Users of
Internet Explorer 6.x
or before should be aware
that this site works best in
Firefox (best choice) or
Internet Explorer 7.x.
Some helpful links:
 |
| IE 7 at Microsoft |
Disclaimers
Site
As discussed in Part 1 of this series, sequential design, also known as the Waterfall model, provides a framework for a 5GW campaign where the goal is focused, its requirements are known and fixed, and the timeframe for the 5GW operations is of a known length. If the 5GW effector is confronted with a goal that is broad in scope, with requirements that aren’t fully known or understood and may, in fact, be subject to change, then the Waterfall model is unlikely to be as effective. Iterative design, however, offers a great deal more utility.
As far as software design is concerned iterative design works much better than sequential design. As a result a number of design models have been created. Some of the best known of the iterative models are Rational Unified Process (RUP), Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM), Rapid Application Development (RAD), Agile and Spiral. Each model offers a slightly different process that addresses problems found in software design. Some of these refinements may also have application for 5GW iterative design but for the purposes of this discussion of 5GW I will use a basic iterative process as illustration.
Iterative design is essentially a method of developing a system that becomes incrementally more complex. Generally, it starts small with a core organization and a goal to be reached and, with each iteration, adds capability.
The basic iterative process follows this model:
Phase 1:
Initial Planning (Setting the Goal, Envisioning the Strategy, Creating / Organizing the Prototype)
Phase 2:
Operational Planning
Design
Analysis
Implementation
Phase 3:
Deployment or Launch
Phase 4:
Testing and Evaluation
The initial planning phase is the only part of the iterative process that occurs in isolation after the first operation is launched. After the launch of the first operation the iterative cycle runs in all phases simultaneously with new operations (iterations) launching as they become viable.
Initial Planning:
There are three key items that must be explored in the initial planning phase of an iterative design model for it to have utility in a 5GW campaign. The first item is to define the goal. Many times this will involve also defining the factors that influence the reaching of this goal. To put this process into a context, if Tom Barnett or another person or organization were creating a 5GW organization to ‘Shrink the Gap’, then Tom Barnett’s book The Pentagon’s New Map would be an example of this type of thinking. The second item in the initial planning phase is the creation of an overall plan for the 5GW campaign, an exploration of the possible domains that may be manipulated. For an example, again, I will reference Tom Barnett but this time his book A Blueprint for Action. Item number three is to plan the creation of the organization for the 5GW campaign to build around. This is the prototype for the 5GW campaign that will have the two-fold purpose of launching the first 5GW operation of the campaign and serving as the core upon which the campaign expands. I don’t have an example for this item, but I understand Dr. Barnett is going to be writing another book that might have something to do with a concept called Development in a Box…
Operational Planning:
Design:
Analysis:
Implementation:
In the sequential design model each of these steps are separate with the next step taken only after the previous step has been totally completed. In the iterative design model each of these happen simultaneously. Based on the vision and requirements laid down in the Initial Planning, the design and implementation of each operational plan is constantly analyzed and revised with better adaptability and flexibility than sequential design as a benefit of using a less rigorously defined set of requirements. When the design is robust enough to be considered effective it moves on to the launch phase. However, the planning, design, analysis and implementation continue adding capability and adding new operations as results of the 5GW campaign is fed back into the planning process.
Testing and Evaluation:
In many ways this is the most important aspect of the iterative design model because it, in effect, controls the progression of the next iteration of the campaign. Testing and evaluation take place simultaneously with the launch and operation of the 5GW campaign. It is here that it is determined what is working and what is not. Trends are established to show movement in relation to goals and requirements and as a result goals and requirements are expanded or tightened, created or discarded, to better focus effects and better shape the process that will take place in the next iteration.
The greatest utility in the iterative design process is its agility and flexibility. As the iterative 5GW organization grows it gains information and the ability to use that information in a number of ways and inside a number of domains that becomes larger and more effective with each iteration.
Posted by Arherring on Dec 12, 2006 05:20 PM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Laying the Foundations: Part 2 Iterative Design.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/48.
4 Comments
Interesting - and I am referring to both posts in this thread (Part I & II).
Remember, iterative software development came after waterfall due to shorter time constraints needing to be met to achieve a quicker time to market. In fact, parallel development was just beginning to take hold when iterative and then say, RUP, made both seem obsolete.
I believe that in 5GW, time is not necessarily a primary factor to drive the development of an attack, or prepare a battlefield, or define a theater of operations, for example. I do not foresee, say, al Quaida using an iterative model at all - they are definitely using waterfall or a slow parallel approach. And al Quaida is not a state run or sponsored military - per se (there is always a money trail, but lets stick to a head of state recognized by the U.N. running their operations). In fact, I’d posit that not one standing, state run, military is using anything but the waterfall method.
I submit that we have already been in a 5GW realm based upon a few catalysts in our recent past defining the end of 4GW.
Obviously my opinion, only … and my software development background may be jading my ability to grasp why the use of a development model works …
Then again, this is my first example and I need to become a bit more well versed in all of your posts (that means everyone that is commenting in your posts as well).
Fix4RSO
Thanks for the input! Not being a software guy myself hearing from somebody who is in that game brings an essential practicality borne of experience. Fell free to wade in whenever you feel the need. 5GW is emergent and the discussions we are having here give it shape every time somebody throws out an idea.
For example:
I find this very interesting because the way I had been thinking about it was the other way around, sequential design being appropriate to a limited time frame (being very focused) and iterative design over the longer term (growing larger like a snowball rolling downhill).
Waterfall and sequential are quite different, in my interpretation. If I understand how you see those forms of development processes, you believe these to be the same. However, sequential, if used in the manufacturing process context, is more akin to the Quality Assurance/Control function, found at the end of any development phase (test sample -> accept = complete || test sample -> reject = continue). True I may be too literal, but I think using a manufacturing “perspective” requires terms to be exacting - ‘cause they impart different things.
In any “manufacturing” process, serial and parallel are most often the historical first forms. Serial requires the _entire_ process to begin at requirements, go through design, cycle through implementation -> integration -> test -> bug fix -> release to customer -> maintenance, before being successful or complete. Parallel affords the advantage of compressing several time consuming functions like performing implementation in “modules” or components, integrating complementary items, entering test and bug fix while others are performing implementation on other components. All of this was borrowed from NASA et al (basically).
Iterative is even more, psycho! You plan ahead for the “goal” or objective or final requirements to be met, then break the whole thing down into smaller “chunks” (WBS - work breakdown structure) and then perform short-lived development cycles on each, allowing the opportunity to release to customer more “bleeding edge” products. In fact, Microsoft and Apple are great examples of iterative development process companies.
Love ‘em or leave ‘em, they definitely iterate - in their own way. :)
Forgot to mention it, you asked me (CGW did) when I’d get a chance to post my 5GW stuff. Well, I’ve started my first installment. So much to write, so little time … :) But, it is a beginning … I added the URL with this comment, or just go to my blog … http://Fix4RSO.com