Army Decision Models, National Strategy, and Command Structures

Comparing Two Army Decision-Making Processes

When comparing the Army Problem Solving Model and the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process, there are fundamental characteristics that hold true for both processes. When each is investigated more deeply, however, the contrasts become evident. The surface-level similarities can be summarized as follows:

First, both decision processes are used by the military to arrive at a viable solution as called for by specific situations. Second, both processes are well established and frequently used by the Army. Third, both decision-making capabilities are developed by Army personnel through practice and training. Fourth, both capabilities are applied according to the demands of specific situations. Fifth, both capabilities involve a number of steps to arrive at a decision suited to the nature and demands of the situation at hand.

The Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process involves five basic steps. The first two may be performed in any order, while the remaining three are performed interactively until an acceptable course of action is developed. The first step is to compare the current situation to the order.

Steps of the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process

This step involves commanders identifying the likely variances during the planning stage. Options are then identified to match each potential variance, and these options are carried out when the variances occur. During execution, the current situation is compared to the anticipated variances, and an appropriate option is matched to it.

The second step, which may occur concurrently with the first, is to determine the type of decision required. During this step, the identified variance is followed by directing action. This task is handled by the commander, while the chief of operations works with the other chiefs to quickly compare the current situation with the expected situation in terms of opportunities or threats. If intervention is deemed necessary, the appropriate action is implemented either by the chiefs themselves or by commanders, depending on the nature of the action required. Comparisons are continually made to determine variances; hence these steps may run in any order and at times concurrently.

Step three is to develop a course of action. This involves screening a number of possible courses of action according to factors such as the mission, the commander's intent, current dispositions and freedom of action, Commander's Critical Information Requirements (CCIRs), and limiting factors such as supplies, boundaries, and combat strength.

Step four is to refine and validate the course of action. The proposed course of action is analyzed according to criteria that include its feasibility, suitability, and acceptability. It is then refined to meet the mission's requirements in terms of the mission and combat power. This step occurs very quickly, as it is often performed under strict time constraints.

The fifth and final step is to implement. Implementation is recommended by the Executive Officer (XO) to the commander, or proceeds directly according to the delegation of duties. These final three steps are integrated and repeated until mission stability is achieved or until no further courses of action are required. Synchronization, responsiveness, and timeliness are critically important during this final implementation step.

The most obvious contrast between the two models is the number of steps required to reach final implementation: the Army Problem Solving Model consists of seven steps, while the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process involves only five.

A second contrast is that the Rapid method often integrates and repeats steps, whereas the Army Problem Solving Model tends to proceed sequentially.

Key Contrasts Between the Two Models

Third, the Army Problem Solving process takes time to search for the optimal solution by comparing a variety of possible solutions. The Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process, in contrast, searches for solutions that can be implemented as quickly as possible, deliberately avoiding time-intensive requirements such as decision criteria development and formal comparisons.

A fourth contrast is that the Rapid model is better suited to situations requiring quick situational understanding in combat environments. The Army Problem Solving Model, on the other hand, is more appropriate for complex situations where a viable solution is not immediately apparent.

Finally, the situations addressed by the Rapid model tend to be highly unstable, requiring rapid and flexible decision-making. The Army Problem Solving Model, by contrast, is designed for more static processes where deliberate analysis is feasible.