To Design or Not to Design: In Conclusion

Abstract

Is Design a necessary methodology for the U.S. Army? By codifying into service doctrine an entire chapter on design in FM 5-0, the Army appears to acknowledge the need for ontological approaches to complex systems. FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency also featured a new Design chapter when updated in 2006. Although the presence of design in doctrinal form validates a substantial requirement for alternative methodologies to JOPP and MDMP, Army design in current form suffers from an identity crisis as well as extensive tacticization via institutional bias. To take higher guidance without critical thinking and launch into MDMP prioritizes analysis and description over synthesis and explanation. Today's increasingly complex conflict environments cannot function without Design consideration prior to any detailed planning processes initiating. 3 Yet Design by its logic is a cumbersome and problematic methodology when applied to traditional military planning processes.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
May 09, 2011
Accession Number
ADA546516

Entities

People

  • Ben Zweibelson

Organizations

  • United States Army Command and General Staff College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • C4I
  • Cyber

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Adaptive Systems
  • Air Force
  • Army
  • Army Training
  • Complex Adaptive Systems
  • Complex Systems
  • Doctrine
  • Land Warfare
  • Military History
  • Military Operations
  • Military Organizations
  • Military Planning
  • Military Science
  • New York
  • Systems Analysis
  • United States
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Joint Military Operations and Doctrine.
  • Systems Analysis and Design