g
Subcomponeinformation ocorrect informvalidity of infinformation, information, high workloagenerate datupdating info
Subcomponen
equate commune, when necesscating informatio communication t complete, and ion flow was mon among CF per
ents include speack of common n the legal systeefs in individual ial standards, di
he need to save f
ents include gettving an unclear
being asked to peask, and requirin
ents include timeailable, objectivelt, empirical evallack of feedbacklity of feedback
ents include usinving the right petuition, and need
ents include conors, achieving mbjectives, and co
ents include deaoverload, difficulmation, difficultyformation, havingdealing with chaseparating inter
ad, using first prita, collecting newormation, needin
nts
nications sary procedures on were not in was vague, not when
ore rapid among sonnel
eaking different understanding,
em, corruption, control, fferent literacy face
ting clear chain of erform an ng flexibility,
e delays, no assessment uation being
k, and
ng SMEs where rson in the right ding relevant
nsidering multiple onsidering long-
aling with ty getting
y evaluating the g insufficient anging related factors, nciples to w data, ng lessons
Human
Scenario Types
Represented
Expeditionaronly
All
Domestic only
Operational and day-to-day
Domestic only
Operational and day-to-day
All
All
nsystems® Incor
d
NumbeChalleng
Education/Sugges
ry 16
17
9
5
11
20
rporated
er of es and /Training stions
Humansystem
General Theme
Location
Personality
Planning
Resources
Role justification
ms® Incorpora
Descripti
with individuals)
Challengesrelated to where the scenario toplace
Challengesrelated to tpersonalitythe DM
Challengesrelated to creating ormodifying plans
Challengesrelated to managing ofinding adequate resources
Challengesrelated to having to convince others that
ted
ion
) learned, informat
s
ook
Subcomrequiremflexibility
s the y of
Subcomperson inwith authhandling
s
r
Subcomplanningthe right lack of pincorrectincorrectof requirplanningof triggeplans, hidictated shifting, identifyinshort timusing avon-goingbeing vuunpredic
s
or
Subcomcommuninfrastruplanningobjectiveinconsistchangesconsequtransporschedulireplenishinformat
s
t the
No subc
Subcompo
and requiring reion
ponents includements, harsh cony
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
e insufficient ht planning tool aith politics, havinevents, uncertainscope changes, edure changes, interdependence
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
us examples of d
f connectivity (e.ging needs; makinaffect multiple nevely), dynamics (nd long-term goa, delicate balanc
helpful feedback and independengrams should invrge number of st
Page 41
g., low are few ents (e.g.,
Afghanistan).
dynamics, ecified goals.
g., need to higher information g objectives), instructions thout any s (e.g., can e very endent from ams did not
dynamics.
g., need to pare plans to d, examine f timely e.g., trainees
multiple oals.
g., need to h public e conflicting both sides of (e.g., ensure
proper and
dynamics or
g., users ng changes eeds both (e.g., have to als), multiple ce between and making nt agents volve takeholders,
Pa
In
Lo
Pe
Pl
Re
age 42
General Theme
formation
ocation
ersonality
lanning
esources
Description
Challenges related to the information available to theDM (not meanto include challenges related to communicatingwith individuals)
Challenges related to where the scenario took place
Challenges related to the personality of the DM
Challenges related to creating or modifying plans
Challenges related to managing or finding
Subc
e t
g
Subcompongetting inforfinding it diffinformation,data, etc.
Subcomponconditions, srequirementflexibility, et
Subcomponindependenthe right perjob, etc.
Subcomponchallenging insufficient pcontrol, etc.
Subcomponcommunicatinfrastructur
components
nents include rmation with erroficult to get corre having insufficie
nents include harsecurity ts, lack of c.
nents include ce, type A, havinrsonality for the
nents include assumptions, planning, lack of
nents include tions re, roads, budge
(e.g., all e
There werunderspec
ors, ect ent
Contains efor fundingdynamics informatiorequests))was resistinteracting
There werconflicting
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.
Subcomponentinclude getting direction, havingunclear chain ocommand, beinto perform an impossible task
nents
thereliteraissua roDM genewith in te
Spewortcomcomneedwhediffe
s ng ages, n he legal
The indethat the Dmighdecinot erevie
CultgeneexpeexamwereliteraImpoinclugeneundehaviyou differelatsocibankdiffe
s clear g an f
ng asked
k, etc.
Thissimicomit is goalfromcrea
Cominvo
Human
Gap Ana
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.
examples of goacial aspects whiincluded in
Page 47
not e and, ers
nd
th
ng e
me
r, y
f a g. ts
eral ?).
DM
e d
ed ).
iple
l ch
Pa
In
Lo
Pe
2 Amstu
age 48
General Them
formation
ocation
ersonality
Additional resemay also providtudies.
me Des
Challengthe informavailable(not meachallengcommunindividua
Challengwhere thtook plac
Challengthe persoDM
earch from cogde valuable insi
scription
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
observation. Onterviews simng. Observingphenomena 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
m.
rporated
t on and
fferent ividual o m very
eone pattern
cial ions as
Humansystem
Refer
Adams, B. (DRAFT).
Adams, B. (DRAFT).
Artman, H.dynamic deDynamic deBrehmer, &Work (pp. 3
Brehmer, Bboth the narHuman Beh
Brown, A., decision-mDevelopme
Clancy, J. MThorsteinsotasks. In S. 619). Camb
DepartmentAustralian A
Dörner, D. them Right
Funke, J. (2Reasoning,
Godefroy, ADirectorate
Grisogono,
Grisogono,presented a
Jarmasz, J.,of DynamicDRDC Ethi
McLennan,aspects of eHuman Fac
Moffat, J. (available fo
ms® Incorpora
rences
D. & Brown,Toronto, ON
D., Rehak, LToronto, ON
(1999). Situaecision makinecision-makin
& J. Leplat (E319-334). Ox
B. & Dörner, Drrow straits ohavior, 9, 171
Karthaus, C.aking. DRDC
ent Canada.
M., Elliott, G.oon, E. B. (20Schneider &
bridge Univer
t of Defence (Army, Canbe
(1996). The L. New York:
2001). Dynam7, 69-89.
A.B. (Ed.). (2 of Land Con
A. M. (2010
A. M. (2006at CCRTS: Th
, Rehak, L., Tc and Compleics Protocol #
, J., Omodei, effective emerctors of Decis
2003). Compor download a
ted
s
A. L. (2011): Defence Res
., Brown, A., : Defence Res
ation awareneng. Ergonomicng: The effecds.), Distribu
xford, England
D. (1993). Exf the laborato
1-184.
, Rehak, L., &C Report No.
. C., Ley, T., 003). Comman
J. Shanteau (rsity Press.
(2009). Adaperra.
