Post on 17-Jan-2016
Games and Guided Discussions
CDR Phil PournelleDr. Yuna Wong
2
Agenda
• Renewed DoD Interest in Wargaming• What is DoD “Wargaming”?• Differences in Games vs. Guided Discussions• Professionalizing Guided Discussions• Professionalizing Gaming• Recommendations
3
Renewed Interest in Wargaming
• Senior leader interest– SECDEF memo on the DII (Nov 2014)– DEPSECDEF memo (Feb 2015)– SECNAV memo (May 2015)
• Bottom-up interest– MORS Wargaming CoP– Connections wargaming conferences– Demand for education
4
But What Does DoD Mean by “Wargaming”?
• DoD uses the term “wargaming” to cover many types of events
• Many of these activities are facilitated group discussions but not “games”
• Both facilitated group discussions and games are useful to DoD but have:– Different purposes– Different mechanics– Different design considerations
5
DoD “Wargaming” vs. Gaming
Title X Game
TTX
Planning/ StaffEx
DOTMLPF Gap Discussion
Seminar Discussion
COA Wargames
Role Playing Games
Peace Games
Pol-Mil Games
Sand Table Exercises
20XX Games
Rainbow Plans
Board Games
Smart Phone & Tablet Games
Card Games
Social Media Games
DoD “Wargames” Gaming
Wargames as defined by Peter Perla
6
Games vs. Guided Discussions
1. Historic differences2. Philosophical differences3. Mechanical differences4. Product differences
7
1. Historic DifferencesGames Guided Discussions
Intellectual origins ChessKriegsspielCommercial games
Planning processAcademic seminarsDOTMLPF gap lists
Champions War CollegesAmateur gamersTactical trainersCollege professors
Joint StaffSystems analysisServices at top level
Wargamer “skillset”(legitimizing background)
Avid board gamerMinatures wargamerPolitical scientists (some)
Military plannersNovice facilitatorsComputer modelersPolitical scientists (other)
Examples Schelling nuclear gamesONA 20XX gamesSandtable exercise
Title 10 gamesGap list validation “games”Staff exercises (planning)
Current DoD standing Minority view of wargames? Dominant paradigm?
8
2. Philosophical DifferencesGames Guided Discussions
Path dependence Path-dependent on specific adjudication outcomes (not predictable)
Result path-dependent on scripted scenario or discussion agenda
Participant perspective Is a player actively taking on a role
Is a subject matter expert (SME) who is discussing their area of expertise
Goal of Participant Win the game Raise meaningful issues
Goal of Sponsor TrainingDiagnose competitionInform decisions
Identify contributing factorsProduce planning productsIdentify generalized gapsAlign participants
Validity Difficult to align with science-based concepts of experimental validity
Comments by participants “validate” issues & gaps
Overall focus Emergent interaction between opposing sides
Blue processes and organizational issues
9
3. Mechanical DifferencesElements Games Guided Discussions
How the events progress Adjudicated events Discussion agenda
Scenario Is the departure point Is the scripted backdrop of the entire discussion
White Cell/Facilitator Determines consequences of player actions
Guides discussionMay give planning guidance
Red Cell Is an active player with equal ability to shape the outcome as the Blue Cell
May not existOften not an equal or active player
Design Can be similar to board games, turn-based games
Can be similar to DoD planning process or a political science seminar discussion group
Probability May be a key mechanical element (frequentist)
Is never an element
10
4. Product DifferencesElements Games Guided Discussions
Overall output Synthetic history and path-dependent outcome
Planning details, coordination issues, implementation issues;thorough but usually mostly one sided
Hypothesis generation Dialectic with two sides presenting opposing; hypothesis in fully constructed form (orders)
Only one thesis is complete in form but may be more detailed
Diagnosis of competitive environment
Exploration of possible actions by competitive factions
Explorations of potential factors on competitive environment (technological developments, etc.)
