Wargaming: MDMP Process & Tasks for Staff, Facilitation as OSM - Essay Sample

Introduction

Question: Describe and explain the process and tasks required for staff to conduct Wargaming and how you envision facilitating this process as an Operation Sergeant Major.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Military Decision Making Process (MDMP)

MDMP is an iterative method of preparation for understanding the mission and the situation, developing a course of action (COA), and by producing and operation order or plan (ADP5-0). MDMP assists leaders to apply diligence, transparency, sound decisions, lucidity, and understanding of situations by using professional knowledge, forming of options for solving issues, and reaching to a decision. The process is vital to commanders, staffs, and those who think critically and in a creative way when planning. The three recommended methods that exist are avenue-in-depth, belt, and box. "Every process deliberates the interest area, and all forces of the enemy can operate. Organizers may use the process independently, in combination, or adjusted for enduring operations conquered by stability" (Rivera, S.M. J. A., 2011).

The Belt Method

It divides the operation areas into belts that run the width of the operational area. 'Each belt shape depends on the factors of mission, enemy, terrain, and weather, troops and support availability, time availability, and civil considerations (METT-TC).' This method works very well when handling tasks that are offensive and defensive on landscape separated into distinct cross-partitions. In phased operations like slit crossings, air attacks, and or when the enemy positioned in a well-defined belt of strata. Belts can be close to one another or correspondence.

This method does create an analysis of occasions that are sequential to every belt. Commanders best prefer this method because its focus is simultaneously on all forces that create an impact on a particular event. A belt may involve many critical functions. The commander can use the belt method that amended under time-constrained environments. The improved method of belt divides the operation areas into three or fewer endless belts. The belts are not primarily nearby or overlying, but its focus is on the critical actions throughout the depth of the operational area.

The Avenue-In-Depth-Method

This method puts its focus on approaching one avenue at a given period, starting with the decisive operation. The technique is crucial to offensive Course of Actions (COAs) or in the protective once channeling landscape obstructs joint sustenance.

The Box Method

It is a detailed analysis of an area that is critical, like an engaged are, a crossing site that is wet, or a landing zone. This method performs best during a reserved environment, like a swift attack. This method does best applied during the planning of operations in noncontiguous operation areas. When the box method does use, there is the isolation of staff and focus on critical occasions in it. There usually are assumptions that are made by staff members that friendly units may tackle most circumstances in an operation area, and its focus to be on the consideration of essential tasks.

War-Gaming Process

War-gaming is a disciplined process that has rules and steps that tries to configure the flow of the operation, provided with the strength of forces and dispositions, threats, capabilities, and possible COAs, effect, and requirements of civilians in the area of operations and another aspect of the situation (Field Manual (FM) 6-0, 2014). This system does best considered in a holistic life cycle. The intention is giving sponsors and game director enough insight to make sure that a successive wargame team has an essential proficiency for designing and delivering in a wargame. Resources and constraints in practice should be measured when designing wargame and execution to be primarily driven by either educational or analytical aims. The wargame process comprised of five-steps. Namely: design, develop, execute, validate, and refine steps.

Step 1: Design

The advice from McHugh, (1966) that, "wargames have to point to either a training or analytical purpose, but the dual benefit will ensue." The typical design steps for training and analysis of wargames have the following examples. Firstly, specifying the aim when training and also analyzing the aim to be determined and training objectives. Secondly, when training, the outputs were identified and how they will be used and integrated and when analyzing the identification of how the outputs got combined when analysis does get done. Thirdly, identifying the individuals to be trained, their responsibilities, and decisions will be essential for them to decide and to analyze by identifying the subjects, critical elements in line with these, and other variables. Also, determining the desired effects on the activities required and analyzing how the determined subjects to create these. Lastly, determining the setting, scenario and types, levels, and sources of information.

This step usually involves a previous wargame design meeting. 'North Atlantic Treaty Organization' (NATO) direction that denotes this as an 'Exercise Specification' (EXSPEC) conference (Smith Windsor, B., 2013). These are to handled very early when planning the overall activity that wargamers will back. The design can be significant to the war-gamer committee; therefore, there should be a restriction of attendance up to the least numbers needed. There is a high demand from a NATO EXSPEC conference in terms of attendees (Goldgeier, James. M. 2010).

There is a typical dependence of the schedule on the design step. When the designer of wargame has to help, then it is the role of the sponsor to provide clear goals, purpose, and theme of the entire wargame design. The results of this step must be an approved and documented set of activities and their validation. This then becomes a program of all activities developed and providing a fixed reference point of emerging issues. This design is an iterative process, and the results must do reexamined.