Logic of FailuMetropolitan
mic systems as
2007). Land Oncepts and De
). Overview o
). The impliche State of the
Taylor, T., Bruex Decision M#L-762. Toro
M., Holgate, rgency incide
sion Making i
plexity theory at www.dodcc
). Competencisearch and D
& Hall, C. Dsearch and D
ess and co-opcs, 1999, 42, ts of task com
uted Decision-d: John Wiley
xperiments wiory and the de
& Adams, B. CR-2009-060
Omodei, M. Mnd style and t(Eds.), Emerg
ptive campaig
ure: Why Thin Books.
s tools for ana
Operations 20esign, Govern
of Complex D
ations of come Art and the
uyn Martin, LMaking Experonto, ON: Def
A., & Wearinent managemein Complex S
and network crp.org.
ies within theevelopment C
D. T. (2009). Hevelopment C
peration within1404-1417.B
mplexity and -Making: Cogy & Sons.
ith computer-eep blue sea o
(2009). The r0. Toronto, O
M., Wearing,team performging Perspecti
gning 09: Arm
ings Go Wron
alysing huma
021: Adaptivenment of Cana
Decision-Mak
mplex adaptivState of the P
L., Karthaus, riences in Canfence Researc
ng, A. J. (200ent decision m
Systems Confe
k centric warfa
e public domaCanada.
Human decisiCanada.
n and betweeBrehmer, B. &
feedback delagnitive Mode
-simulated miof the field stu
role of mentaON: Defence R
, A. J., McLenmance in dynam
ives in Decisi
my’s future lan
ng and What W
an judgement.
e Dispersed Oada, D2-188/2
king (CxDM)
e systems thePractice.
C., and Vokanadian Forcesch and Develo
03). Human inmaking. Papeference, Dunb
are. CCRP Pu
ain: Literature
ion-making b
en hierarchica& Allard, R. (1ay. In J. Rasmls for Cooper
icroworlds: Eudy. Compute
al models in dResearch and
nnan, J., & mic decision-ion Research
nd operating
We Can do to
. Thinking an
Operations. Ed2007E
program (DR
eory for C2. P
ac, R., (2011).s Land Operaopment Cana
nformation prer presented atblane, Scotlan
ublication Ser
Page 63
e review
iases.
al units in 1991). mussen, B. rative
Escaping ers in
dynamic
-making (pp. 586-
concept,
o Make
nd
d:
RAFT).
Paper
. Survey ations. ada.
rocessing t the
nd.
ries,
Pa
RmC
RdeD
TWR
age 64
Rehak, L., Lammaking. DRDCCanada.
Rehak, L. A., Tecision makin
Development C
homson, M.HWhole of GoveResearch and D
moureux, T., &C Report No.
Taylor, T. E.,ng. DRDC ReCanada.
H., Adams, B.ernment ApprDevelopment
& Bos, J. (20CR-2006-20
Karthaus, C.eport No. CR-
.D., Hall, C.Droach to CanaCanada.
06). Systems 2. Toronto, O
., & Bruyn M-2010-047. T
D., Brown, A.adian Forces
archetypes foON: Defence R
Martin, L. (201oronto, ON: D
L., Flear, C. (Operations (D
Human
or military dyResearch and
10). Cue integDefence Rese
(2011). InteraDRAFT). Tor
nsystems® Incor
ynamic decisid Developmen
gration in dynearch and
agency Trust ronto, ON: De
rporated
on nt
namic
in the efence
Humansystem
Anneand B
See the Min
ms® Incorpora
x A: MBehavi
nd Map.
ted
Mind Maours
ap of CCompleexity FFactors
Page 65
s
Pa
age 66
This pag
ge intentionallly left blank.
Human
.
nsystems® Incorrporated
Complex Decision Making Challenges
Independent agentsOp: Interplay multiple state/non-stat …
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
he DM to man
me commander
number of atta
and the impl
involved playkeep informatcated), othersent, etc.;
between pers
ating during thlsewhere, so terson “on the ernational eve
er time, as weC2 would op
ded over time onal relations
gations will ul relationshipsevents, etc. A
event grew, thme more and m
er, Afghan
to manage loginvolved man
uipment) in tes of combat anas made availaited. The Con
he area of inteOperating Basated strategic fact that the aresources comions were far able to the CFemely vulner
nage the resou
rs used more
acks, the loca
Human
lications of th
yed a role in htion to themses appeared to
sonality and e
he event. . Ththis created aground” with
ent. As events
ell as their imperate, what ex
and had profships and the r
unfold over tims, organizatioAs the undershis influencedmore self-pro
nistan
gistics to suppnaging a numerms of quantind de-emphaable to conduncept of Opererest (i.e., deces (FOBs). Tand operation
amount of resmbined with th
apart throughF other than frable to unexp
urces include
artillery than
ation of attack
nsystems® Incor
hese incidents
how events elves (which lhave other
events change
he DM was pra high demandh access to s unfolded, th
mplications, suxtra security
found effects,relationship
me and have onal reputationstanding that td decision-maotective.
port military mber of physic
ity, location, sis of logistic
uct the missiorations (CONcentralized), whe number annal requiremeources was he difficulty oh rough terraifor emergencypected events
ed:
n others);
ks);
rporated
s built
led to
ed over
resent d on
he
uch as forces
,
many n, there aking
cal
cs, as on, OPS)
which nd ents -
of in y .
Humansystem
Thefreqandovelim
Ord
Ressommarelaretu
Lacrecsinammis
Polsom
Envinte
Factors whi
o TheThidep
o Locloginflunffigh
o Thefreqdesprologtermimprestcou
o Antraieas(inf
ms® Incorpora
e relative impquently little d receiving reer 1 month to
mitations (e.g.,
ders from hig
sources of allmetimes compaterial supportationships beturn; have we
ck of informaent CF missioce the Korean
mmunition werssion);
litical/strategime allies); and
vironmental eerfered with v
ich unfolded
e enemy is cois means that pending on en
cations and nugistics input anfluence wherefolded, the FOht;
e relative impquently little sired in the Afoportion of cogistics personnm effects on tpacted psychot, impacted nuuld move, imp
nother impact ining, true sussily). This ledformation had
ted
portance of loeffort is direc
eplenishment order and rec
, only a limite
gher command
lies (e.g., the npromise resupt can mean detween allies (helped them
ation to suppoons (e.g., thisn war; there wre actually req
ic concerns (ed,
effects (e.g., mvehicle operat
over time:
onstantly evolthe location o
nemy location
umber of FOBnd had to be b they were or
OBs were not
portance of loeffort is direcfghanistan mi
ombat to logisnel sent to supthe ability of ological well-umber of conpacted the abi
of directing lstainment wa
d to a lack of ad to be gather
ogistics considcted at the susof resources (ceive in a deped staff);
d (e.g., orders
need to sharepply of other enial of emerge.g., if we hein the past; ha
ort planning a was a hando
was a lack of iquired as this
e.g., it was no
maintenance htion).
