Ivo PIKNER, Pavel ZUNA, Jan SPISAK, Vlastimil GALATIK

Military Operating
Concepts Development

SHOPMYBOOK

USA

2012
The views expressed in this Scientific Monograph are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Ministry
of Defense. Authors of this publication enjoy full academic freedom,
provided they do not disclose classified information, or misrepresent
official Czech Republic policy. Such academic freedom empowers them
to offer new and sometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of
further debate on key issues.

This publication is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited. To copy

otherwise, to republish or to post on to World Wide Web, requires prior official
permission from the authors.

4
 Military Operating
Concepts Development

Translation and stylistic revision:

Gerald Robert COHL
Jana COHLOVA

Editorial revision:
Ing. Jaroslav MRAZ
Doctrine Centre, Vyskov, Czech Republic
Cover Picture: Roland Rawen Havran

Reviewers:
Prof. Ing. Pavel NECAS, Ph.D. Col (R)
Armed Forces Academy of General Milan Rastislav Stefanik, Slovakia
Ing. Josef PROCHAZKA, Ph.D. LtCol (R)
Ministry of Defense, Czech Republic

This book represents a  partial outcome of the defense research project

“OPERKON  –  Operating Concepts of the Armed Forces of the Czech
Republic in the Joint Operations” (IS-VAV CEP – VUOFEM201001),
a  matter solved by the University of Defense with the support of the
Czech Republic Ministry of Defense.

Authors:
© Ing. Ivo PIKNER, Ph.D.
Ing. Pavel ZUNA, MSS., Ph.D.
Ing. Jan SPISAK
Ing. Vlastimil GALATIK, CSc.

Publisher: SHOPMYBOOK, Peleman Industries NV, Rijksweg 7,2870

Puurs, Belgium

Printed in: Belgium

ISBN: 978-16-1627-370-5

5
 Content

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 1
OPERATING CONCEPTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Essence of Military Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Typology of Military Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Institutional Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Functional Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Enabling (integrating) Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Operating Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Operating Concept’s Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Number and Structure of Potential Operating Concepts . . . . . . 24
Inputs for the Operating Concepts Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
National Security Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
National Defense Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Relevant International Strategic Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Security and Operational Environment Assessment . . . . . . . . . 27
Security Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Operational Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Relationship Between Security and Operational Environment . . . 29
Foreign Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The U. S. Military Concept System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
The United Kingdom Military Concept System . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
The French Military Concept System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Comparison of the Selected Operating Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Recommendations for the Concept Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Possible Structure of Operating Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

6
Chapter 2
OPERATING CONCEPTS AND DEFENSE PLANNING. . . . . . . . . . . 43
Defense Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Utilization of Operating Concepts in Defense Planning . . . . . . . 48
Operating Concepts and Modernization Process
of the Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Operating Concepts and Doctrines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Operating Concepts and their Relationship to the Departmental
Legal and Normative Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Chapter 3
DEVELOPMENT OF OPERATING CONCEPTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Operating Concept Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Operating Concept Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Operating Concept Development Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Operating Concept Development Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Competence and Responsibility in Managing of the Operating
Concepts Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Fundamentals of Operational Analysis in the Operating
Concept Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Reasoning in the Operating Concept Development Process . . . . . . . 70
Reasoning Development by Deduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Reasoning Development by Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Reasoning Development by Abduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Integrated Reasoning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
List of abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

7
 List of figures

Figure 1 Use of military tools under uncertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 2 Hierarchy of military concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 3 Joint Concept Family Relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 4 Underlying documents framework for the development
of the operating concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 5 Joint Operations Concepts (JOpsC) family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 6 Hierarchy of conceptual and doctrinal documents
in the French Armed Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 7 General scheme of the capability based planning
inside of defense planning process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 8 Operating concepts in the process of modernization
(acquisition) of the armed forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 9 Stages and contents of the concept development project . . . . . 59
Figure 10 Engagement and roles of the elements in the analytical
process of the operating concept development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figure 11 System of the reasoning process integration
in the operating concept development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 12 Analysis-synthesis model in the operating concept
development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

8
 Foreword

This book “Military Operating Concepts Development” is one of the

outcomes of the Defense Research Project, addressed by a  team of
authors from the Department of Lifelong Learning, Faculty of Economics
and Management, University of Defense. The Defense Research Project
“OPERKON – Operating Concepts of the Armed Forces of the Czech
Republic in Joint Operations” was supported by the Ministry of Defense
(MoD) of the Czech Republic. The objective of the project was to develop
a  methodology of the operating concepts development as documents
of a  long-term nature impacting the building and development of the
Armed Forces of the Czech Republic.

Based on the analysis of the concepts for employment of the armed

forces and the approaches to their development applied by selected
countries, the authors aimed to provide the readers the book discussing
the systemization of military concepts, their purpose, background and
project management development.

The book is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, Operating
Concepts, the authors discuss the essence of operating concepts, their typology
and structure. The managing inputs and background are very important for
the preparation of the operating concepts development. They are primarily
given by the national and international political and strategic documents.
Furthermore, it is necessary to define the situation and development trends
in the security and operational environment. Understanding the relationship
between the political strategic document, security and operational environment
and operating concepts is crucial for their successful development and use in
the process of building and developing the armed forces.

In the second chapter, Operating Concepts and Defense Planning, the

authors define the relationship between the operating concepts and the
defense planning process. They clarify the operating concept application
issues in the process of the armed forces development and the preparation
of doctrinal documents as well as relationship between the operating
concepts and official departmental acts and directives.

9
In the third chapter, Development of Operating Concepts, the authors
describe the project management behind the development and updating
of operating concepts. Nevertheless, the project management needs
to be understood both from the actual management of the concept
development perspective and from the competence and responsibility
of the organizational elements within the Department of Defense. This
chapter explains the operational analysis and research principles within the
development of operating concepts.

The target group of this book is primarily the management staff and
experts who are involved in the concepts development, either related
to the use of allocated resources (concepts of forces employment), their
internal function (functional concepts) or organization and building of
organizational entities (institutional concepts). The development of the
operating concepts is a complex process largely based on empiric research.
Therefore, this book may not, nor was it the intention of the authors,
cover all areas of this complex process. The specific procedures of the
concept development must be defined separately for each organizational
entity, based on its mission, objectives, personnel structure and internal
processes. The objective of this book is to provide a  basic overview of
the mission and operating concepts development in relation to the
management of building, development and the armed forces employment.

From the team of authors,

Ivo PIKNER

10
 Introduction

The primary objective of defense planners is to design and develop

military tools that may be applied quickly and efficiently in the entire
spectrum of possible scenarios and situations for protection and achieving
vital interests, while respecting real economic capabilities. The scenarios
assign different tasks for the military tools and thus require different
methods of use and capabilities of the armed forces. Simultaneously,
planning the design and development of the military tools for future use
may not disrupt the present preparation and readiness of these tools. The
planning situation descriptions, threat scenarios to vital interests and
future methods of military tool applications, with an outlook of 20 or
more years, are a necessity, resulting from the high requirements imposed
on resources necessary to develop the military tools and to prepare
a  country for these types of situations. Therefore, it is necessary to be
concerned with operating concepts. Using them we may predict, with an
acceptable level of probability, for which tasks and how we will use the
military tools. This will allow us to better allocate the available resources
for developing the military capabilities in the defense planning processes.

Description of the future

security environment

Uncertainty and courses of solution

Strategy for the Variants of Strategy for

Capabilities for
future without solution for influencing of
countering shocks
surprise possible partial the future
strategies

Figure 1 Use of military tools under uncertainty

(Johnson, p. 135)

Decision making about future operating capabilities based on developed

operating concepts concerns decision making under uncertainty. The
decision making methods under uncertainty are described in literature.
If the state is to cope, while planning defense, with the uncertainty and
unforeseen situations (shock) in the future, then it is best to follow the

11
scheme in Figure 1, representing the most general philosophical approach
to planning the development and use of military tools.

Johnson (p. 134-138) says that at first it is necessary to describe the security

and operational environment, using documents such as national security
strategies, national military strategy (defense strategy) and a number of
intelligence and expert research studies focusing on this topic. However,
it is necessary to select what is relevant considering the topic and contents
of the operating concept under preparation.

Then it is necessary to identify the factors of the security situation, future

development of which is uncertain and impact of which on the achievement
of national vital interests and important is unknown. This identifies
uncertain as “unknown” and uncertain as “not certain what the development
will be”. The given factors may be described as the so-called labels (vignette),
describing the problem, or scenarios, specifying the development options of
the given factor. Out of these selected possible problems, there are those that
may potentially require the use of military tools.

This analysis serves as a basis for the preparation of a strategy for the future
without surprises, i. e. how will the factors develop according to the opinion
of the concept’s authors. Subsequently, this strategy is then developed into
various activities (partial strategies) addressing the expected options of the
factor development (uncertainty). In the third step, borderline situations
are identified and various activities dealing with these situations are
prepared. They concern security situation factors and their development,
which may seem completely unreal but, nevertheless, they may not be
ruled out. The fourth and very important step concerns the preparation of
a strategy designed to influence the security environment to develop and
behave in a manner preventing negative development (risk) options and
avoiding the establishment of conditions for borderline situations (shocks).

The scenarios identified above may be simply described in six principal

characteristics (Johnson, p. 146-147):
1.  Political-military scenario (situation requiring the use of military tools);
2.  Enemy forces;
3.  Objectives, strategies and tactics of use of the armed forces by the enemy;
4.  Force effectiveness (possible criteria of success);

12
 5.  Security (operational) environment;
6.  Other modeling assumptions for the given scenario.

Upon preparing the operating concept it is always necessary to keep the

political perspective in mind. For example, if the political requirement
is to conduct an expeditionary campaign, then it is necessary to get
ready for an asymmetric opponent who will be in defense. If the political
requirement is to defend against an enemy intending to occupy own
territory and make the opponent to submit to their interests, then it
might be the defender who conducts the asymmetric war, or the defender
will have to possess the same or larger capabilities as the potential enemy.

The preparation and application of operating concepts in the process of

defense planning is vital since it generates conditions for the efficient
use of military tools. The operating concepts directly define how to use
the tools to achieve the political goals – the country’s political military
ambitions. In this respect, the operating concepts also represent an input
for acquisition processes. This role of the operating concepts may be
exercised only under the prerequisite of them having a  purpose-based
architecture and being managed in the long run with the objective in
mind. In other words, a simple and flexible system of their preparation
and revision needs to be in place.

13
 Chapter 1
OPERATING CONCEPTS

„The first task of strategy is the final assembly (Bereitstellung) of the fighting
forces, the first deployment of the army. Here, multifarious political, geographic,
and national considerations come into question.“

Helmuth von Moltke, On Strategy (1871, Hughes, p. 49)

Essence of Military Concepts

Military concepts usually describe the methods, techniques and plans to
use the military capabilities in order to achieve the set objectives or goals.
The scope of this description may vary, from comprehensive to concise,
from describing the actions of the military forces in the most general
terms and at the highest strategic level to the specification of the action
of a specific technological system or use of a specific training methods.

Typology of Military Concepts

In respect to the concept typology it is necessary to emphasize the meaning
behind “military concepts” – it is the highest degree of generality including
operating as well as developing, institutional and other concepts, from the
strategic down to the operating and tactical level. Military concepts are
hierarchically organized while the placement of the concept within the
hierarchy depends on its degree of generality. There are a number of options
allowing classification of military concepts. In terms of hierarchy Schmitt
(2002) defines the following four basic degrees of military concepts:

•  Institutional concepts, describing the organization and materially

technical facilities of a military institution;

•  Operating concepts, describing the method of employment of the

military forces;

•  Functional concepts, describing the activity (performance,

behavior) of the individual military functions and sub-functions;

15
 •  Enabling (integrating) concepts, describing the capabilities
required for the activity of the military functions and sub-functions.

There is a  subordinate, superior, correlative or substitute relationship

between the military concepts. Subordinate concepts are developed when
a more detailed and closer standpoint (advice, opinion) is needed than
what the higher (superior) concept may provide, see Figure 2.

The concepts discussing a rather specific subject with a narrower (more

detailed, more limited) topic may be described as lower level concepts.
Such a concept describes in greater detail the subset of problems of the
respective area analyzed in the higher level concept using more general
terms. The lower level concepts must be compatible with the higher level
concepts that they are subordinated to. While the higher level concepts
generally manage the development of the lower level concepts, it should
be apparent that the influence may also work in the opposite direction.
A breakthrough lower level concept may result in the necessity to review
the conclusions of the higher level concepts.

Likewise, the operating concepts are hierarchical and if, with respect to
the level of war, it is necessary, they may be further classified. From the
higher level to the lower level there are strategic concepts, operational
concepts and tactical concepts.

16
 Institutional Concepts

Strategic Level
Operating Concepts
(Capstone Concepts for Joint Operations)
 
Operational Level
(Joint Operating Concepts)
 
Tactical Level
Military Concepts

Command and Control

Functional Concepts

Focused Logistics
Force Protection
Maneuver
 Fires

Air & Missile Defense

Diruptive Technology
Enabling Concepts

Digital battlespace

NEC Operational
Joint Undersea
using Concept

Environment
Global Strike
Superiority

Concept

Figure 2 Hierarchy of military concepts

(authors Galatik, Pikner, Spisak, s. 12)

A hierarchy also exists within each type of operating concept. For example,
a tactical concept describing the performance of a wide range of tactical
activities in a broader sense, such as employment of force component, is
of a higher level and provides more general authoritative instruction than
a tactical concept describing specific types of tactical activities in greater
detail, such as the use of a force protection at the tactical level.

