Last week, a blog post by an Army strategist appeared on The Bridge (a
marvelous blog that I highly recommend to military professionals of all
stripes) that posed the following question:
"How would you define the art and science of our profession in one
tweet?"
In this case "our profession" referred to the profession of
arms, and the author put forward a compact solution with an attendant
explication of his reasons that answered the challenge nicely. There is, I
think, more than a little value in an effort like this one, and cutting away
the chaff and getting to the heart of who we are, what we do, and why we do it
is more than just an interesting intellectual exercise. If done well, it provides
a clear and memorable vision that communicates to those on the outside what we
do and to those on the inside why and how we do it (whatever "it"
might be), in this way creating a professional community centered on the
vision. This clarity of vision then has any number of second-order effects on
prioritization, training, recruiting, etc., and the effort to create it can pay
incredible dividends.
As a member of more than one professional community, though, this line
of thinking led me to wonder, "How would you define the art and science of
our military analytic profession in one tweet?" I frequently use the phrasing below when discussing the career field among the analysts with whom I work, though I can't claim credit for its composition. Those who know Mike Payne will recognize it and have likely been part of the ongoing conversation that led to it, but the words are his:
"Analysts learn how things work and explain it to others, usually
in relation to other things and often quantitatively."
This definition (with 22 characters to spare) captures several critical
characteristics of the analytic profession.
- It is general. In many cases, we don't have the luxury to consider ourselves as ISR analysts, force structure analysts, operational assessment analysts, etc. Rather, our particular skills will be applied to whatever question is relevant to leadership.
- Learning how things work is interesting as a standalone activity, but productive of nothing. Communicating the things we learn to those responsible for making decisions is a critical element of who we are as a community.
- Not all analysis is quantitative. There are some tools available to the community of military operations research professionals (mathematical, simulation, etc.) that are in some sense unique, but these are not a sine qua non for analysis. Consider, for example, the analysis given by Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow in their iconic book Essence of Decision. Nary an equation is to be found, but it's difficult to dispute that they are seeking to understand a system and explain it to others who will make decisions. Analysis is something done by analysts, and it is independent of the tools used (except for tool between the analyst's ears).
- The systems we study are not isolated, and understanding how they are coupled to other systems is vitally important, both to understand the constraints and restraints imposed by the environment and to illuminate non-proximate effects that may result from changes in the system under investigation.
- It's worth noting what this definition does not do. The word "answer" does not appear, for example. Most questions of interest, do not have clean and precise answers, for example, or they have multiple answers that each have merits making them equally palatable but qualitatively different. So, it is generally not possible for analysis of an interesting problem to produce a single, incontrovertibly trues, and perfectly optimal answer. Thus, we explain to senior leaders how the system works to help them better understand the decision space before them, but we rarely provide answers and to chase these chimerae is ... problematic.
Merf
PS ... There's a fairly robust discussion of this question on Facebook among some of the participants in this thread. You can find it here.
Struggling with the use of the word things. Seems lacking in specificity for no reason. At first I hesitated to use the word system but the more appropriate it sounds. Also felt the decision maker and the interconnected nature of these decisions is not highlighted. How about "Analysts learn how systems work, often quantitatively; explain them to people who make decisions, highlighting interconnected contexts"
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great alternative, Chris! I think you're probably right that including the decision maker explicitly is worthwhile (since they are ultimately the people to whom we explain things). Regarding interconnections, I thought they were pretty well captured in the original, but your notion of context is a good one, since context is changeable and affects explanations. It's funny you should mention "things" as a struggle. I struggle with system since that word carries a good deal of baggage in some contexts, and the colloquial informality of "things" appeals to me.
DeleteI think the reason Mike left it as "people" instead of something more specific is that analysts do not always explain how things work to decision makers -- they explain how things work to other analysts and laypeople. Good analysts (in my opinion) can explain how technical things work to those without a technical background, who may or may not be making a decision, i.e. the marketing department. Or the lawyers! I think the lack of specificity is intentional, though I agree with Chris that the two of us most often explain how systems work to decision makers.
DeleteAnalysts examine systems via some type of scientific process and communicate findings in order to aid in the making of informed decisions.
ReplyDeleteI like this, l especially the explicit inclusion of a decision support (because communication isn't the point; the point is instrumental communication) and the emphasis on "scientific process." I wonder if the doesn't tend to imply quantitative measures, though, and that implication would concern me (which is one of the reasons I like the very colloquial language in the original post).
DeleteSome great things to consider. Thanks!
