------ # Understanding Command and Control **Written By:** - David S. Alberts **See:** Alberts_UC2.pdf --------- ## Influences ### Introduction While the NATO Conceptual Model for understanding C2 is too generic to support the specification of a particular instantiated process model, it is rich enough to create and analyse networks of influence. The term influence is used here in its most basic meaning: the power to affect a person or process. Note also that what follows are illustrative networks of influence, not formal influence models, which would require specification of the valence, strength, and conditional relationships between variables. These networks of influence could be used as the basis for the experimentation and observation necessary to construct such influence models and capture them in formal tools such as Systems Dynamics, but the state of the art at this writing does not provide enough knowledge for that purpose. Moreover, that type of modelling would be easier if a particular C2 Approach were being instantiated. ### Significant Influences Involving Collaboration Collaboration plays a central role in almost all C2 Approaches. Some systems, such as an Industrial Age hierarchical system, stress individual responsibility and accountability and focus their efforts on supporting and empowering those individuals (primarily commanders at all levels). Other (Information Age) approaches, such as those described as “network-centric” or “network-enabled,” stress the role of collaboration in improving performance. Indeed, one of the key issues in selecting a C2 Approach is defining the appropriate use and limits for collaboration. The significant influences involving collaboration are depicted graphically in Figure 29, which tends to flow from the top to the bottom. Three aspects of collaboration are chosen as focal points: the nature of collaboration, the speed of collaboration, and the likelihood of successful collaboration. The first is a composite variable of the myriad factors surrounding the C2 Approach. The second means simply how much time is consumed by a given collaboration interaction. The third deals with the extent to which the goal(s) of any given collaboration will be achieved. As discussed below, collaboration (or the lack of it) plays several roles in any Command and Control Approach, often more than one simultaneously. For example, collaboration designed to improve the information available almost always results in changes in awareness. Hence, “successful” collaboration is typically multi-dimensional. The three focus variables are shaded darkly in Figure 29. ![[UC2-Fig-29.png]] The beginning point for the network of analytic influences is the set of three fundamental factors that determine the character of all C2 Approaches: the Allocation of Decision Rights, Interactions Permitted, and the Distribution of Information. While the dimensions of a C2 Approach all interact with one another, the strongest causal links run from Allocation of Decision Rights to the set of Interactions Permitted and from those two factors to the Distribution of Information. The Distribution of Information is also influenced directly by the Information Shareability or the extent to which language, formats, and semantic consistency make it possible for different actors to access and understand material entered into the system by others. The Interactions Permitted also has a strong influence on the characteristics of the technical network available to support the C2 processes. The characteristics of the distributed infostructure, labeled “Network,” are contained in a box. These Network characteristics include Reach (breadth of participation), Richness (the quality of the contents of the network), Quality of Interactions (the breadth and depth of media in which people and systems can interact on the network), and Assurance (the extent to which the network is available and its contents are secure). These Network characteristics determine (along with other factors not shown such as the quality and training of personnel) the Collaboration Mechanism, which is characterised in terms of its Availability, the Quality of the collaboration enabled (data, voice, images, etc.), and the Continuity of the collaboration it can support. The other major influences on the success of collaboration are the Number and Variety of Participants, Group Hardness, and the Nature of the Mission. There is a simple relationship between the Number of Participants and the Speed of Collaboration. All other things being equal, more participants require more time for collaboration. The Number of Participants is also one influence on the Variety of Participants, which means that with a greater diversity of individuals involved, more numerous and diverse perspectives (people with different experience, training, roles, etc.) will be involved. The Variety of Participants both slows the Speed of Collaboration (they need time to communicate across organisational, cultural, and other boundaries) and also affects the Nature of Collaboration, which in turn impacts the Likelihood of Success. Except on very simple problems, involving more participants improves the likelihood of success, both by reducing the likelihood of “groupthink” and also by increasing the chances that relevant experience and training are available to contribute to success. However, at least two other factors will also impact collaboration. First, Group Hardness (the extent to which the individuals involved in the collaboration have worked together in the past on similar problems and developed trust and a common language and methods for dealing with issues) both increases Speed of Collaboration and affects the Nature of