lving their tacof resources (ns and activity
Bs strongly inbuilt well befr know that th
useful as the
ogistics considcted at the susission but thestics personnepport the comthe logistics s-being and safnvoys which cility of the sta
little effort at s not practiceadvanced infored over time
derations in thstainment esti(e.g., some crployed setting
s to conduct o
e resources wiCanadian unigency access lp someone thave they help
s this was a reover of fightininformation a was a peace-
ot permitted fo
had to be perf
ctics (e.g., the(e.g., FOBs) by;
nfluenced logfore they werehey would be e CF were sen
derations in thstainment estie budget was lel. This meantmbat troops, wstaff to keep ufety of logisticould occur, iaff to do main
the sustainmeed (e.g., soldieormation for pduring the op
he CF is quiteimate; Time lritical operatig; Need to wo
operations in n
ith allies) for its. Failing toto allied resohey will be m
ped us);
elatively diffeng units whichabout how ma-making rathe
for the CF to b
formed frequ
eir ambush lobecame more
gistics but thee needed; therappropriately
nt to another p
he CF is quiteimate. Becauslimited, theret that there w
which had botup with resouics staff due timpacted the rntenance);
ent estimate wers could go tplanners abouperation) as w
e variable andlags between onal stocks re
ork within reso
new locations
tactical effeco assist allies ources; Strengmore likely to
ferent situationh had not beeany resourceser than peacek
buy ammuniti
ently because
cations and me or less releva
ey were plannre was no way situated. Aspart of Afghan
e variable andse more firep
e was an increwere relativelyth immediate urce needs (e.to lack of sleerate at which
was that durinto the base anut true logisticwell as a lack
Page 73
d requesting
equire ource
s);
ct can with
gths of help us in
n than n done
s such as keeping
ion from
e sand
methods). ant
ned without ay to events nistan to
d ower was
ease in the y few and long-g., ep and items
ng nd get food cal needs of training
Pa
3
TA(CPrsepranrewnepa
Fa
age 74
for solimpact
o The lois surroBecauconsenover a flexibiresour
o There immedplans trather repercuconsta
o The usbeginnincreas(commammunhad othas the informhave b
o Resourbalancrebalan
3. Scen
he DM was aAfghanistan. ItCF) and the Arison, Borderervice). At therison. This crnd part of the equired to liai
which was to oetwork”; had art, and overs
actors which
The prof the change
ldiers regardinted their mora
ocation of the ounded by othse of the natunt, and therefomonth to rec
ility in the amces;
was a radicaldiately prior tto how the LAthan having oussions to how
antly being ou
se of ammunining of the DMsed greatly w
manders changnition). Factoher effects supace of battle
mation from thbeen due to th
rce availabilitced and plans ncing was req
nario Desc
assigned to act was the resp
Afghanistan Nr Security, ande beginning oeated an atmoDM’s role w
ise with the reoccur approxito convince t
see the proces
influenced th
rison break wsenior leaderse in personne
ng true sustainale and prepar
conflict (Afgher countries
ure of artilleryore much prepeive ammuni
mmunition ord
l change in tho the DM lan
AV companieone on base). w maintenanc
ut in use mean
tion varied grM’s tour indic
when the pace ged and someors which incruch as makinge increased, thhe BG about hhe stress and ti
ty was so closchanged; fact
quired frequen
cription: L
ct as a liaison ponsibility of
National Armyd the Nationaof the DM’s dosphere of un
was to facilitatelevant partieimately 8 monthe relevant stss.
he ability of th
as believed toship at the pril and a huge l
nment demanredness;
ghanistan) had(i.e., no sea a
y, flying artillplanning is retion from Can
dering process
e CONOPS fnding in Afghes would be uThis change ce could be scns no preventa
reatly over timcated that X aof battle incr
e commandersreased the useg it more diffihe use of ammhow much artime pressure
se to the minitors such as vntly.
Liaison Of
officer in thethe DM to ac
y (ANA), Afgal Directorate deployment, thncertainty abote an increases to increase nths later. Thetakeholders th
he DM to man
o be facilitateison were eithloss of confid
nds and readin
d a profound iaccess); thus, ery over othe
equired to monada). This ins and a resulti
for the Afghananistan. This sed (i.e., LAVin resource alcheduled andative mainten
me. Monitorinamount was ueased as wells were more pe of resourcescult for the B
munition greatillery was beof battle or o
imum requirevehicles needi
fficer, Afg
e operations coct as a liaison ghanistan Natof Security (N
here was a maout the level oe in security. Isecurity in pre DM was to hat it was nec
nage these pro
d by assistancher arrested odence in the p
Human
ness requirem
impact on logammunition
er countries reove ammunition turn results ing vulnerabi
nistan missionCONOPS req
V companies llocation had
d performed (enance was pos
ng ammunitioused per unit tl as when otheprone to use as (especially a
BG to report aatly increaseding used was
other factors);
ed that it had ting repair wo
ghanistan
oordination cbetween the
tional Police (NDS; the Afgassive escape
of security preIn particular, reparation forcreate a “Kan
cessary, persu
ocesses inclu
ce from insidor fired. This crison system
nsystems® Incor
ments, which l
gistics. Afghahas to be flow
equires their on (e.g., it canin a lack of
ility in the flo
n which occuquired changewere always long-term
e.g., all LAVsssible);
on use at the time; howeveer factors chaa lot of ammunition) ammunition u, but the not sent; this
to constantly ould mean tha
centre in KandCanadian For(ANP), Kandghanistan secre from the Kanesent in Kandthe DM was
r voter registrandahar city seuade them to t
uded:
de the prison. caused a masand personne
rporated
likely
anistan wn in.