Red activity Coherent and adaptive behavior that emerges from the game play
No new red activity: scripted or static and pre-defined by the scenario
11
How Should We Understand Differences?
• Organizational purposes?• As part of a larger set of processes?• Types of cognitive tasks being asked of
participants?• Identifiable points of divergent versus
convergent thought?• First person role-playing (imaginative play)
versus drawing upon expert knowledge?
12
Commonalities Across Both Games and Guided Discussions
• Participant input as a primary element– Otherwise it’s a study or model– Heterogeneity between events
• Participant “quality” and level of engagement is key!– Bad events merely “beat the data” out of SMEs– Marginalized participants are a sign of issues
• Human behavior, perceptions, beliefs, interactions are at the heart
13
Joint Planning Process• Planning Initiation• Mission Analysis
– Red threat (including Centers of Gravity)• COA Development
– Enemy Courses of Action: Most Likely, Most Dangerous, Strengths and Weaknesses• COA Analysis
– Action, Counter-Action, Reaction– “The most sophisticated form of wargaming is computer-aided modeling and
simulation.” (JP-5, IV-28)– “The red cell is normally composed of personnel from the joint force J-2 staff and
when available they may be augmented by other subject experts.” (JP-5, IV-33). J-2 Staff have a stake in the COA development process.
• COA Comparison• COA Approval• Plan/Order Development
14
Joint Planning Process
• Origin in General Eisenhower Headquarters– Perhaps earlier in Napoleonic HQ organization
• Product/Process oriented• Based on Operational Art and historic examples• Mission Analysis dominated by higher HQ
mission statement• Not designed to diagnose the competitive
environment
15
Current State of theDoD Wargaming Community
• Community is largely self taught• “Tribes” centered around individual
techniques, often in isolation from one another and other closely related fields
• Groups often do not find approaches from other groups to be legitimate
• Little formal or continuing education• Little in the way of formal theory about
gaming or guided discussions
16
Facilitation in Wargaming
• DoD “wargame facilitators” are self-identified and have an uneven level of skill
• International Association of Facilitators (IAF)– Has accepted professional standards– Certification in facilitation with core competencies– Distinguish between process and context– Database of 500+ facilitation methods
• Other facilitated methods: PSMs, SATs, etc.
17
IAF Methods Database
18
IAF Methods Database
19
Structured Analytic Techniques
20
Red Teaming & Liberating Structures
21
Professionalizing Guided Discussions
• Formalization of facilitation skills– More training and certification– Deliberate identification of core competencies
• Conscious methods– Problem structuring methods– Structured analytic techniques– Red teaming/liberating structures– Combining methods into overall research design
• Formal data analysis methods
22
Professionalizing Gaming
• Formal facilitation methods• Incorporation of interdisciplinary research
designs and methods currently lacking– Theories of learning and empirical methods of
studying learning (education)– Positive and negative small group dynamics
(industrial/organization/small group psychology)• Formal data analysis methods consistent with
prevailing standards of research in other fields• Add structured methods to hot washes
23
Synthesis of Methods
• Research design can incorporate good combinations of methods
• Examples of research designs:– Realistic red & blue planning (JP 5.0) + wargame
with equal standing + structured brain storming improved planning and wargames and WFF issues
– Seminar discussion + scenario development method + seminar wargame w/ narrative analysis + structured analytic technique in hot wash enhanced exploration of an emerging topic
24
Current State of the DoD Wargaming Community
• Participants in DoD wargaming largely self taught• Many tribes which matches the many purposes
of games, many isolated from work elsewhere• Development of skillsets– Game or event design– Facilitation– Formal analysis methods
• Theoretical development of the field• Professional, continuing, formal education
25
Recommendations
1) Professionalize both guided discussions and gaming by improving quality of facilitation and structured methods
2) Draw on known small group theory and formal research methods to be systematic in analysis and ability to see empirical markers of good games and guided discussions
3) Education: continue with PME, CoPs, continuing ed, wargaming classes in existing programs, and formal degree programs