This monograph began as an investigation to determine if either Effects-Based Operations (EBO) or Systemic Operational Design (SOD) should replace the traditional Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP). It soon became clear that the approaches do not accomplish the same functions, are not applicable at the same levels, and are not mutually exclusive. The Military Decision-Making Process originated as a tactical decision-making process, and remains the most appropriate of the three approaches at that level. It deals with the physical threat on the ground with a decisiveness enabled by an organization of hierarchical authority. Effects-Based Operations is suitable only at the operational level. It takes the time to model the threat as a holistic system and contemplates the desired behavior changes various actions on that system would produce. It exceeds the physical realm of the tactical and explicitly translates strategic directives into tactical effects. Systemic Operational Design is a holistic approach that introduces the discrete element of design in order to inform planning. It is abstract and conceptual. It creates a cognitive map and continually updates it by the learning that occurs through action. Fusing Systemic Operational Design with the Military Decision-Making Process might be the best way ahead for operational planning and design.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.