Collaboration. Indeed, hardness is the major tool for overcoming the loss of speed that occurs when more participants become involved and different perspectives need to be integrated. Hardness also enables the group to improve its performance. This is one major reason that military forces value unit training and field exercises: they improve people’s ability to work together. Similarly, when organisations (joint, coalition, interagency, international, public, and private) work together over time, they become hardened and improve both their efficiency and effectiveness. The other key factor that directly impacts the Nature of Collaboration is the Distribution of Information across the people and nodes. All other things being equal, the richer that distribution is (the greater the ability to capture and share information), the more likely it becomes that collaboration will be successful and (indirectly) be accomplished more quickly. Of course, the limits of human cognition apply, so very rich information distribution may also require filters, frames, or other tools that manage the load on individuals. Speed of Collaboration is also impacted by, and impacts, the Nature of Collaboration. The profound role of collaboration in C2 becomes obvious when its multiple roles are understood. As indicated by the boxes labeled Information, Awareness, and Understanding as well as the two-way arrows that connect them to the Nature of Collaboration, the process of collaboration has a rich and resonant impact on key activities. Moreover, these interactions are richly interrelated and simultaneous. They also occur both in dealing with individuals and groups, so the three boxes include not only what is available to any one person, but also Shared Information, Shared Awareness, and Shared Understanding. There is a natural flow from Information (what is known within the system) to Awareness (what individuals and groups understand the situation to be and be becoming at any point in time) to Understanding (Awareness plus cause and effect relationships and temporal dynamics such that individuals and groups foresee alternative futures or patterns of futures). Successful collaboration is the means by which Individual Information, Awareness, and Understanding are converted into Shared Information, Awareness, and Understanding. In fact, these factors are closely coupled and virtually simultaneous. As illustrated in the figure, the specific variables most strongly influenced by the Nature of Collaboration are Completeness, Correctness, and Consistency, though other factors such as Currency are also likely to be impacted. Here, again, these influences chain across Individual and Group as well as Information, Awareness, and Understanding. Note also that these influences are mutual; better collaboration improves and is improved by better Information, Awareness, and Understanding at both the individual and group level. The most significant influences of Speed of Collaboration and the Nature of Collaboration in later stages of C2 are their impact on Command Intent, Decisions, and Planning. Successful collaboration will impact the Clarity of Command Intent because more of the actors will have been involved in developing Command Intent, both giving them some prior knowledge of it and the rationale underlying it and also helping to ensure that semantic interoperability is higher. In addition, the Nature of Collaboration will also impact whether the Command Intent is Feasible because it is very likely to have been developed using more perspectives and expertise. The Timeliness of Command Intent will also be influenced by the Speed of Collaboration. The Nature of Collaboration also improves Decision Feasibility. More successful collaboration implies that decisions, like statements of intent, will take into account a broader range of experience, expertise, and perspectives. Precisely the same logics indicate that Planning (whether it is deliberate, hasty, or on the fly) Quality, Speed, and Timeliness will be influenced by the Speed of Collaboration and the Nature of Collaboration. In summary, the role of collaboration (working together for a common purpose) in C2 is not always understood or appreciated. This is one of the cornerstones of any C2 Approach and the extent and role of collaboration is one of the factors that most strongly differentiates Industrial Age from Information Age approaches. Research into how to best organise and use collaboration is one of the areas where future research (observation and instrumentation of war games, exercises, and operations) and experimentation should focus. A great deal is known already from the small group, business, and group dynamics literatures, but little work has been done on military organisations, interagency operations, coalition operations, or public-private cooperation in humanitarian and reconstruction operations. ### Significant Influences Involving Agility As reflected in Figure 30, characterising the factors that influence agility requires a different mindset than that required to identify the factors that influence collaboration. The major reason that an alternative approach is needed is the extremely close coupling between and among the factors that influence agility. Four sets of factors are involved: - The characteristics of the mission capability package under discussion; - C2 qualities; - The components of agility; and - The mission challenges that drive the need for each of the elements of agility. Virtually (if not literally) every possible influence within and across each layer is relevant. Hence, diagramming the individual influences would yield a virtually incomprehensible image. ![[UC2-Fig-30.png]] The core level of the graphic