n take
ow of
urred es in in use
s
er, this anged
also se (i.e.,
s could
be at
dahar, rces ahar ret ndahar
dahar,
ation ecurity take
Many sive el, as
Humansystem
welKan
Cuof t
Comcom
Themigbetto o
The3 g
Thetrai
Theimp
ms® Incorpora
ll as a re-evalndahar;
ltural differentrust and diffi
o Extremeimportanimplicatto the A
o Differenfor the p
o A differ(e.g., a pcalls, ev
o The Afgevents (do havenot usedtraining
o Differenworked able to afamilies
o Literacydata is n
o Lack of the relevequipme
o Age is mfelt that
mmunicationmmunication
e ANA and thght have beentween the ANonly work wit
ere was a quicgovernors of K
e DM had to ining them he
e DM had to bprove perform
ted
luation of man
nces between iculty with co
ely high emphnce of persontions; for exam
Afghans (obed
nces in the legprison break p
rence in the idpolice officer ven though tha
ghans appearee.g., “what A control over
d to the conce
nt social standwith). The D
actually unders were interrel
y is so low in not available t
f appreciation vant stakeholdent in the old
more of a facthe would hav
n is difficult; cprotocols wit
he ANP have n an adequate
NA and the ANth those 2 org
ck turnover inKandahar;
ensure that hee had to be ca
balance the nmance;
ny assumptio
Afghanistan oordination. T
hasis on interpnal relationshimple, authori
dience is based
gal system anprobably were
dea of what it threw away h
at was the on
ed to have theAllah wills wil
events. This ept of practici
dards (e.g., thDM knew that
rstand the rellated through
Afghanistan that would he
for resourcesders; one factlocation unat
tor in creatingve received m
communicatiothin Afghan o
an adversariasolution for K
NP; however,ganizations;
n Afghan pers
e did not insureful not to im
need to keep p
ons held by CF
and Canada aThese include
personal relatips to Afghanity based on pd on personal
nd widespreade not punishe
t is to have a jhis phone bec
nly phone the
e perspective ll happen”); whad implicati
ing for a poss
he DM never msocial relatioationships we
h marriage;
that written relp assess reso
s (e.g., commtion of the ANttended witho
g a sense of aumore respect i
on systems arorganizations;
al relationshipKandahar sec, the animosit
sonnel; for ex
ult the Afghanmply that they
people investe
F personnel a
are profound;:
tionships in Ans is paramouposition alonel relationships
d corruption (ed as they cou
job and the atcause DM wacalls were co
that they hadwhereas Canaions; for examible event and
met the wife onships were iere as the DM
records are rarource and trai
munications eqNA changed lout notifying t
uthority in Afif he had been
re incomplete;
p and do not wcurity to just cty between th
xample, withi
ns he was wory didn’t know
ed versus givi
about security
; they can cre
Afghanistan (eunt). This has e is not “real”s);
e.g., people ruld pay to be r
ttendant respoas getting too oming to);
d little controladians typicalmple, the Afgd were resista
of any Afghaimportant, bu
M was not priv
rely kept, whining requirem
quipment waslocations but the DM);
fghanistan. Tn older;
and there are
work togethercreate a systeem was just t
in 9 months th
rking with (e.w how to do th
ing honest fee
Page 75
y in
eate a lack
e.g., the profound
” authority
responsible released);
onsibility many 911
over ly feel we hans were ant to such
an the DM ut was not vy to how
hich means ments;
s given to left the
he DM
e few
r well. It m
too great
here were
.g., while heir jobs);
edback to
Pa
Fa
4
Tanththininanorim
age 76
MentoorganipersonAfghan
Sometinformto depl
There equipmoff to c
actors which
There but theinconvthe ANcontacopportrelatio
The prthat ththe ANresponsecuritlevel ainform
The Dcommureasondid nohighlyDM grsecurit
4. Scen
he DM was and Staff Collehe CoE. Dutiehem. The DMnformation, wnterviews), wond how to balr priorities). Tmprove the tra
ors had to be pzations (e.g.,
nnel and additns of the imp
times official med that he ha
loy them thre
is a lack of rement is limiteconserve pow
unfolded ove
was a 911 sye chief of polivenient. The DNP involved acted to answertunity for collnships with c
rison break leere was no C
NP could not nding to threatty organizatioand are not usmation change
M attempted unication equ
ns (e.g., the cut result in cha
y resistant to crew increasinty.
nario Desc
a trainer at theege (CLFCSCes included de
M had to incorpworking with torking with mlance conflictThe DM evaluaining progra
persuaded to sRCMP Perso
tional supportortance of tra
positions are ad deploymenee times and a
eliable power d by power o
wer.
er time:
stem that wasice discarded DM volunteeras the operatior them. This claboration witcivilians;
d to a processommon Opereffectively gets; that the AN
ons; and that Aed to working
ed how the DM
to get the releuipment proviultural differeange (i.e., therchange). This gly hopeless t
cription: C
e Centre of ExC). It was the esigning trainporate multiptranslators, temultiple OGDting objectiveuated what wom. The DM a
support the Donnel mentoret to the DM. Taining etc.;
not followednt authority foall three times
in Afghanistutages and of
s implementethe phone tha
red to take ovons room woucreated additith the ANP, f
s of informatirating Picture et informationNP could not Afghan securg at an operatM saw their g
evant stakehoided by the Unces listed abre seemed to became morethat the C2 in
CoE Train
xcellence (Coresponsibility
ning packagesple componenam training, i
Ds (e.g., DFAIs (e.g., when orked and whalso acted as a
DM’s goals. Med the ANP) pThe mentors o
d in actuality. or the ANA qus he was denie
tan; this meanften the comm
d; this was suat was used fo
ver the 911 funuld receive thonal (and unp
for obtaining i
ion gathering(COP) amon
n about threateffectively a
ity organizatitional or strategoals and how
olders to instaU.S. He found bove), and felbe a “set poine and more frnfrastructure w
ing Devel
oE), at the Cany of the DM t and putting ats into the trainteracting wiIT, CIDA), deCEFCOM an
hat didn’t wora liaison with
Human
Mentors to theprovided guidoften could p
For exampleuick reaction ed;
ns that the usemunications e
upposed to befor the 911 calunction; this bhe calls but thpredictable) wintelligence, a
. This processng Afghan sects; that the ANask for assistanions typicallyegic level. Th
w they could b
all, maintain, this very diff
lt that any intent” in the envrustrating as tiwould be ade
oper
nadian Land to support thearrangements
aining programith the media ealing with unnd NATO havrk in training
h non-military
nsystems® Incor
e various Afghdance to the Aersuade the
, the DM wasforce, but he
e of communiequipment is t
e run by the Alls as he foun
became a tool he ANP wouldwindows of and for facilit
s gradually recurity agencieNP had difficuance from othey work at a tachese pieces ofbe accomplish
train on, and ficult for manervention he t
vironment thatime went on
equate to main
Force Comme training funcs in place to dm including c(e.g., giving
nexpected evve different pand attempte
y actors who w
rporated
han Afghan
s tried
ications turned
ANP nd it
to get d be
tating
evealed es; that ulty er ctical f hed;
use ny tried t was and the ntain
mand ction of
deliver cultural
ents, olicies
ed to would
Humansystem
be taking pinterview th
Factors whi
Havma
Larbot
Difbe. peojust
Chenoin Abetwobe SM
Prohapbal(thewerthin
Som
Rescom
Chbeconlall
TraandForsem
Vagvoi
Lackinto u
ms® Incorpora
art in traininghey were wor
ich influenced
ving responsiake requests;
rge amounts oth in terms of
fficulty evaluaOne strategy
ople and give t come back f
allenges in crough (e.g., preAfghanistan, tter for the Afuld be negativit is difficult t
MEs in exercis
oblems with cppened in opeanced with the DM noted tre questionedngs happened
me aspects of
source requiremponent to in
anges in orgacame understoly one requestorganizations
ainees with limd when there ar example, traminar had bee
gue directionid”, had only
ck of personand of meeting understand wh
ted
g. The DM harking on their
d the ability o
ibility but no
of unpredictabf what they wi
ating actions y used is to ha
feedback abofrom theatre s
reating traininesent and undno one in CID
fghans; more ve. Because ito create realise creation;
creating believerations are nohe perception that many of td by the DM ad that they wo
f training (e.g
ements are ofncorporate int
anization. As tood, the Privyt for participas individually
mited time. Tare conflicts oainees have been set up, and
n. When the trlimited staff a
al knowledge that they werhat they were
ad been involv5th training c
of the DM to
authority; the
bility about hill choose to d
and determinave observer/cout how peopso they have r
ng exercises ederstood 2nd aDA can tell yoirrigation couit is difficult tistic training
vable trainingot seen as belof reality so t
these “unbelieafter they comouldn’t have b
g., training peo
ften not easilyo scenarios) a
the need for cy council offication had to by;
There are geneoften trainingeen required tso missed the
raining prograand didn’t rea
about trainingre trying to ree trying to do;
ved from the cycle.