Institutional Concepts

Institutional concepts rank the highest within all military concepts. The
institutional concepts provide a description of the higher level features and
the functioning of a military institution or institutions. They are based on
security and defense policy strategic documents (e.g. Security Strategy,

17
Defense Strategy). They provide contents (context) and give advice to all
other military concepts. Institutional concepts are also frequently made
public and are presented (promulgated) as the vision statement covering
a specific future time horizon.

Functional Concepts

Functional concepts describe the performance (execution, demonstration)

of a specialized military area (such as logistics, crisis planning or targeting) in
a broader operational context. At present, the majority of armed forces have
adopted a number of functional concepts, such as a command and control
concept, intelligence preparation of the battlefield, logistics concept, Network
Enabled Capability, etc. The concepts stipulated in the Joint Vision 2020 may
serve as an example of future functional concepts – dominant maneuver,
precision engagement, focused logistics and full dimensional protection.

Functional concepts are linked to the operating concepts, which support

them and help the harmonization in a  wider context. The functional
concepts may be specifically aimed at particular operating concepts or
they may support numerous other operating concepts to the same degree.

Functional concepts are subordinate and support the operating concepts.

They may be hierarchical, with some degree of description of the entire
functional areas in general terms, or describe sub-functions or even individual
tasks within these sub-functions using a specific language (terminology).

Enabling (integrating) Concepts

Enabling (sometimes also called integrating) concepts describe how the

individual (specific) task or procedure should be carried out by applying
a particular capability, such as a specific technology, training or educational
program, organization or equipment. The concept describing the use of
technology for battlefield visualization which may represent an enabling
concept for the functional command and control concept may be used as
an example. The enabling concepts, as far as the terminology is concerned,
are the most specific ones out of all military concepts. The level of the
conveyed information should be sufficient for the direct specification of
military requirements (for modernization, equipment, armament…).

18
Operating Concepts

Military concepts describe a wide range of military actions. In the broader

sense, they describe what should be done in a respective situation and how
it should be done, in terms of a military action. It means how the military
forces will be employed. In literature we may find terms “Operational
Concept” or “Operating Concept”; both with the same contextual meaning.

An operating concept is, in the broader sense, an expression of an

opinion about the method of employment of troops. It is created under
the application of military science and military art within a certain set of
parameters given by the background and inputs for the development of
the respective concept. Most simply put, it describes how the armed forces
operate (function). The operating concept represents the basic idea for the
conduct of future operations by the armed forces and their units. They are
one of the bases for defining necessary capabilities enabling the conduct
of operations against an enemy in an expected operational environment.
These concepts describe how commanders, applying military science and
military art, can use the defined capabilities to achieve the set of military
goals (TRADOC, s. 28). The system of operating concepts may not
separately address just one functional area or activity in the battlefield, such
as sustainability, intelligence, fires or maneuver. In this sense the system of
military concepts needs to be comprehensive and interrelated, see Figure 3.
Capstone Concept for Joint Operations

Joint Operating Concepts

(Joint Force Operations) Operational
context
Joint Functional Concepts
Support (Joint Force Functions)

Joint Integrating Concepts

(tasks, conditions and standards)

Figure 3 Joint Concept Family Relationship

(author Pikner)

19
Operating Concept’s Attributes

An operating concept discusses the principles

and basic ideas rather than details. It covers more Operating concept
general cases rather than particular situations. as basic idea
It needs to be further developed in subsequent
documents. Additionally, it also requires an
extensive interpretation in practice.

The NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions AAP-6 defines the concept as
a notion or a statement of an idea, expressing how something might be done
or accomplished. The Canadian Experimentation Centre defines a concept
as a problem identification and hypothesis how to solve the problem. The
method of problem solution may be innovative, evolutional or revolutionary,
leading to the development of new military forces, implementation of new
technologies, organizational structures or processes.

Each operating concept has its own attributes. Attributes are not
individual structural parts being discussed by the concept. They rather
represent qualitative characteristics that the concept aims to achieve.

The main feature of an operating concept rests in

the fact that they serve their purpose. It means
they describe a  specific problem addressed in Purpose
the concept and provide conclusions relevant
to the addressed decision making problem of
development or employment of military tools. This description should be
sufficiently specific to allow its implementation, however, not too narrow as
then it would not give enough scope for creativity and invention. The goal
of the concept development is not to elaborate an acceptable document but
to propose, impartially verify and justify the concept of the employment of
military tools. Only after the concept is objectively verified, may it be applied
in the defense planning.

The operating concepts are not created just

for having them; they are designed to support
the thinking how to use the troops in combat. Comprehensible
As such they should use comprehensible and
terminologically correct language. The operating
concepts should be written in a language that emphasizes argumentation.

20
The development of an operating concept starts with expressing the
initial hypothesis that is to be verified and supported with arguments in
the course of the process. The concept should be comparable to historical
and experimental examples. A newly proposed operating concept does
not automatically guarantee its acceptance. It may be accepted with lack
of confidence. Therefore, it needs to reflect the depth of the thinking
and research. A  concept should use a  language fully respecting the
hypothetical and empirical nature of the statements. A good concept is
written in a language allowing as well as evoking critical views.

Operating concepts should be clearly distinguished

from other concepts. This may be achieved by
describing one operational problem and options Differentiate
for its solution. The main differentiating elements
in the concepts include a  planning situation
definition and scenario description, main hypothesis of the forces employment
and the description of the integrated application of the military functions
under the given scenario. In this respect a comprehensible description is better
than numerous details, distracting the attention from the principal arguments
confirming the main hypothesis of the forces employment. A  concept may
also be differentiated by its explicit comparison to and contrasting from
other historical, present or future concepts. Sometimes it may be more
comprehensible to describe the new concept in relation to a known one. In this
way, it may emphasize its distinctness in terms of the scenario and methods of
the forces employment.

Future operating concepts should refer to other

concepts addressing the operational problems Explicitly linked to
within the same conceptual scope. These relation- other concepts
ships may then express subsidiarity, superiority,
correlation, substi­tution or competition:

•  Subsidiarity – description of one part of a higher level concept in

greater detail;

•  Superiority – planning situations and scenarios are elaborated in

one or more lower level concepts;

•  Correlation – in general, at the same level as other concepts,

elaborating a different scenario of a planning situation, employment
of different type of forces or operational function;

21
 •  Substitution – following another concept or replacing this concept;

•  Competition – offering an alternative approach to a solution than

another concept.

The operating concepts should use correct

terminology. Any invented terms, attractive Correct
words and definitions or new terms should terminology
be avoided. New terms need to be accurately
defined when used for the first time and then
used correctly and consistently. Simultaneously, concepts should not
include unknown or infrequently used abbreviations. In the concepts,
unconventionally worded technical phrases and artistic descriptions
should also be avoided.

Operating concepts should be brief in order to

ensure that the ideas may be fully and correctly
absorbed and kept in mind during their Concise
implementation. They should only provide as
much explanation as necessary to meet the given
purpose. Redundant explanations rarely improve better understanding of
the problem. Compound language and sentence structure rather deviate
the attention from the pivotal idea. A concept should bring new ideas and
justify them with arguments. Despite the non-existence of any set rules, in
terms of extent a concept is usually elaborated on 20-30 pages. A concept
that is significantly longer contains too many details or addresses areas that
should be elaborated in subordinate concepts.

An open and meaningful discussion is the

principal prerequisite of the concept development Discussion
process. Operating concepts should promote supporting
and stimulate expert discussion. Discussion is
a tool used to define, verify and accept concepts.
Concepts may stimulate discussion by being purposeful, comprehensible,
objective, differentiated, interlinked with other concepts, terminologically
correct and concise.

Operating concepts should reflect the opinions

and experience derived from military history, Historical
even if a “revolutionary” departure from historical reminiscences
examples may be the result. (Galatík, Pikner,

22
Spišák, p. 19) Concepts are rarely based on abstract theoretical assumptions.
Hypotheses about the future are usually defined based on practical experience
and lessons learned. History represents the main resource for studying and
understanding military affairs. A  concept that ignores the warfare lessons
learned loses its credibility. Concepts should reflect the understanding
of its own evolution as well as of previous concepts. History offers many
perspectives of employment of the armed forces, describing factors which
may be, at present and in the future, perceived as unique.

Changes occurring in the security and operational environment do not

necessarily have to predetermine that the new concept will be revolutionary.
New approaches to the armed forces development and employment
as a  whole may be evolutionary as well as revolutionary. Evolutionary
operating concepts are usually the standard. Unjustified requirements
placed on the breakthrough revolutionary nature of a concept may damage
its credibility. However, it does not mean that new ideas and approaches to
a problem solution should not be subjected to investigation, especially at
the beginning of the concept development when the objective is to discover
new opportunities. Understanding historic context enables to see the
changes in the world. An objective assessment of history may help identify
newly emerging technological or other epochal progressive changes.

A systemic organization of assumptions about the

nature of war and successful conduct of military
System approach
actions forms the foundation of operating concepts.
These assumptions may clearly be expressed in the
concept or they may result from it. The assumptions
in the concept have to be expressed as a hypothesis, constants or variables and
have to be sufficiently supported with arguments. The assumptions expressed
in this manner establish the necessary basis for the operating concepts.

The scope of assumptions may be, to a  certain degree, unlimited or

partially or specifically limited. The less limiting the assumptions are,
the wider the subject of the concept. The more limiting the assumptions
are, the more specific the title of the concept needs to be. A  systemic
organization of assumption reflects the following decisive factors:

a.  Mission type

Operating concepts may address one type of mission or a whole category

of mission types. In other words, there may be different operating concepts

23
for strategic deterrence, maintaining the peace, stabilization operations,
regional unconventional war, etc.

b.  Operational environment

Operational environmental conditions influences the conduct of Operations;

the operating concepts may be classified by this environment, which results
in the development of operating concepts for desert operations, low altitude
air operations, military operations in urban areas, landing operations, etc.

c.  Types of forces

If the specific type of forces is critical for the conduct of operations, the
operating concepts may be classified based on these types. Then there are
operating concepts for anti-submarine operations, air raid operations,
mechanized troops operations, anti-ballistic missiles defense operations, etc.

d.  War level

Should the operating concept be related to a specific level of war and should
the specifics of this level represent a decisive feature of the concept, the
concepts may be classified as strategic, operational or tactical. However,
not always is it suitable to classify the concept according to the level of
war , especially if it covers more than one level.

It is necessary to distinguish between the operating concept and concept of

operation (CONOPS). CONOPS is used to describe the understanding of the
military operation and visualization of a set of tasks and actions, their scope
and context. It expresses the activity synchronization among the individual
troop elements. It serves as a foundation for preparing the operational plan
(OPLAN). CONOPS is prepared for an ongoing operation or operations
during the contingency planning, usually within the time horizon up to
7 years. (CJCSI 3010.02B, p. 15) Nevertheless, a similar procedure may be
applied in the operating concept development. However, the outcome of this
planning is not to be used for OPLAN preparation but for identifying the
future forces capabilities in the long term of 15 years or more.

Number and Structure of Potential Operating Concepts

Since there are several approaches to the systemization of operating

concepts, their potential number is not limited. While the uncontrolled

24
elaboration and increasing number of existing and future concepts
impose a risk, the point is not to purposelessly limit their number. The
decision on preparing a new operating concept should take into account
the mutual relationships and clear links to the existing system of the
operating concepts. Any new concept needs to clearly state its relationship
to the existing and comparable operating concepts.

Inputs for the Operating Concepts Development

“An operating concept is a visualization of future operations and describes
how the joint force, using military art and science, might employ capabilities
necessary to meet future military challenges.” (CJCSI 3010.02C, p. 7)

The development of operating concepts is a  focused and uniformly

controlled process governed by an internal standard.

The White Book on

Defense
· National interests,
Long term vision for
goals and priorities National
the defense sector
· Interdepartmental security
integrating tool strategy
· Governmental
directive
· Position of the National defense
state in the security · Objectives of strategy
environment securing the
· Current and future defense · The key Operational
threats operational Concepts
· How will these
· Assumptions capabilities · The concept of
objectives be
· The size, the ACR
achieved
structure and employment
· The way of
nature of the · The concept of
implementation
Armed Forces the Force
· Operational employment
priorities · The concept of
· Risk assessment the type of
· The planning troops
situation employment
· Functional,
integrating and
other concepts

Figure 4 Underlying documents framework for the development

of the operating concept
(author Zuna)

25
The goal of operating concepts is to direct the process of transformation
and development of military tools for their operational readiness with
a perspective of future 10 to 20 years. Underlying documents (see Figure 4)
for the concept development include national security strategies, national
defense strategies, or other strategic documents of a similar character adopted
at the level of collective defense organizations (NATO), collective security
organizations (UN, EU) and cooperative security organizations (OBSE).

National Security Strategy

In general, a  strategy may be understood as a  systemic organization of

objectives, methods to achieve these objectives and the necessary tools for
their implementation. A strategy should say what our objectives are, how we
are going to achieve them and how we are going to employ the tools we might
have available to achieve the objectives. (Ludvík, Moravec, p. 22-31) In terms
of the operating concepts development, it is necessary to see the national
security strategy (security strategy of a state) as the principal security policy
document that sets the principles, objectives, priorities and methods of
assuring external and internal security and defense of a state (Zeman, p. 99).
It outlines the main directions of the security policy and defines them with
a permanent validity, if possible, to allow their elaboration in the operating
concepts regardless of the changing national political context.

