Military Decision Modeling

Doctors Ross, Klein, Thunholm, Schmitt, and Baxter have written an article entitled “The Recognition-Primed Decision Model”. The article can be found at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/ross.pdf. The authors discuss the US Army’s testing of an improved DSS system as a means of increasing it operations tempo (speed at which it conducts its military operations) and allow the army to act and react faster than the enemy.

The article details the army’s experimentation and tests of a new DSS called RPM (Recognition-Primed Decision Model) and compare the results of its use to the existing DSS system currently in use. The current decision support system MDMP (Military Decision Making Process) uses decision analytical rationale called multi-attribute utility analysis. The authors consider the MDMP to be too time consuming in reaching its conclusions and that the delay degrades the findings of the system.

The MDMP and the RPM both follow a series of four phases in the development of operational orders for the command. These phases are:
1. Identify the Mission (Conceptualize the Course of Action - COA)
2. Test/Operationalize the COA
3. Wargame the COA (For executors as well as planners)
4. Develop Orders (Operations Orders)

The RPM was designed to build on experience and expertise associated with the lessons learned with the army’s use of the MDMP. The RPM requires a more experienced user to successfully operate and it eliminates the previous systems requirement to establish 3 possible Courses of Actions and accept the original COA as proposed by the commanding officer. Studies showed that the first COA proposed was the one actually used in over 90% of the cases. If the COA proves enviable during the war gaming phase of the process, then a new COA would be proposed and the remaining steps repeated to test the new course of action. Under the current system (MDMP) all three COAs required under that system are processed simultaneously and consume a great deal of processing time.

The plausibility of a successfully chosen course of action is tested in the third phase of the process – war gaming. The third phase uses graphics and war gaming (confrontation models) to evaluate the COA prior to execution and allows the decision makers the ability to modify COA quickly from lessons learned.

The new system forces planners to communicate, especially the CO in discriminating his initial COA and reasons for his course of action. The newer system facilitates input from the staff officers who usually possess additional expertise in their specialty areas than does the Commanding Officer. The system allows them to modify aspects of the proposed COA to optimize the possibility of a successful outcome. The RPM also requires additional training in its use and usually requires a more experienced staff to operate efficiently.

An initial review of the system by the army officers who were testing the system indicated that they preferred the RPM over the existing MDMP but that additional testing and possible modifications were still potentially required before they would switch from their current system.