manage these
e CF makes th
how trainees wdo and also ho
ning what likecontroller team
ple are performrecent experie
etc. that are boand 3rd order eou that the Dhuld result in pto understandscenarios, etc
g exercises. Slievable in trathat trainees wevable” event
me back from believed in tra
ople to give in
y available (eand have to b
collaboration ce, Afghaniste made rather
erally a great g is secondaryto perform a re training;
am began initally know wh
g situation. Tecreate in train;
beginning; at
e processes in
he decisions a
will respond tow well they
ely results of tams during exming. Usuallyence;
oth realistic eeffects for exehala dam proj
people growind what conseqc. One strateg
ometimes thiaining, therefowill “buy in” ts actually hatheir deploym
aining);
nterviews) ar
.g., media repe built from s
between difftan Task Forcr than the DM
many demany in priority anrecce during
tially, the DMhat they neede
The DM had nning, which m
t the time of t
ncluded:
and the DM c
to events in exwill handle e
trainee actionxercises to obsy these observ
enough and coercises). For eject will mak
ng more opiumquences of evegy used is to i
ngs that actuaore reality hasto the trainin
appen; when trment they said
re difficult to
presentation, scratch;
ferent organizce took over sM having to de
nds on traineesnd therefore mthe time that
M was workinged;
never experienmade it more
Page 77
the
can only
xercises, events;
ns would serve vers have
ontrolled example,
ke things m which ents would nvolve
ally s to be ng scenario rainees d that
mentor;
cultural
zations so that eal with
s’ time, missed. a training
g “in a
nced the difficult
Paage 78
Feedbafrom trDM safurther
Factors wh
As opethem. Tprioritthe Coand wh
The debecamcoopertime. T
o
o
The madjustmfundinrecessi
Generaaccomchange
Netwoacquistwo peuseful than “o
Unlikegroup.improv
Changa traintrainin
ack about trairainees when aw an intervier training in h
hich unfolded
erational enviThis requiredies as well as
oE often wenthat the curren
egree to whichme clear over t
ration), therefThere were se
It took timeto effectiveactively enctraining to f
Another aspcommon unCIDA, DFAThis traininwhich weremany 2nd anbenefits;
money availablments to plan
ng became moion started, et
ally training pmmodate differ
e over time (e
orks of peopleition of resou
eople would gfor getting m
official” chan
e in earlier tra This meant tve training, an
ges to traininging cycle, but
ng cycles.
ining came inthey came ba
ew with somehow to give in
d over time:
ironments andd almost const
implementinon the recce
nt situation wa
h the CF had time (e.g., thefore their invoeveral compon
e to build the ely train togethcouraged ovefacilitate netw
pect of OGD nderstanding AIT etc. haveng helped impe useful for trand 3rd order e
le for trainingns. At first, whore scarce as ttc.;
programs use rent opportune.g., people’s
e were built asurces for trainget on board (
more people innnels;
aining cycles, that they genend also decrea
g programs hat there was ge
n several formack (“we shoueone they had nterviews.
d priorities chtantly updatin
ng changes to with the newas;
to work withe Manley paneolvement in pnents to this,
necessary truher. Network
er time (e.g., aworking etc.);
integration wof basic Oper no training in
prove commoaining and alsffects from th
g decreased ovhen the war sttime when on
rolling-wavenities as there availability, t
s the training ning as well as(e.g., one memnvolved. Perso
in later cycleerally understased planning
ad a distinct penerally a gre
ms, including tuld have knowtrained and i
hanged, traininng SA about oeffectively d
w HQ so they k
h CIDA, DFAel report indic
providing and including:
ust between agking and relatia “night out d;
which took plarational Plannn the OPP ann understandiso in theatre. hese social rel
ver time, limitarted, the bud
n and the miss
e planning (i.eare many var
training needs
was developes getting othember of DFAIonal contacts
es trainers wetood what theg times;
pattern. Changat deal of cha
Human
trainer intuitiwn about X”)it was not wel
ng had to chaoperational en
deal with chanknew what w
AIT, and othercated a greate
d receiving tra
gencies (e.g., ionship buildi
dinner” was bu
ace over time ning Process (nd this basic tring and buildThe DM saidlationships an
iting opportundget was virtusion began to
e., planning inriables involvs);
ed, and this her organizationIT) and then toften proved
ere often trainey needed to t
ges were diffiange that happ
nsystems® Incor
on and feedba). In one case,ll done, which
ange along winvironments anges. Someon
was needed in
r organizationer need for aining evolved
CF, CIDA, Ding were moruilt into OGD
was getting a(OPP). Initialraining was b
d social netwod that there wnd other traini
nities and requally unlimitewind up, the
n stages) to ved and thing
helped in the ns involved. Otheir contacts
d much more u
nees from an ealk about and
icult to make pened betwee
rporated
ack , the h led to
ith and
ne from theatre
ns only
d over
DFAIT) re D
a lly begun. orks ere ing
quiring ed, but
s
One or s were useful
earlier d could
within en
Humansystem
5. ScAf
The DM wawas the respgovernmenrelated to thknown co-wtraffic accidinformationAfghanistan
Factors whi
Difrep
Thehav
Comthe
Thesup
Poopasfini
Poobut(alt
Thecoo
Dif
Amto u
ms® Incorpora
cenario Defghanistan
as the Chief oponsibility of
nt (e.g., ministhis effort. Eveworker in an Ident which ren-gathering trn (TFA) comm
ich influenced
fficulty in getports or “groun
e ability of thve cell phones
mmunication DM was out
e location of tpport close by
or roadway inssability was nishing the trip
or communicat when voice tthough texting
e availability ordination;
fferences in cu
o “Afghan
o Many tinot supp
o Afghansexpectedknow ho
o Recordspresiden
o The DMthere wa
mbiguous direunderstand wh
ted
escriptionn
of Staff for thf the DM to bters and their ents which thIED attack, pr
esulted in riotsrip planned bymand.