National Defense Strategy

A  national defense strategy represents the making of security policy

implementation (codified in the national security strategy) and covers its
motives, resources and limits. The defense strategy gives practical effect to
and narrows the security and defense policy. For the operating concepts
development, the national defense strategy represents a  set of basic
defense principles for the building of armed forces. It is the starting point
for the elaboration of follow-up strategies and concepts for defense and
an optional impulse to possibly adopt legislative changes. It is a selective
strategy of achievement of objectives in the security and defense policy
of a  country, an option of optimum advocacy of the country’s security
interests, and ideological background for planning processes. In order to
ensure actual enforcement of the outcome it is thus absolutely necessary,
while preparing the operating concepts, to respect the political barriers
set by the national security strategy and the national defense strategy.

26
Relevant International Strategic Documents

The membership of a country in any international organization affects its

security and defense policy as well as the ways and methods of employment
of its armed forces. Upon developing the operating concepts it is necessary
to take into account not only obligatorily respected documents with
international legal and political applicability (such as the Charter of the United
Nations, Washington Treaty, European Union Treaties, Geneva and Hague
Conventions, etc.), but also legally unbinding strategies and concepts (e.g.
NATO Strategic Concept, European Security Strategy, EU Internal Security
Strategy, etc.), which point out the probable direction of further engagement
and priorities of those security and defense organizations, of which the
country is a  member. Simultaneously, these documents usually provide
a collective estimate of future development in the security and operational
environment and, at the same time, they identify situations when the joint
structures, tools and efforts are to be activated to manage the security crises.
These situations should be further elaborated in the form of potential future
scenarios as a framework for the operating concepts development.

Security and Operational Environment Assessment

The security and operational environment assessment (Galatík, Pikner,

Krčmář, p.  23) represents a  very important part of the security and
defense policy formation process and development of follow-up the
country’s security system concepts (among others this system includes
the armed forces). It is the main starting point for rational allocation of
the country’s limited resources. It stipulates the threats and risks shaping
security interests, assesses its severity and imminence and sets their
relative order of importance (priorities). The purpose of the security and
operational environment assessment is to identify potential future threats
and resulting risks the country (or a coalition of countries as a whole) will
face and against which they will have to develop their defense capabilities.
The identified future threats and resulting risks form the basic framework
for the development of scenarios described in the operating concepts.

Security Environment

The analysis and prediction of security threats is important primarily for

the assessment of phenomena and processes taking place in the security
environment of the state. This term means the area where the interests

27
of the country are met and get into conflicts with the interests of other
stakeholders (countries, international organizations, multinational corpora­
tions, international non-governmental organizations, interest groups, etc.) and
run the processes that significantly influence the level of security. Moreover,
there are processes and phenomena within the security environment that
demonstrate a significant security impact, but can not be coped by the country
alone. The most significant and frequent source of threat to a country, however,
remain the intentional threats.

Operational Environment

The operational environment may be seen as a set of conditions, circumstances

and influences that affect the performance and efficiency of the military
force and have a direct influence on the decisions about its employment. In
terms of physical specifications, it is primarily the area of deployment of the
armed forces. In terms of the nature of the environment where the military
operations may take place, it concerns any of the options below, which may,
however, blend or alternate over time:

Tolerant environment – an environment where the host nation, on the

territory of which the foreign expeditionary armed forces are deployed,
fully supports their activity and this territory is under full control of its
own security and police units.

Uncertain environment – an environment where the host nation’s

forces either cooperate with the expedition forces or not, but the nation’s
territory is not under its efficient control.

Hostile environment – an operational environment where the enemy

forces have the respective territory under their control, are able to efficiently
defend it or respond to an ongoing military operation and thwart its plans.

The principal characteristics of the operational environment include:

•  opponent (enemy);

•  local people and social, political and cultural structure;

•  history and traditions;

•  condition of the environment;

28
 •  infrastructure;

•  technological factors;

•  information technology situation as well as the natural conditions;

•  terrain, climate and other factors. (Galatík, p. 27-28).

In defense planning, the future operational environment has a  critical

influence on the concepts development defining the employment of
forces in future operations. These considerations are the underlying
information and decisive element for the building and development of
the armed forces in the long-term horizon. The operating concepts thus
become one of the critical elements in the building and development of
the armed forces in long-term planning (Galatík, Pikner, Krčmář, p. 23).

Relationship Between Security and Operational Environment

The term operational environment is closely related to the term of security

environment and it forms its part. The security environment consists
of countries, international and multinational organizations and other
subjects, mutual interaction of which affects the security of the reference
subject (country). The operational environment is a  qualitative subset
of the security environment with various effects on the actions in every
point of operation as well as the immediate vicinity. The environments
are linked and thus the assessment of the operational environment must
include the assessment of the security environment.

The operational environment where the armed forces will be deployed

determines the requirements for their building-up, preparation and
employment. It affects the conduct of operations at all levels of command
and control. (Galatík, Pikner, Spišák, p. 28)

Foreign Experience
Approaches to the development and application of operating concepts
in militarily more experienced countries may serve as a  guidance and
inspiration for particular nations. It should be emphasized that it is not
possible to merely copy the foreign system. The system must reflect the
national political interests and objectives and their specifications for
future missions and tasks of military tools.

29
For example, it is possible to mention the experience of the United States
or the United Kingdom. Their approaches to the operating concepts
development may be considered as the best elaborated and may thus
be a good guidance for countries that are yet uncertain which national
approach to the issue of the operating concept development to adopt.

The U. S. Military Concept System

In 2003, based on the decision adopted by the U. S. Secretary of Defense,

a  development plan for a  set of concepts for conducting joint operations
(Joint Operations Concepts – JOPSC) was put together. The set is based on
the strategy policy and includes the following:

•  Capstone Concept for Joint Operations – CCJO;

•  Joint Operating Concepts – JOCs;

•  Joint Functional Concepts – JFCs;

•  Joint Integrating Concepts – JICs.

These future operations concepts cover the period for the next 8 to 20 years,
see Figure 5.

The concepts represent or formulate an idea – a statement how something

may be done. They are written using the method “problem – solution”.
Joint operating concepts are the visualization of future operations and
describe how the commander, applying military science and military
art, can use the military capabilities to achieve the defined effects and
objectives in the future:

•  the concept, by applying a transformation approach, studies a wide

range of capabilities of military tools to discourage, deter or defeat
potential opponents;

•  encourages thinking that goes beyond the current capabilities,

promotes new progressive and inspiring ideas and accepts
discrepancy as a part of this process;

•  joint operating concepts are not limited nor restricted by the

current or planned capabilities.

30
The responsibility for the creation and development of the Capstone
Concept for Joint Operation and its integration with the subordinated
concepts rests on J7 – Joint Force Development and Integration Division
(JFDID). This division ensures that the set of joint concepts, known as
Joint Operations Concepts, is well presented in the policies and planning
documents such as Quadrennial Defense Review, Strategic Planning
Guidance, Military Strategy, Service Transformation Roadmaps, and
Service Concepts. These documents are reviewed every three years.

JOpsC Family

Strategic Guidance
NSS, NMS, QDR, TPG, SPG, CPG

Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO)

Broad statement of how to operate 8-20 years in the future

Operational JOE
Context Joint Operating
JOCs Environment
Operational design
and effects

JFCs
1. Homeland Security Support Enduring Military
2. Strategic Deterrence
Functions
3. Major Combat
Operations
1. Battlespace Awareness 5. Force Protection
4. Stability Operations
2. Command and Control 6. Net-Centric Ops
5. Shaping
3. Force Application 7. Force Management
6. Irregular Warfare
4. Focused Logistics 8. Training

JICs
Narrowly scoped to describe specific military capabilities

1. Global Strike 5. Seabasing

2. Joint Forcible Entry Operations 6. Joint Logistics-Distribution
3. Joint Undersea Superiority 7. Joint Command and Control
4. Integrated Air & Missile Defense 8. Net-Centric Operational Environment
9. Persistent ISR

Figure 5 Joint Operations Concepts (JOpsC) family

(available http://pksoi.army.mil/doctrine_concepts/Concepts.cfm)

31
The following section describes two groups of concepts, the Capstone
Concept for Joint Operations and a group of Joint Operating Concepts.

Capstone Concept for Joint Operations

The Capstone Concept for Joint Operations dominates the set of subordinated
joint operating concepts and defines their contents, role and coherence for
the development of forces in the future. It analyzes the fact that the future
commander of the joint forces will have to adjust and combine a number of basic
military activities – deployment, combat, security assistance, humanitarian
and reconstruction tasks, etc., all that in compliance with the requirements
of each planning situation. The concept is not a  guide specifying methods
in detail; it does not say how to write a concept and it does not introduce an
authoritative doctrine. It starts with describing the set of operating problems,
then it provides a possible operating solution and concludes with a search for
institutional consequences of adopting this solution.

The purpose of the Capstone Concept is to direct the development and

employment of forces by providing a comprehensive description of how
the future joint forces will operate. The concepts of particular types of
forces and subordinated joint concepts develop these ideas and solutions
further. By doing that, they assure a logical and conceptual flow which
interprets the strategy policy in recommending how to improve the
joint forces. Through experimentation, the concept is tested and offers
recommendations for updating doctrines, organizations, training,
material, leadership, personnel and facilities.

The Capstone Concept focuses on the strategy aimed at achieving military

objectives, while simultaneously benefiting the wider national objectives,
via joint actions with other organizations and multinational partners. It
predicts potential situations, under which the joint military forces may
be used in a  coordinated manner together with other instruments of
national power, and when the efforts may be best integrated. This concept
is useful for other organizations and supranational partners as it enables
them to assess the requirements for potential integration.

The CCJO briefly describes the expected future operational environment,

where the main military problem for joint forces is represented by the
adaptable opponent who will attempt to prevent successful implementation of
tasks within the entire spectrum of military operations. The solutions drafted
in the concept include a  pivotal hypothesis and supporting hypotheses,

32
specifying how the joint forces should operate in the future and providing
the systemic perspective of the operational environment, principal activities
of the joint forces commander and key characteristics of the joint forces.

In summary, the pivotal hypothesis describes what the future joint forces
will do to manage future challenges. The supporting hypotheses offer greater
details in how the joint forces will address the given military problem.
The systemic perspective of the environment includes the assessment of
complexity generated by the involvement of the human factor in the solution
to military problems and the difficulty to develop acceptable solutions. The
principal joint activities represent a  range of activities performed by the
joint forces, regardless of a type of operation.

The CCJO proposes to have these activities performed by the members

of other organizations, suggests suitable areas for integration with other
instruments of state´s power as well as with international and alliance
partners. Under the key characteristics of the future joint forces, they
include strengthening of the knowledge and understanding, connectivity,
interoperability, adaptability, persistence, accuracy, speed, robustness, agility
and lethality. The key characteristics included in the concept help clarify how
to develop, organize, train and equip the joint forces. These characteristics
have to be reflected in the concepts for all types of forces and in the
subordinated joint concepts. Adopting the CCJO generates consequences for
future concepts development and employment of joint forces. Future joint
forces must gain and maintain the ability of effective cooperation with other
actors with different capabilities and within various areas of expertise.

The Capstone Concept is a reference document for the development of future

joint forces capability. In general, it describes the organization, structure,
armament and equipment of joint forces in the medium to long term and
reflects permanent national interests derived from the strategy policy.

The concept assumes conducting the operations individually or in cooperation

with international military partners, other governments or non-governmental
organizations. It anticipates military operations conducted in compliance with
the national strategy including all instruments of state power. It describes the
environment – expected military problems in the upcoming eight to twenty
years (e.g. the 2012 concept covers the 2020–2032 period). It suggests solutions
how to respond to the challenges within the entire spectrum of military
operations and describes the key characteristics of future joint forces.

33
Joint Operating Concepts

Joint Operating Concepts (JOC) describe how the commander of the joint
forces will conduct the military operations in the campaign at the operating
level. They apply the Capstone Concept for Joint Operation to more specific
military problems. These concepts identify challenges, basic capabilities
that might be necessary to achieve objectives, and the respective conditions
under which the capabilities should be applied. They affect the development
of scenarios. Through the JOC the joint forces commander describes how
the future joint forces will be used to fulfill specific operations. The JOC
identify required operational capabilities necessary to achieve the required
effects and objectives and set the operational context for experimentation
and development of joint functional and joint integrating concepts.

The principal Joint Operating Concepts include:

•  Homeland Defense/Civil Support;

•  Deterrence Operations;

•  Major Combat Operations;

•  Military Support for Stabilization of Security, Transition and

Reconstruction Operations;

•  Irregular Warfare;

•  Military Contribution to Cooperative Security.

The United Kingdom Military Concept System

According to the approach of the United Kingdom, concepts are a representation

or formulation of an idea – statement of how something could be done, which
may result in an acceptable procedure (process) or capability.

The concepts give a rational and cautious assessment of how the United
Kingdom’s armed forces intend to operate in the medium to long term,
based on the changes in politics and emerging trends in strategic,
security and technological areas. The concepts analyze, systematically
evaluate and practically experimentally test the hypotheses in order to
draft justified methods of employment of the military forces and identify

34
the requirements for their capabilities. They have different forms, e.g.
a  High Level Operational Concept (HLOC) describing the principles
and characteristics of the possible future employment of the United
Kingdom’s armed forces in general terms. An efficient use of military
forces is ensured with seven functions (command, inform, operate,
prepare, project, protect, sustain) of the Defense Capability Framework
(DCF), which provides a common language to describe the capabilities
required from the armed forces.

In their initial stages, the concepts usually cover the horizon of 15 to

20 years. Their purpose is not to immediately affect the building and
sustainability of capabilities but to establish a  framework for gradual
experimentation. The concepts give intellectual support for future
defense capabilities, including the corresponding systems, equipment,
force structure, organization, training, etc. The initial conceptual work is
inevitably of a wide scope. The concepts are classified as follows:

Analytical concepts are covering ideas and innovative thoughts in general

terms. They have not sufficient and accurate context to satisfy the requirements
of the Ministry of Defense. They include the High Level Operational
Concept (HLOC), Future Maritime Operating Concept (FMOC), Future
Land Operating Concept (FLOC), Future Air and Space Operating Concept
(FA&SOC) and Future Electromagnetic Operating Concept (FEMOC). The
purpose of these concepts lies in the attempt to encourage discussion, ensure
consistence of thoughts and provide a firm foundation for further conceptual
development and timely indication of capabilities necessary to be built up.
The analytical concepts are subject to further elaboration under which they
are intensively tested, analyzed, used in experimentation and evaluated. After
this stage is completed, the concepts become applicable, ready to be used by
the customer, i.e. the Equipment Capability Customer (ECC), for budgetary
programming and the entire operational community. During the concept
elaboration, their hierarchy is defined.

The analytical concepts are developed by the Development, Concepts

and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) as an initial response to changes in
politics, future trends and innovative thinking and as a basis for future
development. They are used as a  framework, within which Interim
and Applied Concepts are subsequently developed. The timeframe for
analytical concepts is 15 to 20 years.

35
Interim Concepts are analytical concepts subjected to further development
and assessment before their approval (confirmation) by the Defense Staff.
The term “interim” describes the period of development rather than
the specific outcome (product). After the interim concept is approved,
it becomes an applied concept. The applied concepts are brought to life
by officers with responsibility for capability development (Capability
Developers) and defense planning (Defense Planners). The time horizon
covers 10 to 20 years.

The applied concepts describe methods of use of future capabilities within

the operational context, addressing an individual (specific) problem.
Their time horizon covers 10 years. The most detailed applied concepts
are so-called the CONEMPs (Concepts of Employment) and CONUSEs
(Concepts of Use), describing a  specific use of capabilities in a  joint
environment across a spectrum of scenarios and conditions. The applied
concepts retrospectively affect the policy of setting the framework for
future operations. They are controlled by the DCDC.

The following part describes two groups of concepts, the Joint High Level
Operational Concept and the Future Land Operating Concept.

Joint High Level Operational Concept

The Joint High Level Operational Concept (HLOC) forms a milestone on

the road towards the fulfillment of requirements set by the Strategic Defense
Review. This document is a long-term vision of armed forces development
and their employment in operations. The HLOC gives a long-term vision
regarding situations and methods of potential employment of the armed
forces in the future. The main sections of the HLOC are further elaborated
into the subordinated analytical concepts (sub-concepts), which set the
Defense Capability Framework (DCF) and determine the subsequent
conceptual development. The HLOC is an analytical concept addressing
the future requirements for the combat strength of the armed forces. This
concept represents the starting point for the development of joint concepts
and concepts of types of forces. At the core of the concept, there are seven
(joint) functions (command, inform, operate, prepare, project, protect,
sustain) of the Defense Capability Framework. The concept also contains
a  description of the future environment derived from the nature of the
conflict, armed forces, multinational nature of the operations, limitations
and new technologies. In major combat operations the HLOC assumes
joint action with the US armed forces.

36
Future Land Operating Concept

The Future Land Operating Concept 2008 (FLOC) stems from the National
Security Strategy and Defense Strategic Guidance. It is based on the HLOC
and is an input for further concepts. It is built on strategic trends and the
British Defense Doctrine. It provides a conceptual basis for the employment
of land forces by 2030 in order to develop their capabilities and establish the
structure of future forces. The land forces will cooperate in operations together
with other instruments of national power and international organizations.

The French Military Concept System

The basic framework for the development of an armed forces concept (High
Level Operating Concept) consists of the French White Paper on Defense
and National Security. With respect to the Armed Forces Concept, the White
Paper is considered a  truly fundamental document that defines principal
frameworks for the anticipated tasks and activities of the armed forces. The
Armed Forces Concept then represents a contribution of the armed forces to
the implementation of the White Paper into the military area.

The Armed Forces Concept provides a basis for the lower level concepts,
respecting the hierarchy of documents (concepts – doctrines – publications),
prepared by the Joint Centre for Concept Development, Doctrine and
Experimentation (Le Centre interarmées de concepts, de doctrines et
d´expérimentations, CICDE).

Concept Structure

In France, The Concept Development and Experimentation (CD&E) is seen

as one instrument for the establishment of future operational capabilities
requirements. CICDE is responsible not only for the development, but also for
setting up the structure and complying with the hierarchy of the conceptual
and doctrinal documents. The keystone concepts are structured into 9 areas,
see Figure 6, which include Organization, Intelligence, Operations, Logistics,
Planning Process, Communications and Information Systems, Training,
Budgeting and Civil-Military Cooperation.

37
 France White Paper on Defense and
National Security

Capstone concept

Main concept

Personal Intelligence Operations

Communication and
Logistic Planning
Information Systems

Training Finance Civil military

cooperation

Figure 6 Hierarchy of conceptual and doctrinal documents

in the French Armed Forces
(author Cep)

Comparison of the Selected Operating Concepts

To compare the military concepts of the respective countries or just the
operating concepts in terms of their content is problematic. The translation
of the original documents may often misinterpret the content and thus it
is always necessary to translate these documents within a context.

To understand the overall hierarchy and relationships and links between

the individual concepts, it is necessary to proceed in a logical flow from the
capstone concepts towards the keystone concepts. To that point, the majority
of countries establish a hierarchical structure of concepts. Most of the NATO
member states approach to the development of military concepts (thus also
operating concepts) similarly; however, the result often differs in terms of
the form of the conceept, but not of the focus. Essentially, these countries
apply the same principles and policies, they approach the building-up and
development of their armed forces in a systemic and well-planned manner
and respect the principles of the capability based planning. In the armed
forces of the United Kingdom, France, United States and many others, a the

38
highest level joint forces concept (such as Capstone or High Level Operating
Concept) is in place, which forms the basis for the subordinate concepts.

Recommendations for the Concept Development

The differences may be seen in the French approach, which defines the
concept as a document saying “what to do”. On the other hand, the U. S. and
UK approaches rather say “how to do it”. This difference was also generally
emphasized in the process of Concept Development and Experimentation
(CD&E). In France, the CD&E is seen as one of the tools used to design
the future operating capabilities while the concepts and doctrines play an
indispensable role in this process.

The Czech Republic Armed Forces do not currently have a  capstone

operating concept, which would address the use of the armed forces for the
2018-2028 period. The individual sections of the Ministry of Defense and
the General Staff (or operational levels) prepare the lower level concepts
(functional, integrating or enabling). However, a unifying armed forces
concept for future operations (2018-2028) is missing; this concept would
represent the unifying (capstone) document as well as the document
applicable in the process of defense planning for future operating
capabilities development. Especially under the defense and security cost
cutting initiatives, not only in the Czech Republic, but also in most of
NATO and EU member states, the process and systemic approach to the
transformation of the armed forces present the only solution. The majority
of NATO member states that plan the establishment and development of
their armed forces using capability-based planning are currently in the
process of developing or updating their operating concepts, including the
capstone concepts as well as the functional or integrating ones. Therefore,
in the Czech Republic the preparation of the capstone concept for future
joint operations of the armed forces represents absolutely vital factor for
their continued transformation and fulfillment of their mission.

The foregoing part of this book analyzes the approaches of the military
concept development, focusing on the operating concepts of selected
countries. In addition, theoretical background, as well as the framework for the
preparation of these documents, have been clarified. The main findings and
general recommendations arising from the foregoing may be fully applied to
the development of the “Operating Concept of the Armed Forces in Future
Operations”as general rule. These findings and recommendations include:

39
 •  Framework for the development of an operating concept may be
seen in the certified Operating or Military Concept Development
Procedures, which is to determine the hierarchy, purpose and basic
form of these documents;

•  The superior operating concept must become an integral part of

the strategic documents;

•  The superior operating concept must comply with the “capstone

concept” requirements and its general nature needs to be respected;

•  The superior operating concept must be updated on a regular basis,

unless external conditions change to the point requiring the concept
to be reviewed.

Possible Structure of Operating Concepts

An operating concept is prepared as a  document with a  structure
corresponding with the subject of the concept, i.e. description of
assumptions how the military commander in the future will conduct
combat activities in order to perform tasks under the conditions of
a given scenario. The concept also describes the capabilities necessary for
the armed forces in order to perform the respective combat activities. The
first stage of a concept preparation covers unverified ideas and notions
that are to be verified through experimentation, war games, testing,
simulations, etc. This verification aims at a more specific description of
future operational capabilities. Operating concepts, based on the purpose,
typ and level on which are developed for may cover the areas of doctrine,
organization of forces, education and training, material and equipment,
leadership, personnel, facilities and interoperability (DOTMLPFI).

The operating concepts may include the following parts:

1.  Introduction (concept’s purpose, extent, scope, time period covered,
conceptual background, relationship with other concepts, limitations);
2.  Executive summary;
3.  Future operational environment and military problem the armed forces
may be faced with (character of the opponent, own capabilities and
capabilities of allies, local population, political and economic conditions,
climatic and terrain conditions, infrastructure, technologies, etc.);

40
4.  Identified threats and risks;
5.  Basic principles of performance of the armed forces under the conditions
of a scenario or scenarios of future operational environment, description
of potential conduct of operations;
6.  Risks arising from the methods of the forces employment and their
elimination;
7.  Basic capabilities necessary to achieve the required efficiency of the
armed forces;
8.  Consequences and impact for the forces development under the
respective DOTMLPFI areas:

•  Doctrine – what are the new principles of employment of the forces,

•  Organization – how to modify/optimize the organizational structures

with respect to the requirements placed on the performance of tasks
in future operations,

•  Training – what are the future requirements for training and

education of personnel,

•  Material – what armaments, equipment and other materials are

necessary to be purchased or iínvent in order to perform the
tasks, specifications of quality and efficiency,

•  Leadership – how to, under the given conditions of future operations,

manage people and requirements put on commanders and staff,

•  Personnel – how to address issues related to the availability and

replenishment of human resources necessary to perform the tasks,

•  Facilities – what are the possible requirements for accommodation,

roads, level of communication and information systems, availability
of local resources, materials and services, etc.,

•  Interoperability – how to ensure the concept satisfies the standar­

dizing requirements for interoperability with allies and partners
while performing tasks in multinational operations (NATO or EU),
9.  Conclusion, including statement about possible future amendments/
revisions of the concept.

41
The following may be recommended as appendices:

•  Appendix A – Bibliography (references);

•  Appendix B – List of abbreviations and acronyms.

Other appendices if needed (e.g. a list of capabilities, figures, maps and

diagrams).

42
 Chapter 2

OPERATING CONCEPTS AND DEFENSE

PLANNING

The operating concepts are multipurpose documents. They are not used
merely as one of the starting points to define required future capabilities of
the armed forces but they also form the foundation of military doctrines.
They also represent a  basis for the lower degree operating concepts, or
the institutional or functional concepts. They unify the joint efforts and
principal directions towards the achievement of future goals and missions
of the armed forces. Upon aligning the existing and required capabilities in
the defense planning process it is not possible to eliminate all risks. Under
restricted availability of resources it is necessary to focus the efforts on the
priorities of the development of capabilities addressing the most probable
risks and risks with the highest impact. (Bučka, Mačovský, 2012).

This chapter focuses on the position and role of the operating concepts in
the defense planning process and their importance for mid-and long-term
planning.

Defense Planning Process

The objective of defense planning at the NATO level is to set up a framework,
within which defense planning of the individual countries may be
harmonized as efficiently as possible in order to ensure the goal satisfies
NATO military needs. On the other hand, the objective of defense planning
at the national level is to build and maintain the armed forces corresponding
to the needs and ambitions of the country to ensure its security, defense
and possibly even contribute to maintaining peace and stability in the
world. The defense planning is a set of activities, procedures and relations
executed by the governmental authorities in order to achieve the goals and
tasks of the country’s defense. They result in specific measures, procedures
and deadlines. While planning the defense it is necessary to respect present
political, military, economic and technological circumstances and their
prediction into the future. This also concerns the prediction of efficient use
of available human, material and financial resources.

43
The approaches to defense planning have undergone a  dynamic
development. After the collapse of the bipolar world and the elimination
of the extensive conflict threat between the armed forces of the Warsaw
Pact and NATO, fundamental changes in planning the armed forces took
place in the 1980s and mostly in the 1990s. The principle of planning
based on the main threat, represented by a potential global conflict, was
abandoned and ways how to respond to new crises under a  very wide
spectrum of future threats have gradually started being explored.

Capability based planning is a  process initiated by identifying the entire

spectrum of capabilities the military forces need for “universal employment”.
The planning is aimed at reasonable, optimal and flexible forces able to face
a wide spectrum of generally defined threats.

To implement the capability based defense planning process, it requires

respecting the recommendations of the Alliance, schematically shown in
Figure 7. Under this process the operating concepts play an important
role as they are crucially involved in defining the capabilities that will be
asked from the armed forces in the future. The defense planning actions
are aimed towards the development of these capabilities.

The future environment describes the basic

Future environment
conditions under which the military tools will be
National intelligence
employed. They primarily concern trend analyses
assessment
of the security environment (security threats),
Political assessment
technological progress, economic development,
demographic issues, development of domestic and
foreign policy and other possible influences on the
future use of the armed forces.

44
 National Intelligence
Political assessment
assessment

Political guidance for defense

planning ( defense priorities)

Future security Operational

Planning situations
environment concepts

Minimum force capability

requirements

Existing and planned Comparison of force

force capabilities capabilities

Mantained force Missing force Excessive force

capabilities capabilities capabilities

The choice of force

development

Available source
Balance of investment Defense priorities
framevork

Force generation
priorities

Figure 7 General scheme of the capability based planning

inside of defense planning process
(authors Pikner, Zuna)

National intelligence assessment covers the analysis of threats resulting

from the future environment. Political assessment represents a  wider,
interdepartmental assessment of the probability and degree of impact
of the threats on the achievement and maintenance of vital interests of
a country or the Alliance.

The political directive for defense planning is Political directive

a document that initiates a new cycle of defense for defense
planning. It defines the principal frameworks planning
of the defense planning, such as objectives,

45
preparation time, time horizon for capabilities planning and achievement
of the desired status, responsibilities, relations to the previous cycle, etc.
The directive may also define defense priorities.

The planning situations and scenarios are the

means of priority specification. They concern Planning situations
predicted planning situations that may require (scenarios)
the employment of the armed forces.

An operating concept may be prepared for

one scenario or serveral scenarios of critical Operating
situations, when the armed forces are to be Concepts
employed. The operating concepts are structured.
For each scenario described in the operating
concept there is a  plan of operation saying how the forces may be used
under the given scenario. Scenarios are not a prediction of the future but
a method of minimization of threats by solutions being searched for these
scenarios, answering questions of how to prevent them, eliminate them or
how to limit their consequences. The scenarios are based on the security
and operational environment description, given in strategic documents or
papers. The disadvantage is that the general nature of threats is abstracted
in these documents and thus, based on this abstraction, it is not possible
to precisely define the necessary future capabilities of the armed forces.
The strategic documents do not contain information about a  specific
military task, enemy and other actors operating in the given operational
environment. These planning assumptions must be made in the form of
a scenario or scenarios. They may include vignettes describing the status
and development of the selected factors of the operational situation or
a lines of operations within the scenarios.

The minimum capability requirements placed Minimum

on the capabilities of the forces represent a list Capability
of capabilities that are necessary at the strategic, Requirements
operational and tactical level for efficient
fulfillment of the tasks under planning situations and scenarios of threat
demonstration. Further, they may be classified as for the joint forces and
for various types of forces and troops.

The capabilities are generally classified into groups in order to ensure

manageability of the process of their build-up and maintenance. In addition,
this classification usually expresses the responsibility for the areas of capability

46
development and assurance of the resource framework. Under the defense
planning process, there is a partial process of comparing the current, planned
and minimum required capabilities of the forces. This partial process compares
the qualitative aspect of the capabilities and results in an overview documenting
gaps and surpluses in the future capabilities, compared to the present status.
Simultaneously, the discrepancy in the capabilities is identified in order to
eliminate duplicities and to identify missing capabilities, or to eliminate
negative mutual effects of the capabilities.

The option of development of the forces means

the definition of priorities in the capabilities Option of force
development of the forces and a  proposal of development
the direction of development, modernizing
programs and focus of the requirements for the research. This activity also
usually includes the calculation of the required resource framework.

Balance of investments covers the allocation of

the necessary investments over the cycle of the Balance of
defense planning, including the investments investments
of the previously started and ongoing cycle. If
the resources represent a limitation it is necessary to go back and newly
set (modify) the capabilities. The settlement of investments results in an
achievable plan of capabilities development, covering the programs of
modernization of the armed forces, research, development, acquisitions,
etc. The outcome usually concerns a set of documents under a joint title.

The defense priorities are defined by the

government over the time horizon of midterm
Defense Priorities
planning. They are based on a long-term focus
of defense policy. Subsequently, in the defense
planning process they are compared with the resource restrictions and
possibly modified. The targeted capabilities of the forces represent the
critical capabilities of the armed forces which, after having been achieved,
will ensure the fulfillment of the government’s requirements. The objectives
are fulfilled through the implementation of adopted measures under the
mid- and short-term action plans.

The above given scheme and descriptions of the node points in the defense
planning process demonstrate that the operating concepts are out of the main
line of the defense planning, likewise, the prognosis of the future security
and operational environment. Nevertheless, the information, conditions

47
and requirements for the capabilities of the armed forces resulting from
the operating concepts represent fundamental inputs for the actual process.
Without structured operating concepts that take into account the assumed
development of the security and operational environment it is not possible
to responsibly set any future minimum requirements for the capabilities
of the armed forces, name and describe them correctly and determine the
responsible entity and performance indicators.

The operating concept itself usually does not answer the question of what
armaments, weapons and organization the armed forces will have to have
in the future – these are usually not specified or are specified only generally.
With respect to the capabilities the operating concept has to be interpreted
by experienced commanders and staffs or doctrinal centers. Already at
this stage it is possible and desirable to use modeling and simulations to
verify the impacts of the assumed changes in the capabilities of the armed
forces on the fulfillment of appropriately selected military action scenarios
within the boundaries given by the operating concepts. By doing this it
allows to prevent wasting of resources for purchasing armament, weapons
and organizational structures that have no future and will not generate the
required and expected effect from the very beginning.

If the concept is prepared for the strategic level, such as “the concept of
the armed forces employment”, then the first step entails the definition of
the capabilities for achieving the political objectives at the strategic level.
Subsequently, the capabilities at the operational and tactical level need to
be defined, with more detailed capabilities representing the starting points
for the specification of armament, equipment, organization of forces, etc.

Scenario based capability planning provides a  logical basis for the defense
planning process. The operating concepts allow the military organizations not
to only identify the future security challenges and appropriately get prepared to
address them, but also focus on the existing challenges as efficiently as possible.
This is not even in sharp conflict with the capability based planning since the
requested “product” of the defense planning process concerns the capabilities
of the armed forces to be used to face threats and risks in the future.

Utilization of Operating Concepts in Defense Planning

The utilization of outcomes from the operating concepts in the process of
build-up and development of the armed forces is done through the defense
planning. The planning documents represent a means ensuring an efficient

48
utilization of the available resources within the set time frameworks in
order to achieve the required capabilities. The requirements placed on the
minimal capabilities of the armed forces, based on the operating concepts,
form an integral part of the process of modernization or acquisition of the
armed forces. The operating concepts themselves form a part of the national
doctrinal system development process.

Operating Concepts and Modernization Process

of the Armed Forces

The actual build-up and development of the armed forces must be rested
on scientific prognoses of the operational environment development,
requirements placed on the capabilities of the armed forces as well as on
the efficient system of defense planning.

The scheme in Figure 8 shows a possible general procedures of introducing

modern armaments and technology into the armed forces, based on the
requirements arising from the operating concepts. It may entail the introduction
of brand new technologies that are currently only in the stage of research and
laboratory tests, or it may entail a mere modernization of existing technologies.

49
weaponry program Alocation of financial resources

Experimentation

implementation
Initiation of

weaponry
Development

Research

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Mid-term plans Modernization of weaponry

Capability requirements

Operating concepts

Conceptual documents − long-term plans

Implementation
of design Perspective of modernization next 20 − 25 (30) Y
modernization
Vision of weaponry modernization

Figure 8 Operating concepts in the process of modernization

(acquisition) of the armed forces
(author Galatik)

Based on the prognoses in the “Modernization Plan Outlook for the Next
20-25 years” the requirements for the implementation of modernization
plans are continuously included in the prepared planning and conceptual
documents. The outlook of modernization plans is in a direct correlation
with the operating concepts of various levels and their resulting minimum
requirements placed on the capabilities of the forces. The outlook is used
as a starting point for the planning document development, especially of
a  mid-and long-term plan. The relationship between the modernization
plan outlook, long-term and midterm plans and commencement of the
program of armament is clearly shown in Figure 8. The absence of any of the
steps and documents necessary for the efficient processes of modernization
and acquisition causes distortions and damages, not only financial and
material, but also moral.

50
The planning documents set the commencement and termination dates
of the respective stages of the modernization plan, competences and
responsibilities of the entrusted components and financial resources for
the purchase of new armament and technology, including contribution to
research, development, manufacturing and testing.

It always needs to be considered that the build-up of the modern armed

forces has to follow certain principles. One of them is momentum. If the
reflection of the external environment lags behind the development of the
environment affecting the country’s defense, the armed forces implement the
modernization plans according to the past and conditions that have been
overcome. The capabilities generated through this process do not correspond
with the current and future needs. And it is the operating concepts that may
describe the future. Therefore, it is necessary, at present, to predict the future
and design concepts about the future needs while respecting the development
of the security environment and future technologies.

Operating Concepts and Doctrines

The operating concepts play an important role within the doctrinal system. If
the operating concept addresses the assumed future security threats and risks,
development in the operational environment, including the nature of the
potential enemy, then it also forms the basic features of the future doctrine.
Gradually the concept is transformed into a doctrine, firstly only roughly but
as the forecasted horizon approaches, the doctrines get more specific and
they eventually reach the status when they are fully applied in daily activities
of the troops. The future concept and the future doctrine resulting from it is
based on the prognosis of the operational environment, accompanied with
the planned capabilities of the armed forces. The future doctrine thus works
with the expected future set of forces that will be employed in the operations.
On the contrary, the current doctrine responds to the current operational
environment and utilizes the current set of forces to conduct operations.

Operating Concepts and their Relationship to the Departmental

Legal and Normative Documents

The operating concept itself is not a legal or normative document for the
processes of build-up and sustainment of the operational apabilities, or the
build-up and development of the armed forces. The operating concepts

51
form a  comprehensive and structured set of underlying documents
enabling decision-making by top DoD officers about the target operational
capabilities. In order to ensure that the axioms and considerations included
in the operating concept become valid, they must be implemented into the
standard legal and normative documents, which are as follows:

•  National defense strategies (concepts affect these capstone documents

retrospectively);
•  Strategies of build-up and development of the armed forces
(reflected in the specific measures under the DOTMLPFI areas);
•  Plans for acquisitions of armaments and equipment, including the
plans for their life cycle;
•  Midterm and annual plan of the DoD activities;
•  Departmental normative acts regulating the standards and processes in
the armed forces;
•  Doctrinal publications.

The description how the armed forces will be used over the next 10-25 years
becomes the input for elaborating the strategy for the build-up and development
of the armed forces. Nevertheless, the operating concept must simultaneously
respect the political specification of the aim and purpose of employment of the
military tools to ensure the security interests of the country.

The operating concepts represent an input for the strategies of build-up and
development of the armed forces in the long run. Before the conclusions of
the approved operating concept may be reflected in the plans of acquisition
of armaments and equipment, they have to be experimentally verified. It is
necessary to verify what material, which operating procedures, what kind
of organization of the troops, etc. may best ensure the identified capabilities
of the forces. For example, the proportion of fire power, requirements for
deployment and possible maneuver of a  certain armament system will
differ between the technology produced by different manufacturers. Also,
the requirements for material functioning in combat will be different. Thus,
there is a  large set of criteria to be applied when assessing the armament
and equipment. This process is relatively lengthy and thus it is necessary to
assume the period of 5-8 years when the armament and equipment will be
commissioned for the use in combat.

52
The operating concepts do not directly affect the midterm and annual
planning. The midterm planning covers the horizon of 0-5 years. It
is a  period of time not covered by the operating concept. Midterm and
annual planning of the Department’s activities primarily addresses the use
of the existing military forces under ongoing operations. Midterm and
annual planning of the Department’s activities affects the development of
the operating concepts by the fact that the plan of the development and
update of the concepts represent one of the planned areas. Furthermore,
the midterm and annual plans should address the activities related to the
experimental verification of the conclusions of the operating concepts and
to the preparation of the acquisition process in order to commission the
required capabilities under all the DOTMLPFI areas into the armed forces
over a time span of 8 years.

The operating concepts represent an input for the preparation of internal

normative acts and doctrinal publications related to the operational use
of troops. Whether it concerns operating, institutional, functional or
enabling concepts their conclusions must be understood, implemented,
practiced and trained in a uniform manner. This is enabled by the internal
normative acts and doctrinal publications as they are of a mandating and
explaining nature. These documents govern standards and procedures
such as permanent operating procedures, duties and responsibilities of the
commanders and soldiers, principles and methods of use of armaments
and equipment, etc. The preparation of the normative acts and doctrinal
publications is a controlled process. For example, the preparation of a new
doctrinal publication takes about 2 years. The approval process of the
departmental normative act takes at least 6 months. With this respect it is
necessary to ensure that the requirements raised in the conclusions of the
operating concepts are included in the preparation plan of the normative
acts and doctrinal publications as soon as possible.

53
 Chapter 3
DEVELOPMENT OF OPERATING CONCEPTS

„A concept is a proposed solution that encompasses an overreaching and firm

idea of how a problem can be solved, with the aim of fulfilling a capability
requirement in a given context of the addressed problem.” (JCDEC, p. 20)

The principles of operating concepts development do not significantly differ

from the generally applicable principles of project planning and management
in other scientific disciplines or areas of social development. The operating
concept development is a complex process, based on the dialectic harmony
of their purpose, context and principles of development, systemic structure
and content structure.

The preparation and reviews of operating concepts represent a complex process

for their authors:

•  Authors of operating concepts often do not get the comprehensive

understanding of the problem until they find a possible solution;

•  Only with difficulties may the authors detect the point in time
when the concept development should be stopped as it has reached
a deadlock, or the problem has ceased to be relevant;

•  Ideas and visions in the concept proposals are never correct or

wrong, they may only be better or worse;

•  A concept will never offer a final number of possible solutions and

a final number of acceptable alternatives.

