Secondly and conversely creating the degree of adaptivity required of the

Secondly and conversely creating the degree of

This preview shows page 100 - 102 out of 170 pages.

Secondly, and conversely, creating the degree of adaptivity required of the defence enterprise at every scale could be greatly enhanced by more deliberate application of operational design thinking, to explore the opportunities and the risks through multiple system frames, and thereby arrive at a better prioritisation of the requirements for adaptivity, and more robust initial designs for them that can be more rapidly evolved to harvest the opportunities, and to be hardened to the risks. Design thinking and the Adaptive Stance can each stand alone but taken together they are much more powerful. It is worth the effort to save them both from the fad cycle.
Image of page 100
On the roles of design in Defence | 87 Notes 1 ‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it’. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers , referenced in: P. Azoulay, C. Fons-Rosen and J.S. Graff Zivin, ‘Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?’, NBER Working Paper No. 21788 , December 2015, revised October 2016, p 1. 2 See, for example: D. Kahneman, Thinking—Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. 3 ‘A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness’. Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics [1st ed. 1933], Institute of General Semantics, 1994, hardcover, 5th edition, ISBN 0-937298-01-8., p. 58. (Emphases in the original). 4 E. A. Cohen, A Revolution in Warfare , Foreign Affairs, March–April 1996, pp. 37–54. 5 E.A. Smith, Effects-Based Operations Command & Control Research Publications (CCRP), Washington, 2003; P.K. Davis, Effects-Based Operations (EBO): A Grand Challenge for the Analytical Community. RAND, Santa Monica, 2001. 6 D. Alberts, J, Gartska and F. Stein, Network Centric Warfare , DOD Command and Control Research Program, Oct. 2003 C. Wilson, "Network centric operations: background and oversight issues for congress", DTIC Document, 2007. 7 K. Friis Revising COIN – The Stakeholder Centric Approach. in S. Gates and K. Roy (eds.): War and State-Building in Afghanistan: Historical and Modern Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. 8 A. M. Grisogono & A. J. Ryan, Operationalising Adaptive Campaigning , 12th ICCRTS (International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium), Rhode Island, 2007; A. M. Grisogono, M. Spaans, M. Spoelstra, E. Douze, & R. Pieneman, Learning to be Adaptive , 14th ICCRTS, Washington, 2009; The Technical Co-operation Program, Joint Systems and Analysis Group, Action Group 14: Complex Adaptive Systems Science for Defence. Synthesis Report: A Conceptual Framework for Adaptation, DOC–AG14 - CFA #3-2010, 2010. 9 In brief the Adaptive Stance consists of four elements: (1) ambiguity tolerance; (2) willingness to have one’s ideas proved wrong and changing them as a result; (3) turning conjectures and assumptions into explicit expectations, and deliberately seeking disconfirming evidence; and (4) supporting peers and subordinates in doing the same. For more details, see: A. M. Grisogono & V.
Image of page 101
Image of page 102

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture