Monday, September 24, 2018

Clouds or Clocks The Limitations of Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield in a Complex World


By: Maj. Donald P. Carter, U.S. Army

Summary:
This article touches on the struggle of using intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) in today’s complex society. The new U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World 2020-2040 (AOC) is focused on complexity. The AOC defines a complex environment as one “that is not only unknown, but unknowable and constantly changing.”  The author of this article talks about a few main points on how IPB may not be as affective in today’s complex society.  The combination of globalization and advances in technology has changed the nature and character of warfare. The U.S. Army defines IPB as, “the systematic process of analyzing the mission variables of enemy, terrain, weather, and civil considerations in an area of interest to determine their effect on operations.” Currently the default analytical model is intelligence preparation of the battlefield to generating understanding and supporting the military decision making process. The author argues that the era of clearly defined battle lines is over making IPB less effective. IPB is used on well-structured problems to support commanders against a relatively well-known enemy in a conventional combined arms maneuver fight. The author argues that systemic operational design or similar systems theory approaches are more effective because they focus on environmental systems.

 English philosopher Karl Popper has an analogy on the differences between “clouds” and “clocks” that illustrates the author’s point. Popper describes clocks as well defined and systematic, which are easily disassembled and reduced to parts. There are defined solutions to fix clocks. Clouds are amorphous, messy, and ill defined, just like a lot of our new problems. Clouds are highly unpredictable. IPB narrowly frames critical thinking. In complex environments, IPB, may constrain thought and critical thinking about the environment and underlying problems. Unknown environments with no templates will produce IPB products that are random with no contextualized information and data points. However, the author argues we will never fully understand the full complexity of the “cloud”. We are able to understand the “clock,” and develop a strategy on how to fix it.  To solve the new world problems there needs to be a balance of IPB and systems theory approaches complement each other. 

Critique:
The author does an excellent job on describing why IPB has been effective in the past. It is structured and is able to be fixed to generate an actual plan. The author talked a lot about how the new problems are highly unpredictable, cloud like. Which I’m sure has validity to it, however he never really addresses how to overcome the cloud like problems. In the end he is pretty much claiming their needs to be a mixture between IPB and systems theory approaches. He spent a lot of time putting down the future effectiveness of IPB, instead he should have elaborating on this balance.











6 comments:

  1. This is a perfect article to highlight the idea that "something is better than nothing." Although all methods have limitations, applying one or more to the analytic process is better than not applying anything at all. The argument could be "why not use it?" vs the idea of diminishing returns. We don't want to waist time applying a bunch of methods just to apply them, so its important to know the utility and limitations of each in order to know when to use them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alyssa, the author's argument against the effectiveness of IPB in today's world is a compelling one. From my understanding, the challenge of applying IPB today stems from ill-defined battle lines, enemies, and rules of engagement. In light of this, would you consider IPB to be a conditional methodology? In other words, do you agree that we should only apply IPB when our battle lines, enemies, and rules of engagement are all clearly defined? As Bryant points out, this can be important because knowing what conditions are necessary for IPB to be effective can inform our analysts so that they know when to use IPB. I'm looking forward to your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom, I would definitely argue that IPB is a conditional methodology. However, there is a struggle in determining when it is going to be effective and when it is to narrow to be used. Yes having clearly defined battle lines, enemies, and rules of engagement would make IPB a favorable method to chose.That doesn't always happen though. The author argues that the fast changes in technology is making very hard to clearly define those topics. There is a long precedence of IPB being used in the military and of it being an effective approach. Analyst have to be able to recognize when the problem is to "cloud like" to use IPB. Also depending on the problem the right mixture of methodologies will change.

      Delete
  3. I love the analogy between the clock and the cloud. The explanation of the cloud really puts in perspective the difficulty in executing a task in modern times, all while trying to be discrete. Although the author may not describe ways to overcome the cloud analogy, I appreciate Bryant's comment that having some information is better than nothing. In this day and age IPB's may be a great starting point or beneficial somewhere in the process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chelsie, I agree that IPB definitely has its benefits and gives a starting point to the problem! Like I said to Tom, based on the individual "cloud like problem" the right mixture of methodologies will change.

      Delete
  4. Even automatic watches will stay working better if they are wound manually about once every two weeks because this helps keep the watch lubricated. Montre s.Oliver


    ReplyDelete