Network-centric operations: a need for adaptation and efficiency

Air & Space Power Journal, Spring, 2008 by Phillip G. Pattee

No reason exists for limiting the model of network-centric warfare to conflict since the physical world, information, cognitive processes, and social constructs apply equally well to other situations. Cebrowski and Garstka cite the example of Wal-Mart's shift to pointofsale scanners to track weekly store sales. By providing this information directly to suppliers, Wal-Mart eliminated the platform-centric purchasing department at each store, thus reducing operating costs and improving control over its stock. (9) Sharing information to reduce its sales cost below the industry average enabled Wal-Mart to exploit its already dominant position in the retail sector.

Nevertheless, adopting similar strategies for the military, as in the domains-of-conflict paradigm, creates a culture that needlessly limits the joint force to network with allies and others in the DOD to improve the military's ability to conduct warfare. In fact, instead of conceiving new methods of national security, network-centric warfare's central point simply entails translating an information advantage into a competitive advantage for military operations. (10) Continuing down this road will likely lead the military to more effective operations, but the payoff on investment for improved national security remains uncertain. The United States armed forces have had no peer since the breakup of the Soviet Union. (11) America has produced the finest military in the world by following simple rules. To reiterate, the military exists and organizes itself to deter aggression against the United States and to fight and win the nation's wars when deterrence fails. If we continue to view the military's purpose as deterring and winning wars, will that guarantee national security in an evolving security environment? When cebrowski and Garstka argued for network-centric warfare, they expected to incorporate the ideas and strategies used successfully by american businesses. One lesson from industry maintains that "dominance lies in making strategic choices appropriate to changing ecosystems" and, more to the point, that "simply pursuing operational effectiveness while adhering to an obsolete strategy is a formula for failure." (12)

Viewing the World as Complex Adaptive Systems

The shift from viewing actors as independent to viewing them as part of a continuously adapting ecosystem involves changing the way one thinks about the world. Every actor has the capability to interact in some fashion with its environment and with other actors. Groups of actors form populations, which, especially if the members act in concert, become actors in their own right. The way actors interact with the environment, other actors, or populations in pursuit of specific goals is a strategy. A pattern of interaction is a network. Actors and populations usually are part of multiple networks. Actors, their environment, patterns of interaction, and strategies compose a system whose properties emerge from the actions and interactions of the parts. Since components of the system change (i.e., new actors are born while others die; technologies can alter strategies and change the ability of actors to interact; actors vary their strategies; etc.), the system to which they belong changes continuously as well. (13) Sometimes change is slow and small--sometimes fast and furious.