Operating Concept Project Management

As mentioned above, the operating concept development is subject to project
management theory. Operating concept project management covers the
management system and processes of the operating concept development
and operating concept processing project management. Specific operating
concept projects should be complemented or accompanied with experimental
verification of conclusions and recommendations given in the concepts.

55
Operating Concept Development Process

The operating concept development itself represents a well-thought-out cyclical

and gradual process, with the aim to optimize the efforts of evaluation, writing
and review of the operating concepts. It consists in mutual overlapping of the
individual three-year-period activities, based on the structured and logical
concept development procedure. The process should prevent the occurrence of
conflicts in the preparation efforts, enable implementation of results obtained
through the evaluation of the individual concepts and, simultaneously, allow
the participation of various stakeholders in their development.

The actual rhythm of the development may be affected by various

important factors or events, such as changes in national governments,
new strategic concepts, continuous process of defense planning, scenario
development, changes in strategic visions and policies, or outcomes of the
negotiations between the DoD agencies that participate in the concept
development or have a significant influence on the process.

Operating Concept Development Management

The operating concept development proposals and their experimental

verification should be managed centrally, at the level with appropriate
decision-making power and accountability for the defense planning
process. On a  regular basis this responsible authority should initiate
and approve a concept development and review plan for a certain period
of time. The operating concept development and review plan should
respond to and correspond with the defense planning process. Concept
development management includes the following steps:

•  Collection of requirements for the operating concept development

and review;

•  Preparation of the operating concept development plan;

•  Assignment of responsibilities to units and individuals for the operating

concept development and review, or placement of the requirement to
include the development of a  specific operating concept to defense
and security research projects;

•  Operating concept project monitoring;

•  Approval of developed and reviewed operating concepts.

56
The inclusion of the operating concept development or review into a plan may
arise from the standard defense sector action plans for the respective period. In
addition to a common method of including the requirements and proposals
into the concept development and review plan, an urgent request may be placed
resulting from a fundamental change in the security situation, development of
new technologies or, for instance, due to changes in the resource framework.
An extraordinary inclusion of the concept development or review project into
the plan may slow down other projects already included in the plan.

Since the operating concept development plan is the managing document, its
preamble should stipulate the strategic objective and operational assumptions
in relation to future operational capabilities. The strategic objective should
cover the scope of possible scenarios (military ambitions) under which the
armed forces may be employed, including the types of forces and their size.

Additionally, the operating concept development plan should include

a list of all operating concepts, indicating their title, type, purpose, author,
officer with the corresponding decision-making power responsible for
its administration, preparation date, review date and other necessary
information. Operating concept review dates should be linked to the strategic
document development, such as national strategies, political and planning
policies, deadlines mandatory under the defense planning process, etc.

Operating Concept Development Project

The first step of the project is to define the military problem and analyze the
instructions given by the user of the respective concept. Upon understanding
the military problem and expectations of the user it is possible to choose the
concept development procedure – a project plan. Every operating concept
project is, however, specific and thus the processing methods and their
implementation have to be well-thought-out. The concept development is
not a project with a clearly defined problem and foreseen solutions. Therefore,
the concept development does not undergo a clearly defined, structured and
sequenced process. It concerns a research and experimental process based on
hypotheses, contradictory hypotheses, investigation of which generates ideas
(concepts) that need to be verified. In the first stages these hypotheses and
contradictory hypotheses are investigated through studies, meetings, etc. In
the subsequent stages the results are discussed in workshops or tested through
war games, simulations, etc. The operating concept development project
is divided into several stages. During these stages the operating concept is
gradually elaborated with its objectiveness supported by arguments.

57
Every operating concept project covers five principal development
stages: Assignment Clarification, Analysis, Evaluation, Experimental
Verification and Document Preparation. The procedure is managed by
the Concept Development Plan, as in Figure 9.

It should be noted that the studies are not processed for themselves but they
are initiated upon a client’s request. Clients, with respect to the operating
concepts of employment of the armed forces, are top officers of the DoD
with the respective decision making powers and responsibilities for the
development and preparedness of the armed forces, as well as those who
will be subjected to the resulting concept. The client’s request is satisfied by
the author of the operating concept. The authors may concern a group of
analysts of a specific institution in the client’s subordinated organizational
structure, or from an organization not subordinated to the client. The
analyst or group of analysts is not the only ones who prepare the operating
concept. To address a number of issues experts from the entire structure
of the armed forces and often from other organizations not subject to the
DoD are invited. Foreign experts and foreign partner organizations are
asked to join in the consultation process. Additionally, the departmental
organizational structure engages a  group of officers who may influence
the proposed solutions in the concept, or may have to use them. The use
of chemical troops may serve as an example. Chemical troops support
combat troops and thus the manner of this support is logically affected by
the manner in which these troops conduct combat. On the other hand, the
concept of use of radiation and chemical surveying will be based on the
concept of employment of the chemical troops.

58
 Task Experimental Document
Initiation Analysis Assessment
clarification verification processing

Specification of Approval and

concepts and Revision and task prioritization of Approval of Approval
Decisionmaker
conceptual clarification alternative courses courses of action of concept
assumptions of actions

Plan of the concept Understanding Courses Course Operational

Output
development of the problem of actions of actions concepts

59
(author Zuna)
Analysis of initial Assessment of The choice of method Processing of final
models scenarios for experimental design concept
Orientation in the documents
verification
task and conceptual
assumptions Analysis of superior Proposing of Editorial
The choice of
and subordinate courses of actions experimental model
arrangement
Analysis of clients concepts and their evaluation of document
Project team
and experts Method selection and Processing of the
Assessment of Comment
development of causal relations plan and experiment
realization procedures
Intent of concept models scenarios
development Interpretation,

Figure 9 Stages and contents of the concept development project

Collection of Processing of Evaluation of the
presentation and
information proposals solution experiment results
distribution
Whereas in the development of a general study the system of individuals
with the decision making power and responsibility, experts and other
subjects, who may influence or use the results of the study, is not known,
the studies of operating concepts have this group of people and their
hierarchical structure defined by the organizational structure of the MoD
and the armed forces structure. Within this hierarchical structure, there
is a full spectrum of levels of responsible officers who make the decisions
regarding the method of employment of the armed forces as a whole or just
their components. The organizational structure of the MoD predetermines
where the experts for the respective areas are recruited from, together with
the officers who influence or use the solutions proposed in the concepts.

The analyst or team of analysts preparing an operating concept has

to know the hierarchical structure of the customers, elements with
the appropriate expert knowledge, foreign expert institutes as well
as elements that may influence or use the proposed solutions. In the
process of concept development the analyst needs to manage the role of
moderator and auditor of opinions and attitudes of the clients, experts
and other individuals engaged, resulting from the level of responsibility,
powers, influence on decision making and often particular interests of
the individual organizational elements in the MoD structure.

Therefore, every project must be managed by a team consisting of experts

in the concept development, analysts and top professionals in the area
addressed. In addition to this team of authors it is also the customer or
group of customers – officers with the respective responsibilities and
decision making powers – who are involved in the concept development.

The assignment clarification stage entails the analysis of the purpose,

content and scope of the developed concept. In other words, it needs to
be clarified whether it concerns the revision of a valid concept, its update
or a  development of a  brand new concept. Furthermore, it includes the
clarification whether the concept addresses a completely new problem or
whether it is to address an existing problem in a different manner. It should
be clarified what the underlying documents for concept development
are and what the conceptual prerequisites defined by the client are and,
additionally, it is necessary to analyze the hierarchical structure of engaged
responsible officers and associated operating concepts.

The main task for the assignment clarification stage is to get familiar with
the context of the respective operating concept and ensure a  uniform
understanding of the problem within the team of authors. The team of
authors performs the following three tasks:

a.  Understanding the assignment, conceptual prerequisites and

the context of the developed concept;

b.  Understanding the hierarchical structure of the officers with the

adequate responsibility and decision making power and identification
of experts or expert institutions for the given area;

c.  Proposal of the concept development and concept development

project plan preparation.

The main task for the officers with the decision making power is to provide
the team of authors with the assignment and conceptual prerequisites.

This stage requires intensive discussion between the team of authors, client
and other officers with the decision making power who may influence the
concept development or who may be influenced by the concept conclusions.

The outcome of this stage entails a detailed operating concept development

plan, answering the questions WHY, HOW, WHAT, WHO and WHEN:

•  WHY is the concept being developed?

•  HOW the concept is going to be developed from the project timeline

view and from the view of applied scientific methodologies?

•  WHAT is the assignment or what should the concept address?

•  WHO will be engaged in the concept development, their roles and

responsibilities?

•  WHEN should the concept be finished and what is the time

schedule to be followed by the team of authors?

The operating concept development plan is a  formal document that is

approved by the officer with the respective responsibility and decision making
power. The plan governs the concept development procedure and supervises
and coordinates the individual development tasks. Simultaneously, the plan
documents the assignment, conceptual prerequisites and adopted decisions.

61
The team of authors is expected to capture, record and correctly interpret
the knowledge and understanding of the client with respect to the operating
concept under development. A  mutually uniform understanding of
a  problem addressed in the respective operating concept between the
client and team of authors represents the key prerequisite for successful
development of an operating concept. The results may be captured and
presented as cognitive maps and based on their analysis and convergence
it is possible to model a  mutually uniform systemic understanding of
problems addressed in the operating concept.

In this stage, it is very important to analyze the aspects of uncertainty that

will have to be addressed. It is necessary to get prepared for the uncertainty
in terms of “I do not know or I am not sure how it will evolve”. While
addressing the problems under the operating concept development some
factors of uncertainty may be controlled, some may be predicted and
some will have to be accepted as beyond control or unpredictable.

The operating concept development plan should not merely list the schedule
of activities and deadlines for task completion. Nor should it concern the
directive saying why, how, what, who and when. The operating concept
development plan should document the assignment as well as the conceptual
prerequisites, aspects of uncertainty, analysis of organizational entities
and individuals engaged in the development, interpretation of mutual
understanding of the operating concept problems between the client, team
of authors and the other officers with the decision making power, aspects of
uncertainty and other issues.

The analytical stage consists of the analysis and detailed elaboration

of the conceptual prerequisites, as well as the systemic analysis of the
security and operational environment, the analysis of new technological
development studies and others. This stage also includes the collection
of information and its sorting and structuring into models representing
a systemic design of scenarios of armed forces employment. The objective
of this stage is to achieve a  deeper understanding and unification
of opinions about potential situations and methods of armed forces
employment among the team of authors and experts about the issues
addressed in the operating concept.

Based on the investigation of problems to be addressed in the operating

concept, conceptual prerequisites, aspects of uncertainty, organizational

62
entities and individuals engaged in the development of the respective
concept, the analytical stage begins, covering the following main tasks:

a.  Analysis of correlation and causal relationships between the

underlying documents relating to the respective operating concept;

b.  Analysis of applicable superior, subordinate and associated

operating concepts;

c.  Selection of the corresponding method for information and

data analysis;

d.  Model scenario and vignette development;

e.  Identification of resources, collection and sorting out of information;

f.  Generating of solution models.

The main outcome of this stage concerns the understanding of the problems
addressed in the operating concept. This stage requires intensive interaction
with the client and the other decisionmakers in order to specify the task.
As soon as a mutual agreement between these stakeholders is reached, the
team of authors may begin selecting a suitable method for developing and
modeling scenarios, and determining the content and scope of information
necessary to design and assess the solutions. At the same time, the content
and scope of information necessary to assess the aspects of uncertainty need
to be defined. Technically, the analytical stage is complete when the scenario
model development methods have been designed, the relevant information
of the necessary content and scope has been collected and sorted out and the
basic models of scenarios and employment of the forces have been generated.

The assessment stage focuses on the elaboration and comparison of

options of the armed forces employment, and the estimate or prediction of
the causal relationship towards the security and operational environment.

Based on the previous stage outcomes the team of authors addresses the
following tasks:

a.  Assessing the scenario models and impact of the aspects of

uncertainty within;

b.  Generating options of the forces employment and their assessment;

63
 c.  Assessing the causal relationships towards the security and
operational environments and towards the respective applicable
operating concepts;

d.  Development of operating concept options.

To assess the scenario models and the role of uncertainty within these
models, and to generate options of the forces employment for their
subsequent assessment, various applied scientific methods of operational
analysis and operational research may be used.

Assessing the scenario models and options of the forces employment is a key
step towards the operating concept development. It is not the mission of
the team of authors to select the option of the forces employment for the
given scenario. It is the client or officers with the respective responsibility
and decision making power who are to select the solution. The role of the
team of authors is to generate scenario models, propose solutions and their
assessment, both with respect to the uncertainty and risks, and the causal
relationships towards the security and operational environment as well as
towards other related operating concepts.

The assessment of uncertainty, threats and risks plays a  crucial role in

selecting the methods of the forces employment under the given scenario
and under the given conditions. The risk assessment is directly reflected by
the requirements placed on the force capabilities, along with the strategies
of the building and development of the armed forces. Threats and risks may
be completely eliminated or the probability of their occurrence or degree of
their impact may be reduced. The importance of threat and risk is the product
of probability of occurrence and degree of impact on the task (mission)
completion. While preparing the operating concepts it is necessary to assess
three levels of risks: strategic, operational and tactical.

Strategic risks cover the state’s ability to achieve its priority goals in terms of
security and defense. The strategic risks for the armed forces may be determined
by the ability to conduct a certain military operation under a given scenario
and allocate sufficient resources for this operation.

Operational risks cover the ability to fulfill the military strategy or objectives
of military operation with a given range of resources. In other words, it is the
ability of the armed forces to conduct operations in accordance with the crisis
and contingency operational plans and achieve the set political objectives.

