Unfortunately, recent military Design doctrine, terminology, and current practices attempt to „salami slice‟ Design logic into the preferred traditional military methodology. Our Design doctrine does precisely this, and it makes complete sense that our military is frustrated with how to apply „doctrinal Design‟ in practice, education, and discourse. Perhaps the military might consider reversing this process — Small Wars Journal
Major Ben Zweibelson provides a critique of recent military efforts to apply design thinking. He notes the difference between military planning logic and design methodologies. Mjr. Zweibelson then offers some recommendations on how the military could revise their current system of logic in order to better address the increasing complexity of the 21st century.
1 Comment
"Design" doctrine is written with a capital D. While I have to admit that this orthographic quirk is not the only interesting thing about the article (and I have to confess that I skimmed). it is striking how what Mr. Zweibelson describes as "traditional military thinking" has parallels with the Modern attitude of reduction, and (what seems to be) his criticism mirrors post-modern attitudes.
Now, can the military be creative? God forbid we need more creativity in destruction.
Can the military adopt a "Design" system of logic? Perhaps, but if most soldiers become critical thinkers, the risk would be a "shot in the foot".
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.