Operational Art, Design and the Center of Gravity Pt. 4 of 4

Share

Summary

This video, part four of a series, details a methodology for identifying the center of gravity (COG) in military planning. It emphasizes using a systems perspective based on ends, ways, and means to determine the COG, and introduces the 'does and uses' test for validation, contrasting it with common doctrinal approaches. The video also discusses when to identify friendly and enemy COGs within the operational design process and how this analysis frameworks a concept of operations.

Highlights

Identifying the Center of Gravity: A Methodology
00:00:00

Joint doctrine, specifically JP5-0 and JP 2-01.3, refers to visualizing and analyzing a system to determine its center of gravity (COG). This video proposes a method using a systems perspective and the strategic framework of Ends, Ways, and Means. It involves answering three questions: what is the end state (goal), what are the ways to achieve it, and what are the means required to execute those ways. The COG is identified as the item that inherently possesses the critical capability to execute the chosen way.

Critical Factors: Capabilities, Requirements, and Vulnerabilities
00:03:51

The COG is supported by critical factors: Critical Capabilities (CC) are the primary actions (verbs) that achieve the goal; Critical Requirements (CR) are the things (nouns) a COG must have to execute the CC; and Critical Vulnerabilities (CV) are sub-elements of CRs that are susceptible to exploitation. This construct reinforces the logical hierarchy of the Ends, Ways, and Means relationship for COG identification.

Validating the Center of Gravity: The 'Does and Uses' Test
00:06:22

The 'does and uses' test is introduced as a validation method for COG selection, complementing the Ends, Ways, and Means approach. This test, also known as the supported and support test, helps separate the COG from its requirements. Doctrine's validation method relies on war-gaming, which occurs much later in the planning process and may not truly validate the COG itself but rather the exploitation of a critical vulnerability or requirement. An example of a railroad system is used to illustrate the 'does and uses' test, highlighting that the locomotive is the COG because it 'does' the moving, while fuel, tracks, and cars are 'used' by it and are therefore critical requirements.

When to Identify the Center of Gravity
00:10:58

The video clarifies that enemy COGs are identified during the problem identification step of operational design, conceptualizing the problem as the adversary's system. Friendly COGs are identified later during the operational approach step, once critical capabilities needed for the solution are determined. This sequence ensures that the problem and its COG are understood before a solution is formulated.

Integrating COG Analysis into Operations
00:13:17

The COG and its critical factors provide a framework for outlining a concept of operations. Attacking or defending critical vulnerabilities can become objectives or missions. Critical requirements and vulnerabilities can also be decisive points, suggesting lines of operation or lines of effort, and their sequencing can inform phasing. A graphic illustrates how the system's goal (ends) leads to critical capabilities (ways), then to the COG (means), and subsequently to critical requirements and vulnerabilities. These elements are then used by planners to identify decisive points, tasks, objectives, or missions, ultimately forming the operational approach or campaign plan.

Recently Summarized Articles

Loading...