d the ability o
tting accurate nd truth”;
he Afghan pops), which mad
ns back to Cant of touch with
the DM’s comy but also wer
nfrastructure. not gained bep and getting
ation infrastrutraffic increasg generally re
of only a lim
ulture that ma
n time” mean
mes agreemeport the agree
s did not do thd; for examplow to run a m
s were often nnt or briefings
M had to perfoas basically n
ection. The gohat that mean
n: Chief of
e Strategic Aring generic pstaffs); he wae DM had to rotests relateds, a negligenty some of his
of the DM to
information
pulation to code riots more
nada and dowh either Cana
mpound (closre close to any
Roads were oefore a major personnel bac
ucture. For exsed it was notemained func
mited number o
ade it difficul
t that people w
ents were reacement, so agre
hings the wayle, the senior
meeting”;
not kept. For es to the presid
orm administrno banking sys
oal of the missnt;
f Staff, Str
Advisory Teamplanning skillas in charge orespond to ind to the Danist discharge bystaff which w
manage these
in a timely w
ommunicate inlikely;
wn to TFA weada or TFA fo
se to the US ey riots which
often poor, antrip occurredck to the com
xample, a cellt always poss
ctional);
of vehicles so
lt to coordinat
were often la
ched but then eements had t
y that the DMstaff of gover
example theredent ahead of
rative functionstem in Afgh
sion was to “d
rategic Ad
m, Afghanistals to assist higof the day-to-nclude the reash cartoon aby one of his pewas not well r
e events inclu
way, as there w
nformation qu
ere tenuous. Tor at least one
embassy), whiwere targetin
nd informatiod. This createdmpound;
l network wassible to contac
o travel requir
te with the A
ate;
it became cleto be renegoti
M and the DMrnmental agen
e was no log f state visits;
ns such as renhanistan;
do it their wa
dvisory Te
an, located in gh levels of thday administr
action to the dbout Mohammersonnel, andreceived by T
uded:
was no access
uickly (most
The estimate w full day a we
ich meant thang the Americ
on about their d problems w
s used to comct people by v
red a lot of
fghans:
ear that the Aiated;
’s team membncies often “d
of visitors to
nting building
ay”, but it was
Page 79
eam,
Kabul. It he Afghan ration
death of a med, a d an Task Force
s to news
Afghans
was that eek;
at they had cans;
ith
mmunicate, voice
Afghans did
bers didn’t
the
gs but
s a process
Pa
Fa
age 80
The prAmeriindividalways
The orknew w
Buildinresourworker
Afghanarmed their pbeen;
Commcommuteam mhe had
The coused) rindivid
actors which
One goand hathe chaneededbuildinrelatioconnec
There uniformby factlegal trbeing pmilitarstrategmilitar
The chchargedirectlthey hamakingcountemake t
resence of a locan coalition dual nations ws in line;
rganization ofwhat was goin
ng relationshice when Canar was killed);
n security wapeople outsid
presence was l
munication witunicate inform
member who hd not informed
ommand strucrather than anduals had to e
unfolded ove
oal of the DMad many, somaplains at a ned counselling ng, the DM’s nships built mctions betwee
was an on-goms, driving mtors such as throuble and saprotected in mry officers) hagic implicationry buildings;
hain of comme of the DM’sy through CEad more authog more difficu
er-measures pthem targets (
ot of differentoperation gro
with their emb
f a daily meetng on, that pe
ips with chapadians needed
as deployed oude the wall wless inflamma
th team membmation to the had had the nd his direct su
cture. The misn overly hieraexercise initia
er time:
M was to buildmetimes unexp
earby US bas(e.g., when thgroup hosted
more and moren people and
oing balancingmilitary vehiclhe current sta
afety issues if more secure vave to be weigns if other cou
mand was fuzzs group for adEFCOM. As tiority over theult. For exam
put on their ve(because it wo
t organizationoups, ISAF mbassies and am
ting for the teeople had tran
plains at a nead counselling
utside the wawere of the sam
atory than arm
bers. MemberDM in a time
negligent dischupervisor abou
ssion requiredarchical C2 apative to effecti
d relationshippected benefitse, and these cheir co-worke
d an open houre people wou
d facilitated m
g act betweenles) and tryingate of tension f caught with wvehicles, beingghed. This hauntry membe
zy. Task Forcedministrative pime went on i
e DM’s team tmple, TFA kepehicles, but thould be obvio
ns in Kabul atmission groupsmbassadors) a
am to coordinnsportation, et
arby US base. in difficult si
ll of the DM’me nationalitymed Canadian
rs of the teamely way. For eharge, he didnut the inciden
d a mission copproach becauively conduct
s; relationshipts. For exampchaplains acteer was killed)
use BBQ everyuld attend. Th
many interactio
n being openlyg to pass as cin the area. Tweapons out g protected by
ad far-reachiners saw Canad
e Afghanistanpurposes, butit became mothan the DM pt pressuring the DM kept puous they were
Human
t the time (incs, UN missionand their agen
nate and maktc.;
The chaplainituations (e.g
’s compound.y as protestorsn military wou
m did not alwaexample, whe
dn’t inform thent;
ommand appruse flexibilityt the mission.
p networks wple, the DM med as a resour). To facilitatery Friday nighhis created a gons;
y military (e.gcivilian, whichThe costs (e.gof uniform) ay military law
ng consequencdian military e
n (TFA) in Kat the team actuore and more thought, and the DM to geutting this off
e military veh
nsystems® Incor
cluding the n and UN agendas were not
ke sure that ev
ns acted as a ., when a kno
. This meant ts or rioters anuld likely hav
ays appropriaen contacted be DM prompt
roach (which y was required
were built ovemade contact wrce when Cane relationshipht, and as growing netw
g., wearing h were influen., being targe
and benefits (ew as on-duty ces, includingentering Afgh
andahar was iually worked clear that TFAthis made de
et electronic f as that woul
hicles);
rporated
encies, t
veryone
own co-
that the nd so ve
ately by the tly that
was d and
r time with
nadians p
work of
nced ted, e.g.,
g han
in
A felt cision
ld
Humansystem
Teamesomtenmeconwh
Eveplaemalso
6. Sc
It was the rDevelopmedelivering eposition, thEducation (main issue fundamentastaff from a(referred toorganizatiodifferent sta
Factors whi
Disoveexpfun
Staquewh
The
Difage
Persub
Reqadd
Reqwhdire
ms® Incorpora
am cohesion imber who ex
me time afterwnsions could p
mbers to wornfigurations ahich brought h
ents which than for the com
mbassies to arro an attempt t
cenario De
esponsibility ent (PD) systeeducation and
he DM becam(PME) revitalappeared to bal disagreemeanother organo as “Staff”). Tns to exchangakeholders.