involves the fundamental characteristics of the mission capability package (or packages). This means virtually every aspect of the force: the materiel (weapons, infostructure, logistics for deployment and sustainment, and so forth), the people within the force, their level of training, experience, and education, and the C2 Approach (or set of approaches) adopted. These factors interact with one another to determine the characteristics and attributes of MCPs and their respective capabilities. Figure 30 organises these sets of factors into lay- ers. The innermost layer or core corresponds to two of the NATO Code of Best Practice for C2 Assessment classes of measures of merit: Dimensional Parameters (characteristics of people and systems) and Measures of Performance (the way the systems perform their functions). This inner core strongly influences the qualities of several key measures of C2 quality. The most relevant of them are shown in the diagram: quality of command intent, quality of deci- sions, quality of planning, and quality of execution. These four measures are closely interrelated; strength or weakness in any one of them will have an immediate and measurable impact on the others. This layer corresponds with the NATO COBP for C2 Assessment Measures of C2 Effectiveness. Agility has developed into one of the most important concepts in assessing alternative C2 Approaches. While this term is used loosely in most of the literature, we have identified its six key elements in Power to the Edge.130 As a multi-dimensional concept that interacts with the operating environment and the internal workings of any specific instantiation of C2, agility is actually composed of: - Robustness–effectiveness across a range of tasks, situations and conditions; - Resilience–the ability to rebound from damage or misfortune; - Responsiveness – the ability to act within windows of opportunity; - Innovation – the ability to do new things or old things in new ways; - Flexibility – the ability to accomplish missions in multiple ways; and - Adaptation – the ability to alter process and organisation to improve effectiveness or efficiency. Agility presumes effective actions and implies a degree of self-synchronisation. This further implies that the elements of the force behave reliably and predictably. C2 quality provides the basis for agility. The relative weaknesses and strengths associated with C2 strongly influence the level of agility possible in each of the six key areas. At the same time, the elements of agility also influence one another. For example, greater flexibil- ity requires greater innovation. Similarly, greater robustness depends in no small measure on resilience, responsiveness, flexibility, and adaptation. In fact, when a detailed review of these influences was undertaken, all of these elements were rapidly shown to be related to one another. Hence, while it remains possible to specify definitions and metrics for the elements of agility, the concept must be considered holistically. In that sense, it remains a key component of networked or com- plex adaptive systems. Outside the agility layer in Figure 30 lies Mission Challenges, which represents those aspects of the operating environment that create the need or requirement for each of the elements of agility. - **Robustness** is a necessary response to the need to operate across the mission spectrum. Optimizing against any one adversary or class of adversary would mean a lack of preparation against others known to be serious threats to U.S. national security interests. - **Responsiveness** is required to deal with fleeting opportunities, whether in the tactical arena (fleeting targets) or at the operational and strategic levels (windows of opportunity in dynamic situations). As the pace of change has increased across the globe and adversaries have become more adept, the need for responsiveness has grown. - **Flexibility** is increasingly required because adversaries (particularly terrorists and insurgents) are consciously studying our doctrine, practices, and experiences in order to improve their chances of success. This means that we will need multiple ways to succeed so that their ability to thwart some of our approaches will not prevent mission accomplishment. - **Innovation** is the natural response to efforts by our adversaries to place us in unfamiliar situations or exploit our predictability. By doing old things in new ways or entirely new things, we reduce our forces’ vulnerability. - **Resilience** will be essential because we cannot assume that adversaries will not be able to strike first or otherwise seize the initiative. Hence, we will suffer casualties and have our operations disrupted. This cannot be allowed to lead to failure. - **Adaptation** (changing our processes and organisation) is needed when we find ourselves in a “situational mismatch” such as the battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan. In such cases, our existing organisations and processes must be adapted in order to allow effective mission execution. Like collaboration, agility has not been well-understood within the C2 community. As discussed here, a better understanding of these two concepts and what influences them is crucial to under- standing alternative C2 Approaches and their implications. In this book, we have, in essence, stipulated the need to go back to basics, to put aside what we think we know about what C2 is, because for many this amounts to how C2 has and is currently accomplished. It is often said that it is far easier to learn something new than to forget something old. The concluding chapter, The Way Ahead, looks at the journey before us and highlights the major tasks and challenges that we face.