Operational Environment

Operational environments are inherently complex, involving conditions, circumstances, and influences that can both affect the capabilities and influence decisions of commanders (Department of the Army, 2015). The Sergeant Major is a key participant in aiding the commander to identify and resolve any situations within the operating environment which may impede the success of missions that the unit is called upon to execute. This essay will discuss the Army design methodology pertaining to operating environments. It will begin with a discussion of the importance and aspects of framing operating environments. It will then go on to review the steps that can be taken to facilitate the operating environments that have been established. The information developed in this essay will integrate principles and concepts not only from the perspective of military doctrine but also from the world of business, where there are plentiful data and research on the enclosed topics.

The Framing of the Operational Environment

According to the Department of the Army’s (2015) design methodology, operational environments are defined as “the conditions, circumstances, and influences that affect the employment of capabilities and bear on the decisions of the commander” (p. 3-1). Because operating environments must be designed for a number of situations ranging from defeating a military force to providing civilian disaster relief, they are necessarily complex and because of internal and external factors can become redefined during the course of a mission. Framing of the operational environment serves a key function in the Army design methodology because it provides a clear articulation of the current state of affairs, and the desired end state, depending upon the desires of those in the command structure. Systems thinking is used to articulate the various variables in the operational environment, which include “political, military, economic, social, information, infrastructure, physical environment, and time” (Department of the Army, 2015, pp. 3–1).

Framing Activities

The output of framing activities is the generation of an environmental frame (Department of the Army, 2015). The frame contains a definition of the actors, relationships, and tensions extant in the current state of affairs as well as the desired conditions of the same in the future state. The command sergeant major has a key role in advising and making recommendations to their commanders (Department of the Army, 2012). The sergeants major engages in framing activities by evaluating higher direction and guidance, understanding the present operating environment, projecting the future state of the operating environment, evaluating the future states that are desired by other actors in the frame, and creating a clear vision of the desired end state (Department of the Army, 2015).

Depending upon the mission being carried out, higher guidance can come from higher headquarters, be it mission command, Army headquarters, or a higher joint force headquarters (Department of the Army, 2015). Effective understanding of higher direction requires researching related directives, guidance, orders, policy documents, and estimates of the higher and next higher headquarters. A better understanding of the overall relationships of the actors can be developed using the tools and methods described in more detail in the next section. An understanding of future trending must also be considered when creating the environmental frame. Systems naturally change, whether due to their own inherent tendencies or due to external actor influences (Lyytinen & Newman, 2008). It is incumbent upon the sergeants major to identify patterns as well as past information that may shed light upon the future actions or tendencies of specific actors within the scenario (Brand, 2011). It is also essential to determine the desired end states of other actors in the operating environment (Brand, 2011). The end state must be established based on higher guidance as well as resources that are available, time, desired conditions of friendly forces, as well as the conflicting desired conditions of potential enemies, terrain, or civil considerations.

Tools and Techniques

Numerous tools and techniques can be used to aid the planning team in framing the operational environment. Specific tools and techniques mentioned within the Army Design Methodology include:

• Brainstorming, researching, and mind mapping

• Meta-questioning

• Questioning of assumptions

• Four ways of seeing (Department of the Army, 2015, p. 3-6).

Brainstorming, researching, and mind mapping provide tools to develop the ideas and variables identified in the initial assessment. Mind mapping is especially valuable because it permits a visual representation that allows the exploration of associations between different concepts (Davies, 2011). Relationships or tensions that may have not been immediately obvious may be revealed when exploring the concepts and relationships in a visual format (Kokotovich, 2008). Meta-questioning requires the use of higher-order questions such as why and how to perform a deeper exploration of the issues and reveal possible contradictions and internal inconsistencies (White, Collins, & Frederickson, 2011).

The Facilitation of the Operational Environment

Once the operational environment has been framed, it is essential to facilitate the successful achievement of the defined environment. In the framing process, the commanders can be apprised of conflicting or ambiguous directions, which can then be run up and down the echelons to work out the differences and develop a shared understanding (Department of the Army, 2015). This is one step that can go towards facilitating the operating environment. Facilitating the operating environment occurs as a part of the planning process. As the Army Design Methodology outlines: “[p]lanning is the art and science of understanding a situation, envisioning a desired future, and laying out effective ways of bringing that future about” (Department of the Army, 2015, p. 1-2).

Planning is not a one-time event but is ongoing as a part of the operations process. As the assessment, feedback, and operational conditions change, the plan can be evaluated to reframe the understanding of the operating environment and formulate new plans. That is why there is a process of framing the operating environment, framing problems, framing solutions and reframing. The sergeant's major role in the process is to perform the needed research and provide the needed information to their commander so that they can have the information they need to make the proper decisions on how to proceed in the given mission (Jackson, 2019).

Conclusion

Correct framing and facilitation of the operating environment is an essential process in Army Design Methodology. The sergeants major plays a key role in aiding command by performing the necessary research, evaluation, and planning to not only envision the desired end state for the mission but also to achieve it. This essay has detailed the steps in the framing process as well as how planning plays an essential role in achieving the desired end goal that was envisioned as part of the organizational environment framing process. The essay outlined ways in which I can use principles and concepts pertaining to the organizational environment in my command in future duty.

References

Brand, M. C. (2011). General McChrystal’s strategic assessment: Evaluating the operating environment in Afghanistan in the summer of 2009 (Research Papers No. 2011–1). Maxwell AFB: Air Force Research Institute.

Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping, and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6

Department of the Army. (2012). Mission command (ADRP 6.0). Retrieved from https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/adrp6_0.pdf

Department of the Army. (2015). Army design methodology (ATP 5-0.1). Retrieved from https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp5_0x1.pdf

Jackson, L. (2019, April 2). The Command Sergeant Major’s place on the battlefield. Retrieved from From the Green Notebook website: https://fromthegreennotebook.com/2019/04/02/ the-command-sergeant-majors-place-on-the-battlefield/?pdf=4993

Kokotovich, V. (2008). Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design Studies, 29(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.09.001

Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: A punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589–613. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.50

White, B. Y., Collins, A., & Frederickson, J. R. (2011). The nature of scientific meta-knowledge. In Models and Modeling in Science Education (6th ed., pp. 41–76). Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0449-7_3