ich influenced
sagreements berhead and gepand quartersnding requirem
akeholders noestioning the v
hen this was n
ere were cont
fficulty in undendas);
riods of silencbmission of re
quirements foditional funds
quests for clahich can be redection;
ted
issues waxed xperienced theward. The groprofoundly imrk effectively and the secondhome the impo
hreatened the smpound as welrange for a moto improve co
escription
of the decisioem and to ensd training as le aware that tlization. This be getting funent between onization who wThus, the respge needed inf
d the ability o
between stakeeneral infrastr, etc.] meant tments;
t acting withivalue of the Pot supposed t
tinual delays b
derstanding w
ce of significaequested infor
or new or exps, requiring a
arification fromduced or elim
and waned de negligent dioup lived toge
mpact the mootogether. The
d configuratioortance of thi
security of thll as an on-goore secure locommunication
n: PME Re
on maker (DMure that CF said out accordthere was an ofile had been
nding approvane CF educatwere supposeponsibilities oformation and
of the DM to
eholders abouructure upgradto be included
in their range PME Revitalito be part of th
brought upon
what other peo
ant duration (rmation to Sta
panded educatshifting of res
m superiors aminated to fit b
during this timscharge was tether and hadod of the entire DM experieon included mis factor;
he compound oing effort to cation in casen between the
evitalizatio
M) to overseechools were iding to the PDon-going issu
n sitting, not mal for the progtional institutied to assist in of the DM incd managing di
manage this p
ut the scope odes to the Schd?) which led
of authority ization [askintheir role);
n by Staff requ
ople’s motiva
(e.g., several waff;
tional programsources;
about what prbudget constr
me period. Forteased about
d to be a tight-re compound enced 2 differmore team pla
led to reasseswork with th
e an evacuatioese stakeholde
on Superv
e and evolve timplementingD system. Whue with Profesmoving forwagram. There aion (referred creating a fun
cluded coordiisagreements
process includ
f project finahool [e.g. mod to different
and mandate ng if it was mo
uiring clarific
ations are (i.e.
weeks or mor
ms often do n
rograms are a raints) do not
r example, thit by the grou-knit group, sand the abilit
rent team ayers than the
ssment of the e British and
on was requireers.
visor
the Professiong, conductinghen entering tssional Militaard, for 18 moappeared to beto as “Schoolnding proposainating severathat arose be
ded:
ancing (e.g., wdernize classrestimates of t
(e.g., Staff woney well spe
cation on sma
. are there hid
re) often occu
not come with
priority (andresult in clea
Page 81
e team up for so any ty of team
e first,
security other
ed, and
nal , and the ary onths. The e a l”) and the al
al etween the
were rooms, the
were ent, etc.]
all details;
dden
urred after
h
d therefore ar
Pa
Fa
age 82
A majoperiodincludto be r
The rea decisdue to not seean issuunnece
A needenforcauthor
Comm
Difficu
The Scyear fu
If an econsidthe sysBecauhow it
Changthe pronecess
If somcause k
The tim
actors which
Commnumbeor othefavour
The Dcarried
Lack oprocesspeed,
The coEducat
or Strategic Rd. It was anticiing funding r
reluctant to m
equirement (onsion or try to conflicting o
e a need to puue up the chaiessary delays
d to balance sing authority
rity can reduc
munication cla
ulties in organ
chool was toldunding, so res
ducational prderation of all stem or coursse of significashould be do
ges in one aspogram. For exsities so that th
mething is addeknock-on effe
me of those b
unfolded ove
mand directioner of small infer factors werrably over tim
M’s own stafd on over time
of continuity; ss it meant tha
etc.;
omplexity of ttion (T&E) sy
Review being ipated that theelated to PME
make decision;
n several occget resolution
outputs from Sut members foin of comman, etc.);
short-term andcan help to se buy-in long
arity (e.g., term
nizing people
d that their fusources would
rogram is beinenvironmente are consisteant difference
one, how they
ect of an educxample, each he person can
ed to a DP, thects through t
eing educated
er time:
n slowed the aformation reqre at play is un
me, which dela
ff had difficule with little ap
as old peopleat tasks were p
the operating ystem is mean
undertaken the results of thE revitalizatio;
asions) to pusn (i.e., ask forStaff (i.e. toldorward to attend involves ev
d long-term golve some pr
ger term);
minology me
e to be in the s
unding would d be further li
ng changed, thts (army, navyent with needses it is difficuy are going to
cation prograDevelopment
n move on to
hen somethingthe other DP l
d is limited.
achievement oquests increasnknown; Meeayed the proc
lty staying mopparent progr
e left and newperformed mu
environmentnt to keep up
hat affected thhe review willon. It was bel
sh somethingr clarificationd that this is a end a 2 day wvaluating the
gains in terms oblems in the
ant different t
same place at
no longer haimited;
he changes hay, and air forcs of all eleme
ult to determinget buy-in fro
am have to taktal Period (DPthe next DP l
g else may halevels as othe
of goals and med. Whether teting requestsess;
otivated and sress;
w people enterultiple times,
t changed ovewith changes
Human
the whole CF l profoundly alieved that thi
g to a higher len of Staff com
priority for thworkshop). Th
risks involve
of manageme short term b
things to diffe
t the same tim
ave the flexibi
ave to be madce) to ensure ents and their ne what educaom different
ke into accounP) requires thlevel;
ave to be remoer things have
more scrutinythere was gens were respon
stress increase
red (including people had t
er time. The Ts; However, th
nsystems® Incor
during this tiaffect fundingis led some pe
evel of authormmander objecthem, but theyhe decision to
d (as it could
ment style (e.gbut relying on
ferent people)
me for meeting
ility of receiv
de with that the changphilosophies
ation is requirstakeholders,
nt other phasehat you meet c
oved and thise to be shuffle
y was paid as neral risk avernded to less
ed as the proc
g the DM) theo be gotten up
Training and he T&E syste
rporated
ime g, eople
rity for ctives) y do push
d mean
g., n
;
gs;
ving in-
ges to . red, , etc.;
es of certain
s could ed out;
the rsion
cess
e p to
em was
Humansystem
typhav
Theinforeqthe
Insthroparwit
7. Sc
The DM waCommand afunction of to AfghanisThis traininleast a yearhave to startraining pro(COIN) ope
Factors whi
Thefrom
Gofor
Chma
Tracom
OuAfg
Wrreq
Theres
Lonnewto b
Tramethe
ms® Incorpora
pically fairly sve been misse
e rate at whicformation to thquests for mor Staff at all; tructors had tough PWGSCrticular instructhout proper s
cenario De
as the contracand Staff Col
f the CoE. Onestan involvingng developmer, both to arranrt by Septembograms. The cerations to mi
ich influenced
ere needs to bm another HQ
vernment annce unexpected
anges may beade so that eno
aining cannot mmanders are
utside events fghanistan;
riting teams wquired;
ere are often oource shifting
ng lead timesw objectives tbe inspected,
aining of CF pmbers of DN DM and his
ted
slow to react ted;
ch things chanhe Staff meanre information
to be hired to C process). Dctors at particsupport from
escription
ct site leader allege (CLFCSe of the groupg a 4-week paent is an on-gonge the logistber for an HQcurrent changission termina
d the ability o
be overlap andQ and set the
nouncements d readjustmen
e announced bough lead tim
be largely teme given differe
force a lot of c
who design the
overlapping rg;
are often reqto move equipinspectors ar
personnel alsoND, DFAIT, C
staff have to
to new things
nged was varint that the DMn, and someti
run programsue to delays i
cular times wea finalized PM
n: CoE Tra
at the Centre SC). It was theps requiring trackage of traioing, iterativetics of trainin
Q deploying inge being consiation.
of the DM to
d continuity iconditions fo
(e.g., movingnts in training
but details mame is available
mplate becauent primary ta
change, e.g.,
e training are
requests for tr
quired for trainpment back toe few and req
o involve traiCIDA, Correct
put in a lot of
s, and so impo
iable; for examM and the DMimes weeks w
s; this had to in the PME prere likely misME process.