Fun discussion, Merf. A few comments on and questions about the comments:
ReplyDelete1. "in relation to other things" is meant to capture at least two things: interactions, as noted, but also perhaps unconnected but important relationships such as relative scale. For example, one might explain the enormity of a high altitude airship by displaying a profile in relation to Yankee Stadium. I credit Kent Taylor with often highlighting the importance of showing relative scale/context.
2. "Others" is used, rather than something more specific like decision-makers, to highlight the important and more common experience of multiple actors in the decision process. Also, informing enough, or the right, people on a decision-maker's staff is sometimes sufficient; sometimes it's required to ensure a decision gets implemented even after the decision is made. It's been a long time since I've read Essence of Decision, but I think the authors make similar points. Further, analysis isn't always done for a decision-maker. Sometimes it's done to inform another analytic team. Sometimes it's done as research and published in a journal for the edification of the community.
3. Are all "things" "systems" on one scale or another?
4. Is "scientific process" sufficient to encompass processes such as deductive and inferential reasoning?
Mike--
DeleteYou identify a really interesting nuance in the concept of decision-makers. I think I might want to argue that irrespective of the individual(s) to whom we're explaining how things work, the end state is a decision of some kind, even if we're communicating a several degrees of separation from the decision or if the decision to be made has not yet materialized and our efforts are simply to shape understanding of the overall decision environment.
There's another idea here regarding decisions and those who make them. When you are working toward "informing enough, or the right, people on a decision-maker's staff" what is the purpose? To get them to make a decision. Each of the people with whom we communicate is, in fact, a decision-maker (though the scope of their decisions may be different). This, though, makes an argument to not distinguish between the various actors and to stick with "others."
Merf
Merf, I just learned the lesson of typing a reply before signing in -- it vanishes. In short, I agree and note I gave examples that didn't really get at what I meant. Take as an example Dan Hackman's STORM ISR brief. He learned how something works and explained it to others. If I look at it, it's analysis; but the people he briefed aren't decision-makers in the way the term is commonly used. Thoughts?
DeleteI think that's finally where I landed, Mike, though I communicated it badly. (I.e., "the people he briefed aren't decision-makers in the way the term is commonly used"). I do think it's important to recognize that we all make decisions. You decided whether to pursue Dan's (brilliant) line of inquiry. You decided whether it would be briefed to anyone else. But this is absolutely not what we typically mean by a decision-maker, and to use "decision-maker" in this way either 1) distorts the message or 2) precludes consideration of those incredibly important conversations we have as a community from being considered analysis. Either is a poor outcome ... and so I return to the original idea "explaining to others."
DeleteThere is also something in not trying to be too precise and/or prescriptive. Tim Booher gives the example of a motto or vision created by the makers of the movie "Speed." It was, "we're making 'Die hard' on a bus." It's not a perfect or precise analogy, but it works to concisely communicate to the crew and cast what is desired. James Muccio hands out "Are Your Lights On" to teach a similar lesson. Rather than listing all possible conditions and prescribing corresponding actions, the consultants simple ask a question to elicit the desired response. I learned a lot from those two.
ReplyDeleteAbso-freaking-lutely! Maybe some of the discussion above is an indication of the utility of this position, Mike. Perhaps a little ambiguity, appropriately placed, inspires the right kinds of reflection and the fruitful engagement that actually matters (for more reasons than just the content of the vision statement itself). If a statement like this leads to a rich or richer discussion with a junior analyst, bring me more imprecision.
DeleteTo continue this conversation, here's an interesting response to the challenge of defining the profession of arms. The author--"a PhD student at Kings College studying subsistence, logistics, and military culture in the American tradition, from the Revolutionary War to World War I"--takes the position that the military writ large does not comprise a profession. I think she confuses what we do with why we do it, but she has a fair point ... and it gets to the reason I asked for a similar summation for our own little professional world.
ReplyDeletehttps://medium.com/the-bridge/why-youre-not-professionals-9b6831073a13
This is reprinted from commentary on FB.
ReplyDeleteDK: Very nice Merf. I would consider adding "in context" after the word "work" as context is often an overriding factor and "in context" still keeps your tweet below the 140 character limitation.
Now, if you had written it as a Haiku...
EMM: Fair enough, Kupe. I think the "in relation to other things" covers your intent, but your modification would make that more explicit.
DK: Merf, I took the "in relation to other things" as in relation to the other players/actors/pieces/parts. My inclusion of context is intended to acknowledge that the relation to other things may change with context.