64
Tactical risks mean the ability to complete a tactical combat task, such
as seizing and holding a base, conducting maneuvers with forces, block
enemy maneuvers, etc.

From a global perspective the risks may be classified under two groups. The
first group is associated with a militarily stronger enemy and the second group
with conflicts such as irregular warfare, counter insurgency or stabilization
operations. The second group of risks affects the ability of military forces to
achieve the set of political objectives within the given scope and under given
conditions of these types of operations. In other words, which military forces
are needed to gain superiority and defeat the rebels, or gain stability within
the area of the responsibility? For example, what proportion of forces will be
needed considering the size of local population?

The options of the armed forces employment presented to the decisionmaker

must be supported by objective reasoning which may be obtained by
applying the relevant operational analysis methods. The decisionmaker
adopts the decision about the solutions and sets their priorities. These
solutions for the individual scenarios are verified through experimentation
in the folowing stage.

The experimental verification stage is aimed at verifying the feasibility and

sustainability of the suggested methods of the armed forces employment.
The experiment should confirm that the respective method of employment
of the armed forces will bring an achievement of the planned goals and,
at the same time, it should confirm the causal relationships towards the
security and operational environment. If the nature of the operating
concept does not enable the experimental verification to be performed,
then it is validated through a formal comment and approval procedure.

There is a number of models and methods of operating concept experimental

verification. These may concern any type of military exercise, including
computer assisted exercises, or a mental experiment under the participation
of experts in the corresponding areas of the forces employment, etc. The
choice of the operating concept experimental verification method is based
on the type of operating concept and the team of authors’ capabilities.

An experiment consists of three phases (Alberts, Hayes, p.  61-125):

pre-experiment, conduct of the experiment and post-experiment.

The pre-experiment phase entails the assessment of the existing knowledge

and opinions of the team of authors with respect to the concerned area.

65
This is actually obtained as the output from the previous operating concept
development process stages. During the pre-experiment phase the model
of the experiment is determined and a  detailed experimentation plan is
prepared. The experimentation plan covers the objectives, experiment
scenario description, dependent, measured and checked variables, observed
data and method of their collection, members of the experimentation team
and a detailed plan of the experimentation.

The conduct of the experiment phase includes the surroundings

preparation, pretest and execution of the experimentation plan.

The post-experiment phase includes the data analysis, interpretation

of gathered data and information, modeling and simulation to validate
gathered data, revision of the products and comparison against
expectations – to confirm the correctness of the armed forces employment
for the given scenario. This phase also entails the archiving of all data and
experimentation materials for future use.

The document elaboration stage includes the processing of final conclusions

into a  structured document. In addition to the processing of the actual
document this stage also entails the elaboration of conclusion interpretation
methods, suggestions where, by who and how to use the conclusions from the
concept and method of their communication to the client and other engaged
officers with the respective responsibility and decision making power.

In all five stages of the operating concept development the team of the authors
and the group decisionmakers have specific tasks associated with the milestones
of the entire development process. If at a given milestone of the development
process a conflict between the team of authors or the group of officers with the
decision making power occurs, it is necessary to go back into the process to the
previous milestone, or cease the concept development altogether.

Competence and Responsibility in Managing of the Operating

Concepts Development

The competence and responsibility in managing the development of the

operating concepts are both individual and collective. The individual
competence and responsibility is assigned to officers with the responsibility
and decision making power for specific functional areas of management and
conceptual development. The collective competence and responsibility are

66
assigned to the armed forces, service branches and troops. The individual
competence and responsibility are implemented within the organizational
structure under the supervision of a particular person. To ensure collective
competence and responsibility it is necessary to establish specific elements of
operating concept development management and coordination. These may
include the Committee for Management and Coordination of Operating
Concept Development, working groups for operating concept development
or special-purpose groups established to harmonize the sets of concepts.
A  certain competence and responsibility is also assigned to the officers
managing the service branches in the MoD structure.

The Secretary of Defense formally manages the operating concept

development and approves the Capstone Operating Concept. By its approval
the Secretary agrees with the method of the armed forces employment to
achieve the political goals specified in the National Security Strategy, National
Defense Strategy and other strategic documents. General instructions by the
Secretary of Defense for the operating concept development are included in
the Secretary Strategic Planning Directive.

The Assistant Secretaries of Defense participate in the sessions of the Committee

for Management and Coordination of Operating Concept Development.

The Chief of Staff issues recommendations related to the system and

processes of concept development within the MoD. He approves the
operating concept development plan and operating concept of the armed
forces, service branches and troops. He submits the Capstone Operating
Concept to the Secretary of Defense for approval.

The Committee for Management and Coordination of Operating Concept

Development manages the overall process of concept development by
preparing and submitting the operating concept development plan,
monitoring and assessing the concept development projects, assigning
tasks to the individual elements in the structure of forces related to
the development and presenting the respective operating concepts for
approval by the Chief of Staff. The Committee acts as a  representative
and cooperates with other elements of the MoD with respect to the
implementation of the operating concept conclusions into the controlling
and planning documents of the MoD.

A person with the responsibility and decision making power for development
and preparation of forces chairs the Committee for Management and

67
Coordination of Operating Concept Development and, in terms of
administration, supports the Committee’s activities. He provides resources
for the activities carried out by the project teams (teams of authors) and
should there be a disagreement between the individuals representing the
types of forces and types of troops, he makes the final decision.

The concept development project team managers manage the development,

write, assess and review the operating concepts in cooperation with those
responsible for the types of forces and types of troops. They participate
in the sessions of the Committee for Management and Coordination
of Operating Concept Development and present reports capturing the
team’s activities. They present the results to the person with the overal
responsibility and decision making power. They participate in the meetings
of these individuals with the persons or groups responsible for acquisition
and budgetary for the building and sustainment of operational capabilities.

Fundamentals of Operational Analysis in the Operating Concept

Development

At the core of the operating concept development there is a  seemingly

incomprehensible process of argumentative reasoning of thoughts, hypotheses
and solutions related to the employment of troops in order to achieve the
political objectives. Methods of analysis (definition of the problem’s scope
and its decomposition into parts) and synthesis (development of solution
models) are used to establish a system of arguments supporting or disproving
the thoughts, hypotheses and solutions covered in the operating concepts.
The problem of analytical development of arguments in the operating
concept development lies in utilization of empiric methods, results of which
are obtained based on experiments and experience.

The analysis of the operating concept development is aimed at establishing

knowledge about the given problem related to the potential use of troops
for the given planning situation expressing the political objectives,
military ambitions, etc. The function of the analytical-synthetic methods
of analysis is to produce arguments necessary to develop the outputs
from the individual operating concept development process stages. The
objective of the analysis and argument development management is to
subsequently link the known facts with the required solution – methods
of the armed forces employment.

68
The process starts with defining the expected effect achieved by using
the troops and continues towards the search for sequence of causes
and consequences resulting from the given effect. It generates a  list of
identified causes and consequences (axioms and postulates) which
confirm or disprove the hypothesis of employment of the forces.

The process of synthesis proceeds from the identified causes and consequences
towards proposing the option of employment of the forces. The individual
causes and consequences are linked into a  tree structure resulting in the
identification of the tasks performed by the forces.

The conclusive facts and evidence needed for reasoning are generated
from the areas describing security environment, operational environment
and combat area. Specific military models are utilized to describe these
environments, such as PMESSII, METT-TC or ASCOPE, or a  general
model, such as PESTLEM, POFFEO, etc. may be used as well.

Intelligence Operational Officer with decision

planning making power
Discipline Intelligence Operational Purpose and decision
analysis research
Analysis Understand Understand Understand the
focus and explain alternative task (mission)
the situation actions and aggregate
and factors (operations) and implications of policy
of influence their anticipated and execution of
(IBP, CPOE) consequences operations
Analysis Examine Examine and Judge large-scale
process and assess assess situation implications of COAs
evidence hypotheses on mission objectives
Synthesis Create Create COAs Create strategy and
process hypothesis decisions for the
(model, given mission
situation)

Figure 10 Engagement and roles of the elements in the analytical process

of the operating concept development
(Waltz, p. 166)

69
As a standard there are several MoD elements taking part in the operating
concept development process, such as intelligence, force planning, operational
planning, strategy and policy, building and development of forces, etc. The
person with the decision making power and responsibility who selects
the solutions and the next steps in the concept development is involved in the
individual stages and steps of the operating concept development process.
Figure 10 shows an example of engagement and roles of the MoD elements in
the analytical process of the operating concept development. A similar table
should be included in the operating concept development plan.

Reasoning in the Operating Concept Development Process

Reasoning in the operating concept development process is based on
generating deductions, judgments and hypotheses. The reason lies in the
fact that, unlike in mathematical disciplines, it is not possible to use scientific
evidence. This type of reasoning is called inference and consists in deducing
connections and judgments. The main types of inference include deduction,
induction and abduction (Giarratano, Riley).

Reasoning Development by Deduction

Deductive generating of ideas, hypotheses and judgments in the operating

concept development entails the wording of new, logically consistent
conclusions and beliefs by applying logical rules and principles of military
art and military science. Arguments deduced in this manner may belong
to a  number of logical-hypothetical-categorical conclusions, such as the
Clausewitzian postulate on the “concentration of forces” in an area. By applying
this principle, it is possible to deduce conclusions related to the use of the
enemy’s forces and own forces for the given scenario: If the enemy concentrates
the forces in an area, to achieve the XZ goal, they will concentrate on WHAT,
WHEN, WHERE and WHY”. Deduction requires preparing a list of principles,
rules and facts consensually accepted by the team of authors. Another example
of deductive reasoning concerns the logical-hypothetical conclusion: “If an
enemy possesses operational-tactical guided medium-range missiles and
capabilities for research and development of weapons of mass destruction, then
these weapon systems represent a threat for RSOM (Reception, Staging and
Onward Movement) of our own forces within the operational area”.

70
Reasoning Development by Induction

Using inductive generating of ideas, hypotheses and judgments in the

operating concept development, more general and abstract conclusions
are generated. The inductive analysis provides more general conclusions
regarding scenarios and employment of troops while it is based on a certain
set of specific conclusions (ideas, judgments and hypotheses). With respect
to the operating concept development, the reasoning development by
induction may also be called “generalization” of the problem covering
environment and use of forces. Example: “If the enemy in conflicts A,
B and C used improvised explosive devices, they will also use them in
conflict D”. The inductive development of reasoning uses analogy, parallels
and identification of causes based on knowing the consequences. The
principle of inductive analysis in the operating concept development lies in
recognizing abstract generalized models, patterns and behavioral manners
that explain the problem of conducting armed conflict and conducting
combat action under the given scenario or set of scenarios.

Reasoning Development by Abduction

In addition to induction and deduction, abduction is another type of

ideas, hypothesis and judgment development. It concerns an analysis
producing hypotheses for observed phenomena, usually entailing
reduction from several possible explanations. This type of abduction
is named selective abduction. Apart from selective abduction, there is
also a creative abduction providing possible explanations for identified
situations and phenomena in the operational environment. Abduction is
a form of deducing from other ideas, hypotheses and judgment and applies
both the inductive development of hypotheses and the deductive testing
of hypotheses. Abduction represents a logical deduction of the following
type: “If situation A may be explained using hypotheses H1, H2, … Hn,
then H5 explains situation A  the best”. The disadvantage of abduction
lies in the fact that it is primarily based on the subjective opinion of the
analyst or a group of analysts. A practical example of abduction in the
operational planning process concerns the evaluation of the courses of
action (COAs) using the evaluation criteria table. The degree to which
the respective option achieves or corresponds with the specific criterion
is often evaluated subjectively. Even the evaluation criteria are selected
subjectively. In this case the logical conclusion says: “If courses of action
COA1, COA2 and COA3 may be evaluated using criteria C1, C2, … Cn,

71
then option COA3 corresponds with the criteria the best ” and thus this
option will be presented to the commander as the most suitable one. In
order to obtain the most possible objective reasoning development by
abduction it is necessary to use analytical methods as much as possible
and thus limit the influence of the subjective factor on the final conclusion.

Integrated Reasoning Process

The processes of analysis, synthesis and abduction form the foundation of

the reasoning process supporting the proposed solutions in the operating
concepts. They concern the search for arguments supporting and explaining
hypotheses for the use of troops under a scenario or set of scenarios. The
integration of the reasoning process represents a  systemic approach to
justification and explanation of a  concept of forces employment in the
given scenario. This systemic model is shown in Figure 11.
1.  In the first step of this integrated reasoning process system the team
of authors analyzes all underlying documents and the knowledge
available related to the given problem of the forces employment.
This analysis generates a set of known models of employment of
the forces within similar situations and hypotheses of relevant use
of the forces and basic test of their validity;
2.  Hypotheses not fitting into any of the known models are reviewed
in the second step. The objective of this review is to understand
them and propose a new model;
3.  The third step entails a search for models that do not correspond
with the given hypothesis but their approach corresponds with the
newly proposed model;
4.  The newly proposed model and references to the models corresponding
with the approach are used as a baseline for determining new criteria
used to search in the knowledge database;
5.  In the fifth step the gathered hypotheses and supporting reasoning are
used to explain the new hypothesis or new hypotheses – concept(s)
of employment of the forces;
6.  The explanation and reasoning behind these new hypotheses are
subjected to validation using a list of evaluation criteria, such as
principles of military art or other criteria agreed upon by the team
of authors;

72
 DEDUCTION
Hypothesis Detection of
test and its Assessment
conditions and
comparison with of the hypotheses
courses for use
the known probability
2 of force
model
1
RETRODUCTION Understanding Evaluation
of new hypotheses criteria:
Search of beyond the harmony
evidence recognition connection
4 confirming the framework pragmatism
Knowledge new hypothesis
base (data,
information) ABDUCTION 3
Inclusion of
5 evidence and Clarification of
The best Assessment
facts into the conditions and
explanation of of the hypotheses
model courses for use
the evidence and probability
facts evidence of force

6
INDUCTION Arrangement
of evidence
7 Validation of Discovery of
into generalized
Creation of a new hypotheses conditions and
model
generalized probability courses for use
hypothesis of force
8

Figure 11 System of the reasoning process integration in the operating

concept development
(adapted according to Waltz, p. 179)

7.  Based on the gained knowledge and experience in the operating

concept development as well as in the application of experience
gained during operational use of forces, the knowledge and
hypotheses of the forces employment are generalized and applied
as general axioms and postulates. These generalized conclusions
are used to describe new models of the forces employment;
8.  New models and generalized conclusions are validated through
experiments or under real operational employment of forces and
they develop the knowledge base for testing and deductive analysis
of future concepts of the forces employment.

