When I read the CPG I get the feeling that the Commandant sounds like a “used car salesman” instead of a leader of a war fighting organization. As the Commandant shouts “full speed ahead” with 2030 Design, I have to wonder where is the “Risk Analysis”? At the start of the 2030 Design transformation, we did hear the justification by “wargame”, however, a wargame is not a risk analysis.
When I retired and moved into the civilian job market I learned that the business world is better than the military at risk analysis. Normally, it is a formal systematic process and a documented requirement conducted by management and the project team. The key components of a Risk Analysis are:
Identification: Recognizing potential risks that could affect the objectives.
Assessment: Evaluating the likelihood and potential impact of these risks.
Mitigation: Developing strategies to manage or reduce the identified risks.
Monitoring: Continuously tracking and reviewing risks to ensure they are effectively managed.
Taking the lost tank battalions and towed artillery for example, the Commandant needs to identify, in all potential combat operations, the potential risks of no tanks and the reduction in tubed artillery. In the assessment phase, the risks potential likelihood and impacts on combat operations are evaluated. The “strategies” to manage and reduce the combat risks are then developed. (BTW I get the feeling that “strategy” is not the Commandant’s strength). Of course, the risks have to be tracked and reviewed.
The Commandant needs to drop the “used car routine” and start a risk analysis on his 2030 Design project. In addition, our political leaders in Congress and the Senate need to ask the Commandant for his 2030 Design “Risk Analysis” or they can always conduct their own risk analysis.
When I read the CPG I get the feeling that the Commandant sounds like a “used car salesman” instead of a leader of a war fighting organization. As the Commandant shouts “full speed ahead” with 2030 Design, I have to wonder where is the “Risk Analysis”? At the start of the 2030 Design transformation, we did hear the justification by “wargame”, however, a wargame is not a risk analysis.
When I retired and moved into the civilian job market I learned that the business world is better than the military at risk analysis. Normally, it is a formal systematic process and a documented requirement conducted by management and the project team. The key components of a Risk Analysis are:
Identification: Recognizing potential risks that could affect the objectives.
Assessment: Evaluating the likelihood and potential impact of these risks.
Mitigation: Developing strategies to manage or reduce the identified risks.
Monitoring: Continuously tracking and reviewing risks to ensure they are effectively managed.
Taking the lost tank battalions and towed artillery for example, the Commandant needs to identify, in all potential combat operations, the potential risks of no tanks and the reduction in tubed artillery. In the assessment phase, the risks potential likelihood and impacts on combat operations are evaluated. The “strategies” to manage and reduce the combat risks are then developed. (BTW I get the feeling that “strategy” is not the Commandant’s strength). Of course, the risks have to be tracked and reviewed.
The Commandant needs to drop the “used car routine” and start a risk analysis on his 2030 Design project. In addition, our political leaders in Congress and the Senate need to ask the Commandant for his 2030 Design “Risk Analysis” or they can always conduct their own risk analysis.