What are you, some kind of damn millennial or something? Just do as I say and fix the damn thing! (oops, sorry, wrong thread).
CM: Is this better? "Analysts learn how systems work, explain them to people who make decisions, usually in relation to other systems, often quantitatively"
CM: or this might be even better "Analysts learn how systems work, usually in relation to other systems, explain them to people who make decisions, often quantitatively"
CM: Hmm, the last might sound like the decisions are being made quantitatively which might be laughable.
EMM: You make a great point, Chris. I have long struggled with including the "decision-maker" component in the sentence, but I could never work it in artfully. You should post your ideas on the blog ... if the networks in snowy DC will allow it.
CM: How about "Analysts learn how systems work, often quantitatively; explain them to people who make decisions, highlighting interconnected contexts"
MP: Also posted to the blog, but since the discussion seems to be in two places: Fun discussion, Merf. A few comments on and questions about the comments:
1. "in relation to other things" is meant to capture at least two things: interactions, as noted, bu...See More
ReplyDeleteMP: There is also something in not trying to be too precise and/or prescriptive. Tim Booher gives the example of a motto or vision created by the makers of the movie "Speed." It was, "we're making 'Die hard' on a bus." It's not a perfect or precise analogy, but it works to concisely communicate to the crew and cast what is desired. James Muccio hands out "Are Your Lights On" to teach a similar lesson. Rather than listing all possible conditions and prescribing corresponding actions, the consultants simply ask a question to elicit the desired response. I learned a lot from those two.
EMM: Abso-freaking-lutely! Maybe some of the discussion above is an indication of the utility of this position, Mike. Perhaps a little ambiguity, appropriately placed, inspires the right kinds of reflection and the fruitful engagement that actually matters (for more reasons than just the content of the vision statement itself). If a statement like this leads to a rich or richer discussion with a junior analyst, bring me more imprecision.
Mooch: Nice Merf...and I fully agree...Fallows, however, is still a jack-a-lope...
EMM: An interesting response to this challenge of defining the profession of arms, the author takes the position that it isn't a profession. I think she confuses what we do with why we do it, but she has a fair point ... and it gets to the reason I asked for a similar summation for our own little professional world.
Why You’re Not #Professionals
This post was provided by Jill Sargent Russell, a PhD student at the King’s College London. Her dissertation...
MEDIUM.COM|BY THE BRIDGE
https://medium.com/the-bridge/why-youre-not-professionals-9b6831073a13
ReplyDeleteMooch: Merf, you're giving her way too much credit. The confusion is that the "profession of arms" is not something all of us in the military can claim. So we shouldn't claim it. I don't claim to be a warfighter. We get to claim the profession within our area of expertise. How many AFSCs do we have? I happen to be, and this is the first time I get to say this publicly, a Certified Analytic Professional. There are certainly war fighting commanders who get to claim they are in the execution of arms business, thus that is their profession...and we should define it as such. And speaking of the business side of arms, this might also extend to certain acquirer of arms and possibly builder of arms, but I'd have to give that more thought before I allow them into the profession of arms. My initial feeling is that I don't think so...the term should be reserved for those who lead and command the operational aspects of war. That is their profession.
J&S H: I will echo Mooch and say some of us are Operational but purely in Operational Support and while I would say mine isn't a "profession of arms" it damn sure is a profession.
MP: Wow, Merf … I have a few questions:
1. Her own bio, at the top of the article, which I presume she wrote, says this “Her professional background includes work in … professional military education and research.” What does professional qualify in the last clause? If it’s just education, isn’t
it in the wrong place? Shouldn’t it say military professional education, especially in an article arguing against applying the term professional to the military?
2. “As an academic, this lack of resolution does not create discomfort, as there is rarely a correct or final answer to much in the humanities and social sciences.” Why should I continue reading, if she is telling me she will not reach a correct or final answer?
3. “the former [hospital] encompasses far more work and effort beyond the terms of the medical profession” Couldn’t we just as easily say the medical profession encompasses far more work and effort beyond the terms of a hospital, depending on what we mean by “far more work”?
EMM: Mooch and James--
As soon as you agree that the profession of arms is something that not all of us in uniform can claim to aspire to, you're on the slope to Russell's position that there is no "profession of arms" that encompasses a large subset of of ...See More
EMM: PS...
Struggling with the relationship between this venue and Mooch's blog. The discussion above seems worth capturing, but doing so in Facebook is problematic. Any thoughts?
Merf