The scoping of the earlier war-gamers. There should be an allocation of properties of the wargame team for identification and speaking to organizations that have handled war-gams like the ones that are doing considered. This is related directly to the 'validate' and 'refine' steps from the earlier games that must identify the wargaming trainings for future use by the wargame teams. This kind of commitment can take place before even the design step begins in intense.

Step 2: Develop

In this step, the wargame team has appropriate assistance, either as a group or person to fulfill the actions from the step of the design. The examples of tasks in this step are the following.

Firstly, setting a set-up. Developing a scenario, an effort needed like mapping, whether it is physical or digital, can be substantial. The six elements exhausted in the NATO instruction gives a better guideline, even to a smaller wargame (Goldgeier, James. M., 2010). When using the main occasion list, and the leading incidents list is standard, avoidance of pre-scripting is well observed in the narrative of wargame.

Secondly, using Adjudication Methods. These methods have preferably been drawn from present and confirmed plans, but the need for new tools and systems may happen.

Thirdly, the use of wargame processes. The wargame success and failure rely on the use of strict and robust procedures, regardless of the needed knowledge to use.

Analysis of plan and another supporting process. This task has to exist for both the analytical and the training war-gamers.

The plan of capturing data. This gets usually resulted from, and backings, and analyzing the project.

I am using the simulation. This may be original or modified from the existing one. Significant determinations might be needed to organize, populate, and to set up the simulation physically.

The performers and subsidiary staff. The entire wargame can overturn when the unmanned performers' cells or absence of subject matter professional roles.

Lastly, the location and design application. There can be variation from a single table to the delivered multinational venues within which the wargame takes place in the physical space. Whereas this must get verbalized by the design and the development process of wargame, it is usually that locations will be determined and may act as a limitation on the design of wargame.

There is a typical requirement of some developmental meetings, workspaces, and seminars. They are large, e.g., series of initial, significant and last scheduling meetings used by NATO, but required for smaller war-gamers. The results of the planned step must form the developmental meeting's agenda to reviewed as an essential agenda tool.

One or more test exercise is an essential component of development. Since it is critical to delivering all war-gamers successfully, a cascade of occasions, interleaved with the current work of development, is commonplace and may involve the following.

Firstly, the use of an internal playing test. It usually restricted to the team of war-gamer. Its aim focuses on the progress of the primary development tool like adjudication techniques, processes, the setting, capturing of data, and planning analysis.

Secondly, the use of an integrated test. Its goal is to evaluate if the wargame techniques incorporate to the required extent of promptness and easiness. It is a good chance when the sponsor and game director are involved in approving that the war-gamer has a target to accomplish the goals set.

Lastly, the use of the text exercise. It aims to forcefully examine all wargame settings to make sure that they are appropriate for a specific goal when all the components, i.e., briefings, process, and technology, are to be tested. The sponsor and the game director representatives should be available.

The use of rehearsal. It is different from the TESTEX because it is needed just before the real wargame, with the supporting staff that is enough and the performer representatives. There are no issues that arise, but it primarily confirms the technology and processes for a wargame to be successful.

The outcome. The favorite result from the step of development, and a playing test cascade, in particular, the sponsor, game director, and staff members of wargame should be confident for wargame set-up, performed with a complete performer subject. The prerequisite outputs are delivered to meet the general purpose.

Step 3: Execute

Execution is what distinguishes wargame from a planned exercise. This is where the plans are endorsed, and performers face the repercussions of the antagonists' decision. There is an internalization of lessons and experimentation. Innovative results emerge, and questions of "what if?" are asked. The experience of players command activity as much as it can be outside the actual tasks, hostile impacts, and agility established.

The diversification of war-gamers that leads from combining variations and measures of contexts to be executed. Execution is a modified task that varies considerably from one wargame to another. It should get assigned to a suitable staff, experienced and knowledgeable wargame team. However, corporate events are as follows. Conducting the simulation and systems set that can lie from a map on a table to associated and dispersed computer systems, conducting simulation required training use, conducting pre-war-gamer and the start of wargame briefings for staff control and all performers, capturing the data and analysis of the wargame which some analysis may occur during and after the execution, conducting the review of after-action which can happen when they get not restricted to a particular end of wargame, and collection and collation of lessons identified during the entire use of 'validate and refine' steps (Bruvoli et al., 2015).

Step 4: Validate

Valida...