aining Dev
of Excellencee responsibilitraining are thining they dele process. Theg (e.g., prepa
n July) and inidered is a foc
manage these
in training (e.or the next HQ
g main locatiog;
ay not be knoe to plan train
use the rate ofasks);
changes in po
e experienced
raining time a
ning objectivo Canada, a loquire time to i
ining them to tional Servicef work to get
ortant window
mple, sometimM’s staff werewould go by w
be done far inrocess, opporssed, and deci
velopmen
e (CoE), at thity of the DMhe members oliver to the HQere is a need t
arations for ancorporate upccus change fr
e processes in
g., one HQ hQ to come in)
on from Kand
own, requiringning;
f change is too
olicy, differen
and generally
and resources
ves to be met (ot of equipmeinspect, etc.);
deal with othes, Policing Athese groups
ws of opportu
mes submittin bombarded w
with no feedba
n advance (e.rtunities to haisions had to
nt Supervis
he Canadian LM to support thof HQs to be dQ in their basto look forwan exercise in Fcoming changrom Counterin
ncluded:
as to both tak;
dahar to Kabu
g assumptions
o high (e.g.,
nt events happ
y understand
s that require o
(e.g., the newent and contai
her actors inclAssociations,
adequately in
Page 83
unity might
ng with ack from
g., to go ave be made
sor
Land Force he training deployed se location. ard by at February ges into nsurgency
ke over
ul) can
s to be
pening in
what is
on-line
w HQ has iners have
luding NGOs – nvolved;
Pa
Fa
age 84
The diwhich
The tim(e.g., 6much l
Moneyduratioresour
Often learn aspecifi
The Dof trus
Traininarea ofdoes ais relev
The Dpersonnetwor
The Dan undimport“walk”more tlearned
The remore lnot bee
The Dauthor
actors which
Traininarose, change
Early aCANOnetworbenefiWhen CANO
ifferent stakehmake commu
melines of the6 month long)longer timelin
y has becomeon of the writces available;
HQs standingabout each othic mission;
M had a longst that he coul
ng scenarios hf interest relatn initial reccevant. Trainers
M had relationnel involved rks);
M had been iderstanding oftant to have 2” and the nextthan a day or d from the “w
equest to inclulogistics prepaen a part of p
M and his civrity (i.e., the C
unfolded ove
ng program cand what wored;
attempts wereOSCOM into trks. Over timcial so some ocertain trainin
OSCOM), then
holders involvunication and
e stakeholders) projects withnes (e.g., 15 y
much more oing board (wh;
g up have basher’s working
g-term relationld use to conv
have to be firted to the traie, so the trains have to have
onships with min writing bo
involved in thf many aspect
2 exercises sept needs to be two) there is
walk” session
ude logistics paration for thelans – it was
vilian staff haCF has the fin
er time:
hanged over trked was kep
e made to intethe training pe it became aorganizationsng goals chann they becam
ved often havd collaboration
s are differenh high impactyears);
of a constrainho create scen
ic teamwork g styles and cr
nship with thevince the lead
rmly groundedining), becausees are usualle current know
members of soards and othe
his training prts of what wilparated in tima “run”. If thenot enough tibefore the ne
personnel in te mission wassurprising an
ave to have penal say).
time as differpt or improved
egrate organizprocess to ensapparent that ts became mornged to becom
me involved at
ve different jan difficult;
t. For examplt, whereas CI
nt than previounarios and oth
etc. issues to reate a team)
e project leadof needed ch
d in the currese often trainily well awarewledge;
ome groups wer aspects of t
rogram for somll work and w
me rather thanese are not seime for the traext exercise;
the training ms required (th
nd seemed to s
ersonalities w
rent strategiesd and what di
zations such aure mutual awthese trainingre involved reme very relevat that point;
Human
argon and way
le, the CF focIDA focuses o
usly, which aher training m
sort out (e.g.rather than ju
d and thereforhanges;
nt state in Afing is being de of the curren
which helped training (i.e.,
me time (ovewhat will not. n 1 exercise, aeparated someainees to abso
made CANOShe DM was unshow a lack o
which can acce
s were tried aidn’t work wa
as DFAIT, CIwareness of m
g sessions couelatively earlyant to other o
nsystems® Incor
ys of doing th
cuses on shorton projects w
affects the sizematerials) and
., sort out SOPust training fo
re had a found
fghanistan (ordone after the nt situation an
the DM get nhe used his s
er 3 years) andFor example
as one needs tewhat in timeorb what they
COM aware naware that thof foresight);
ept not having
s the opportuas removed or
IDA, and methods and buld prove veryy (e.g., DFAITorganizations
rporated
hings
t-term with
e and d other
Ps, or a
dation
r other HQ
nd what
needed ocial
d had , it is to be a e (i.e., y
that his had
g real
unity r
build y T). (e.g.,
Humansystem
Thefocperfor expissuandetcstaf
Thethedonbee
TheThidist
Thetiminjeand
8. Sc
The DM waresponsibiliproject. Gostandards, aresource reqwhich form
Factors whi
DifDMuse
Themetha
InsHF
Feeteam
Thelev
ms® Incorpora
e personnel recus may requirsonnel with ttraining need
perience, as pues, processesd often there a.) and the neeff);
e CF staff in t 3.5 years thene over and oen done, what
ere was a requis had follow-tribute the wo
e training prome. For examp
ects for trainind hopefully av
cenario De
as a Human Fity of the DMals of the projand met user rquirements. T
m of evaluation
ich influenced
fferent team mM thought getter involvemen
e DM tried mmbers many t
at the DM was
ufficient dataF requirement
edback from im to be quest
e DM was invveraging those
ted
ecruited to ruire a change inthe relevant exds. There is aleople who has, etc. As welare fluid scheeds of other pr
the training pe DM had beever again (but worked, wha
uest to inject -on effects suorkload, and n
ograms and opple, the writinng. This inforvoid problem
escription
Factors (HF) EM to validate uoject includedrequirements
The DM had tn to use (e.g.,
d the ability o
members and ting user invo
nt in the requi
many differenttimes but wass doing every
a was availabls
industry aboutioned;
volved in othee projects to g
n the trainingn SME personxperience to clways a need ave been retirell, for each inddule constrainrojects (e.g., p
programs chanen doing this, uilding relatioat didn’t, etc.)
another groupuch as having new people h
perational plang board looksrmation is thes.
n: HF Engi
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
It tooagentrain buildtime OGD
AnotplaceundeProcno trwas commnetwin the2nd arelati
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.)
Publishing: DRDC TorontoPerforming: HumanSystemns Inc., 111 Farquhar St., Guelph ON N1H
3N4Monitoring:Contracting: DRDC Toronto
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.)
(U) complexity; decision making; dynamic decision making; complex decision making;complex adaptive systems; system dynamics; dynamic systems; training; microworlds;land operations
UNCLASSIFIED
