Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Operations planning revisited: theoretical and practical implications of methodology
Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy. Department of War Studies, SEDU Swedish Defence University.
2016 (English)In: Defence Studies, ISSN 1470-2436, E-ISSN 1743-9698, Vol. 16, no 3, 248-269 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Parts of NATO’s contemporary planning framework called the comprehensive operations planning directive (COPD), and parts of the operation-level planning process should be revised since they suffer from methodological inconsistency. This claim is defended by discussing contradicting methodological properties and heuristics applied when framing and managing a military problem in accordance with the COPD. The methodological inconsistency within the COPD; in other words, simultaneously applying contradictory methodological properties, implies one theoretical and three practical implications. The theoretical implication is summarised in a meta-theoretical framework and explained by discussing five methodological properties: non-linearity, emergence, independently changeable generalisations, invariance and boundaries. The three practical implications of methodology imply that methodology is guiding: the problem-frame, conceptual development and action. To improve military planners’ understanding and management of these four identified implications, NATO is recommended to develop a “handbook of methodology.” The purpose of such a handbook should be to emphasise the utility of methodology when planning military operations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2016. Vol. 16, no 3, 248-269 p.
Keyword [en]
causalist approach, complexity, COPD, methodology, Operations planning, systemic approach
National Category
Business Administration Computational Mathematics Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Environmental Analysis and Construction Information Technology Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-197183DOI: 10.1080/14702436.2016.1187567ScopusID: 2-s2.0-84973140766OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-197183DiVA: diva2:1055683
Note

QC 20161213

Available from: 2016-12-13 Created: 2016-11-30 Last updated: 2017-03-31Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Military Operations Planning and Methodology: Thoughts on military problem-solving
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Military Operations Planning and Methodology: Thoughts on military problem-solving
2017 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This thesis discusses military operations planning and methodology by reviewing two of NATO’s planning documents, i.e. the ‘Allied Joint Doctrine for Operational-Level Planning’ (AJP 5) and the ‘Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive’ (COPD), and defends the following claim.

Parts of the description of NATO’s Operational-Level Planning Process (OLPP), as described in the AJP 5 and the COPD, is methodologically inconsistent (contradictory), due to epistemic and practical implications of methodology.

As such, the thesis discusses three topics: approaches to Operational Art, planning heuristics and implications of methodology. The thesis also intertwines military operations planning, methodology and military problem-solving.

This thesis consists of two published papers and an introduction. The introduction explains and further discusses operations planning as well as terms and concepts stated within the two papers.

Paper I focuses on the AJP 5 and discusses the methodological distinction between two approaches within Operational Art, denoted the ‘Design’ and the ‘Systemic’ approach. The distinction between these approaches is vague and paper I states one epistemic and one practical implication of methodology.

Paper II focuses on the COPD and discusses two specific planning heuristics. The first relates to the Systemic approach and the second heuristic relates to the third approach denoted the ‘Causalist’ approach within Operational Art. A methodological contradiction exists between these specific heuristics and paper II states one epistemic and three practical implications of methodology.

Briefly, this thesis implies that parts of NATO’s description of the OLPP suffers from a methodological contradiction. Hence, a suggestion is to revise parts of the AJP 5 and the COPD. The thesis also suggest the development of a “NATO handbook of methodology” to better explain methodological implications on military operations planning and the “how to” of military problem-solving.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2017. 81 p.
Series
Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1650-8831 ; 58
Keyword
Military operations planning, methodology, problem solving, military decision-making, approaches to Operational Art, planning heuristics, AJP 5, COPD.
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-204854 (URN)978-91-7729-336-1 (ISBN)
Presentation
2017-04-25, abe_deansoffice_konferensrum (nr 1414), Teknikringen 74 D, (4 tr. med hiss), Stockholm, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

QC 20170403

Available from: 2017-04-03 Created: 2017-03-31 Last updated: 2017-04-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Erdeniz, Robert
By organisation
Philosophy
In the same journal
Defence Studies
Business AdministrationComputational MathematicsSocial Sciences InterdisciplinaryEnvironmental Analysis and Construction Information TechnologyPhilosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 24 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf