Re: Decentralization and the Armed Forces

[Gary Porter <grporter@nps.navy.mil> (by way of vanessa@media.mit.edu (VanessaStevens Colella))]

Gyorgy,
        The short answer is (in my opinion) that decentralization within
the U.S. Forces has been occurring for awhile now and lately has been
accelerating.  Especially within the combat chain of command where the
motivation is to complete a mission swiftly, and successfully with minimum
casualties.  The higher personal stakes may add to easier acceptance.  The
combat chain of command now tends to be much flatter now (less levels of
hierarchy) and more joint and coalition based.  Joint means more than one
and usually all four services participate in an operation rather than just
one service.  The level of jointness is being decentralized such that the
level in the hierarchy that has control over joint units is being pushed
farther down the chain of command to the combat unit level.  Same with
coalition warfare that involves multinational operations.
        New decentralized tactics, operations, and strategies are rapidly
evolving.  One example is the USMC's Sea Dragon concept that puts lots of
small autonomous units distributed over the terrain with most comms limited
to other like units nearby.  The units respond to threats and perform their
missions through what many are describing as self organization in that each
unit has a limited view of the operational picture but by each unit
completing their individual tasks and coordinating with nearby units, the
overall result is thought to be better than use of more traditional,
centralized operations.
        The Viet Cong "Guerilla tactics in the Viet Nam are another more
complex example of decentralization and self-organizing complex system
behavior.  More decentralization in all the armed services is happening
defacto as a direct result of the growth of lateral communications (vice
chain of command or hierarchical comms) made possible by the exploding use
of Internet technologies in wide use by armed forces today, regardless of
classification levels.
        The U.S. Navy through its Information Technology for the 21st
Century concept (IT21) and Network Centric Warfare concept is further
expanding the use today of decentralized intelligence structures that
provide direct support to combat units as well as to a global database, and
combat structures that operate in a more decentralized environment, but
become coordinated to with other units to bring force to bear at the right
time, the right place, in the right mix through use of network centric
information technology architectures.
        The leadership, in at least the Navy,  is taking the position that
people who do not buy into these new concepts will become a professional
anachronism.
        For more info try searching for Sea Dragon, IT21, Network Centric
Warfare, Copernicus using your favorite search engine.
        Hope this helps.  However,  the above views are mine and not those
of the U.S. Armed Forces.
.....Gary
___________________________________________________
                           Gary Porter
          Research Assistant Professor
        Director, Systems Technology Lab
Code CC/PO, Root Hall 203   grporter@nps.navy.mil
Naval Postgraduate School    (408)656-3772 (work)
Monterey, CA 93943                (408)656-3679 (fax)
__________________________________________________
>Gary,
>

>A couple of weeks ago I had a discussion with some teachers about
>centralization/decentralization. As an example of a system which
>is typically centralized is likely to remain so I suggested the
>organization of an army.
>After that, it was interesting and surprising for me to read that
>decentralization is a current research topic in the US navy.
>
>Would you like to share your insights about how decentralized organization
>structures would be applied in a military context? It is difficult to
>imagine how the army, which is in principle a very hierarchical,
>centralized organization, would make use of self-organization.
>How is the concept of decentralization accepted among the military people?
>Is there opposition to it, or support?
>My experience has been that many people (but not all) who have spent a
>lifetime working in a centralized, hierarchical organization are opposing
>the concept of decentralization, probably partly on an emotional basis.
>(Currently our education system is undergoing a change which puts much
>more emphasis on the teachers' own responsibility, thus making it more
>decentralized.)
>
>Gyorgy
>
>> I am considering use of StarLogo as the basis for exploring
>> decentralization and self organizing systems in a military context.  This
>> is a topical and important area of research in the Dept of Defense,  from
>> exploring flattened organizational structures that can change temporally
>> depending upon an organization's assigned mission, to using decentralized
>> software agents to help manage and update large integrated systems of
>> globally distributed systems.