Decision navigation: coping with 21st-century challenges in tactical decisionmaking

Military Review,  Sept-Oct, 2003  by Dennis T. Gyllensporre

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

AS HE TUTORED the young Alexander the Great, the Greek philosopher Aristotle challenged Alexander by asking what he would do in a given situation. Alexander said that it would depend on the circumstances. Aristotle described a hypothetical set of circumstances and repeated the question. Alexander replied, "I cannot tell until the circumstances arise." (1)

Clearly, Aristotle's young student, who would become the most successful battlefield commander or "battle captain" in history, understood that no plan could fully anticipate or capture the unique conditions and circumstances surrounding every decision during battle. (2) Alexander understood that decisionmaking must be intuitive and evolve as the battle unfolds.

Introducing Decision Navigation

Modern armies, like the U.S. Army, must transform tactical decisionmaking to meet 21st-century challenges. Currently, military planners approach tactical missions by deciding on a master blueprint for anticipated battles and engagements. They optimize detailed blueprints by fine-tuning and synchronizing activities to meet a set of conditions defined during planning. But we must recognize the validity of Helmuth von Moltke the Elder's statement that "no plan of operations survives the first collision with the main enemy body." (3)

The complex nature of warfare soon changes conditions defined during planning and renders the master blueprint obsolete. Much of the time and effort to design an optimized plan will have been wasted, and the commander and staff will have to develop and implement a new blueprint. In his article "Cultivating Intuitive Decisionmaking," former U.S. Marine Corps General Charles Krulak addresses the limitations of traditional analytical decisionmaking: "The greater the degree of situational certainty and awareness, the more effective analytical decisionmaking becomes. Unfortunately, the analytical model does not lend itself well to military applications once the enemy is engaged." (4)

The future battlefield environment will be more fluid, requiring commanders to cope with unprecedented complexity, uncertainty, and tempo. In addition, requirements for security will continue to increase. Coping with the changing battlefield environment requires improved methods and transformation of the underlying paradigm of decisionmaking. The examination here discusses the future battlefield environment and addresses implications for tactical organizations and the decisionmaking process from two perspectives: methods and underlying paradigms. By synthesizing the findings, we develop the concept of decision navigation (see figure).

Decision navigation describes a new way of decisionmaking. As soon as a combat unit receives its mission, it embarks on a voyage to a desired end state. Like Alexander the Great, the wise battle captain will navigate toward the destination by determining the position, direction of, and distance to the next decision point while always keeping the final destination firmly in mind. The journey will not follow a straight compass course. The commander will have to adjust course when he encounters obstacles and challenges.

Rather than developing a complete and detailed blueprint, the battle captain and his staff add details and sections to a basic blueprint as battles and engagements unfold. Decision navigation overcomes the limitations of traditional decisionmaking by allowing the commander and staff to make more timely, accurate, and intuitive decisions and take advantage of windows of opportunity. Decision navigation changes the commander's mindset and addresses the challenges that permeate tactical decisionmaking by applying the four following principles:

1. Develop only one course of action (COA).

2. Plan only the immediate phase.

3. Use your instincts as a decisionmaker.

4. Distribute uncertainty and complexity to subordinates.

The Future Battlefield Environment

The most significant changes in the battlefield environment for decisionmaking follow:

* Improvements in information technology are dramatically increasing the amount of information available to support the decision-making process.

* Improved technology and automation enable military planners to reduce the personnel strength of many functions, if needed. Consequently, units could be more dispersed and operate in extended battle-fields. Operations in the Persian Gulf provide support for this trend. Operation Iraqi Freedom involved some 250,000 coalition troops; the corresponding number for Operation Desert Storm, conducted in a much more limited area, was 666,000. (5)

* Improvements in mobility, sensor range, and precision-engagement capabilities are creating a faster-paced and more lethal environment. Again, a comparison of operations in the Persian Gulf underscores this argument. Operation Desert Storm was over in 48 days; in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Baghdad fell in 21 days. (6)

* Asymmetrical threats and full-spectrum operations are increasing complexity.