The analysis-synthesis model (Figure 12) in the operating concept

development must be headed towards a final outcome, i.e. description of
the environment and conditions applicable to the planning situation:

73
 •  Scenarios, factors of the operational situation expressed by the
PMESII, METT-TC, ASCOPE and other models;

•  Concept of the forces employment in the CONOPS format;

•  SOR – Statement of Requirements described by the DOTMLPFI model.

Knowledge Explanation
Argumentation Abduction
(Data) Operational Force development

Planning
situations Political
(scenarios) Organization Military
and structuring
of the facts, Economic
Data Decomposition assumptions
searching and hypotheses Social

Information Doctrines

DATA ANALYSIS Synthesis Infrastructure Organization

METT-TC Training
Command
Testing and Composition ASCOPE and Control
refinement of Equipment
hypotheses ... and armament
Personal

Infrastructure

Interoperability

Figure 12 Analysis-synthesis model in the operating concept development

(author Zuna)

74
 Conclusion

Within the DoD, similarly as within other departments, many strategic

documents are prepared without any clear rules and regulations. The
concept development teams follow the custom practice or “best practice”
without applying any modern methods to support decision making. The
elaborated concepts of the armed forces development and the doctrines
are based on the analyses of the current situation, but they do not fully
reflect the scientific prognostic perspectives and visions.

One of the most important starting points for authors of concepts

(institutional, functional, enabling, etc.) are concepts for future activities
of certain systems and subsystems. Within the DoD they are the armed
forces operating concepts as the pivotal document with horizon over the
next 15 to 20 years. For the strategic management, the operating concepts,
as a  scientific prognostic material, represent one of the underlying
documents and a starting point for preparation of concepts of the armed
forces development. Objectively unjustified concepts of the armed forces
usually have a  very short life cycle and in their essence they result in
inefficient use of available resources.

Therefore, it is necessary for the strategic management to have analytical

information for their decision making. In the majority countries within
the NATO and EU, the concepts of the future employment of the armed
forces are those which initiate the transformation of these forces. In the
process of defense planning the operating concept should be one of the
crucial military documents.

The methodology of the operating concept development should be used

as an indispensable tool of the authors of the operating and other types
of military concepts; it should unify the efforts of the teams of authors
under the development process. The methodology should include the
applied methods of the operational analysis and operational research
for the development of military concepts and it should determine their
contents, structure and form.

75
 List of abbreviations

ACH Analysis of Competing Hypothesis

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
ASCOPE Area, Structures, Capabilities, Organizations, People, Events
CAX Computer Assisted Exercise
CCJO Capstone Concept for Joint Operations
CD Plan Concept Development Plan
COA Course of Actions
COCOM Combatant Commander
CONEMP Concept of Employment
CONOPS Concept of Operation
COBP Code of Best Practices
CONUSE Concept of Use
CPOE Complex Preparation of Operational Environment
DCDC Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre
DCF Defense Capability framework
DFC Defense Capability Network
DOTMLPFI Doctrines, Organization, Training,
ECC Equipment Capability Customer
FA&SOC Future Air and Space Operating Concept
FEMOC Future Electromagnetic Operating Concept
FLOC Future Land Operating Concept
FMOC Future Maritime Operating Concept
HLOC High-level Operational Concept
IPB Intelligence Preparation of Battlefield
JDCC Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre
JFC Joint Functional Concept
JIC Joint Integrating Concept
JOC Joint Operating Concept
JFDID Joint Force Development and Integration division
JOpsC Joint Operations Concepts
METT-TC Mission, Enemy, Terrain & Weather, Troops & Support
available
MoD Ministry of Defense
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OPLAN Operational Plan
OSN Organization of United Nations
PESTLE(M) Political, Economic, Social, Technology, Legal,
Environmental (and Marketing)
PMESIL Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information,
Infrastructure
POFEO Political-Military Scenarios, Objectives, Strategy and
Tactics, Forces, Environment, Others
RSOM Reception, Staging, Onward Movement
SME Subject Matter Expert
SAST Strategic Assumptions Surfacing & Testing
SODA Strategic Options Development & Analysis
SOR Statement of Requirements
SSM Soft Systems Methodology
SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

77
 Summary

The book “Operating Concepts: Approaches and Procedures” is one

of the outcomes of the Defense Research Project, addressed by a team of
authors from the Department of Lifelong Learning, Faculty of Economics
and Management, University of Defense, under Defense Research Project
“OPERKON – Operating Concepts of the Czech Republic Armed
Forces in Joint Operations”. The objective of this book is to provide
a  basic overview of the mission and operating concepts development
in relation to the management of building, development and the armed
forces employment. Based on the analysis of approaches applied by
selected countries, the authors´ aim is to give readers the book discussing
the systemization of military concepts, their purpose and background of
their project management development.

The book is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, Operating
Concepts, the authors discuss the essence of operating concepts, their
typology and structure. In the second chapter, Operating Concepts
and Defense Planning, the authors define the relationship between
the operating concepts and the defense planning process. In the third
chapter, Development of Operating Concepts, the authors describe the
project management in terms of development and updating of operating
concepts. The target group of this book is primarily the management
staff and experts involved in the concepts development, either related
to the use of allocated resources (concepts of forces employment), their
internal functions (functional concepts) or organizing and building of
organizational entities (institutional concepts).

78
 Bibliography

AAP-6. Terminologický slovník pojmů a definic NATO: (anglicky a francouzsky).

Praha: Úřad pro obrannou standardizaci, katalogizaci a státní ověřování jakosti,
2009. 466 s.

ALBERTS, David S  a  Richard E HAYES.  Code of best practice for

experimentation. [Washington, D.C.: DoD Command and Control Research
Program, 2002, xii, 436 p. ISBN 18-937-2307-0.

BELL, Ron. DIRECTORATE OF LAND CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS. Land

Concept and Capability Development: Army of Tomorrow & Future Army
2040. Canada, 2009. prezentace, 46 snímků.

Bezpečnostní strategie České republiky [online]. Praha: Ministerstvo

zahraničních věcí České republiky, září 2011 [cit. 2012-04-13].
ISBN 978-80-7441-005-5. Available: http://www.mzv.cz/file/699914/
Bezpecnostni_strategie_CR_2011.pdf

Bučka, Pavel Mačovský, Ivan. Obranné plánovanie a manažment zdrojov.

In: Medzinárodná vedecko-odborná konferencia „Manažment, teória,
výučba a  prax 2012“. [elektronický zdroj]: medzinárodná vedecko-
odborná konferencia. Liptovský Mikuláš: Akadémia ozbrojených
síl generála Milana Rastislava Štefánika, 26.-29. Septembra 2012.
ISBN 978-80-8040-352-9. - S. 241-244.

BUZAN, Barry, Ole WAEVER a Jaap de WILDE. Bezpečnost: nový rámec

pro analýzu. 1. vyd. Překlad Ivo Lukáš. Brno: Centrum strategických studií,
2005, 267 s. Současná teorie mezinárodních vztahů. ISBN 80-903-3336-2.

Capstone Concept for Joint Operations .Version 3.0, 15 January 2009, DoD USA.

CJCSI 3010.02B.  Joint Operations Concepts Development Process.

Washington D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2006.

CJCSI 3010.02C.  Joint Concept development and experimentation.

Washington D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2012.

EICHLER, Jan. Mezinárodní bezpečnost na počátku 21. století. Praha:

Ministerstvo obrany České republiky - AVIS, 2006, 303 s. ISBN 80-727-8326-2.

79
GALATÍK, Vlastimil et al. Principy obrany České republiky „2030“. Brno:
Univerzita obrany, 2008, 81 s. ISBN 978-80-7231-513-0.

GALATÍK, Vlastimil, Ivo PIKNER a Ján SPIŠÁK. Zásady tvorby operačních

koncepcí. Univerzita obrany, BRNO 2010, ISBN: 978-80-7231-755-4.

GALATÍK, Vlastimil, Ivo PIKNER a Miroslav KRČMÁŘ. Nové přístupy

k  obrannému plánování v  dlouhodobém horizontu: Scénáře a  operační
koncepce pro budoucí bezpečnostní prostředí. Vojenské rozhledy [online].
2011, roč. 20, č. 3, s. 23-28 [cit. 2012-07-15]. ISSN 1210-3292. Available:
http://www.mocr.army.cz/scripts/file.php?id=104822&down=yes

Guide to Capability-Based Planning. The Technical Cooperation Program,

Joint Systems and Analysis Group, TR-JSA-TP3-2-2004, Virginia, USA,
2004, 15 pp.

HRŮZA, Petr; HALOUZKA, Kamil. Cyber Attack Targets. Cybernetic

Letters [online]. 2012, [cit. 2012-11-02].2012, p.  5. ISSN 1802-3525.
Available: http://www.cybletter.com/index.php?id=128

HUGHES, Daniel J.  Moltke on the Art of War. New York: Ballantine
Books, 1993. ISBN 978-0-307-53851-2.

JCD&E. Joint Concept Development and Experimentation Life Cycle Management

Framework: Formal Review Process Manual. Suffolk, Virginia, 2010.

JCDEC. CD&E Method Description. Swedish Armed Forces Joint Concept

Development & Experimentation Centre. Enköping, Sweden, 2011, 123  s.
I-1.0 INT.

JETCD. Capabilities-Based Assessment: User’s Guide. Joint Cheifs of Staff.

Washington D.C., 2009, 97 s.

JOHNSON, Stuart E, Martin C LIBICKI a Gregory F TREVERTON. New

challenges, new tools for defense decisionmaking. Santa Monica: Rand,
c2003, xxiv, 390 p. ISBN 08-330-3289-5.

Joint High Level Operational Concept. Joint Doctrine & Concepts Centre
(JDCC), Ministry of Defence, Shrivenham SWINDON, Wiltshire,
October 2001

80
Joseph GIARRATANO, Gary RILEY.  Expert systems:  principles and
programming. 4th ed. Boston, Mass: Thomson Course Technology, 2005.
ISBN 978-053-4384-470.

KREJČÍ, Oskar. Mezinárodní politika. 2., aktualiz. a  rozš. vyd. Praha:

Ekopress, 2001, 709 s. ISBN 80-861-1945-9.

KREPINEVICH, Andrew F. CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND

BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS.  Joint Concept Development and
Experimentation. Washington D.C., 2011, 14 s. Testimony presented
before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness.

LUDVÍK, Jan a  Luděk MORAVEC. Co je to strategie?: Konceptualizace

pojmu a model pro využití v bezpečnostní strategii České republiky. Obrana
a strategie. 2011, roč. 11, č. 1, s. 22-31. ISSN 1802-7199. DOI: 10.3849/1802-
7199.11.2011.01.022-031. Available:http://www.defenceandstrategy.eu/
cs/aktualni-cislo-1-2011/clanky/co-je-to-strategie-konceptualizace-
pojmu-a-model-pro-vyuziti-v-bezpecnostni-strategii-cr.html

MONTGOMERY, Evan Braden. Defense Planning for the Long Haul: Scenarios,
Operational Concepts, and the Future Security Environment. In: Defense
Technical Information Center [online]. 2009 [cit. 2012-07-02]. Available: http://
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522190.pdf

NATO RTO. Concept Development Assessment Game. Norfolk, Virginia, 2011,

50 s. TR-SAS-086.

PIKNER, Ivo; ZŮNA, Pavel; SPIŠÁK, Ján; GALATÍK, Vlastimil; KUBEŠA,

Milan; KRČMÁŘ, Miroslav; DUBEC, Radek; ČEP, David; FRANK, Libor.
Operační koncepce: Přístupy a postupy. Praha: Powerprint s. r. o., Praha,
2012, 122 s.

PIKNER, Ivo; KRČMÁŘ, Miroslav; GALATÍK, Vlastimil. Why to generate

and develop new operational concepts. In: Operations system research &
security of information - Volume IV. Canada, Ontario: The International
Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics,
2011, p. 17-21. ISBN 978-1-897233-76-4.

SCHMITT, John F. A Practical Guide for Developing and Writing Military

Concepts. Defense Adaptive Red Team: Working Paper #02-4 [online].

81
December 2002, č.  4, s. 1-26 [cit. 2012-06-10]. Available: http://www.
au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/dart_guide.pdf

STEJSKAL, Libor. Rozšiřování konceptu bezpečnosti. Praha: Univerzita

Karlova, 2006. Pražské sociálně vědní studie: Veřejná politika
a  prognostika PPF, 021. ISBN 1801-5999. Available: http://publication.
fsv.cuni.cz/attachments/147_021_Stejskal.pdf

Terminologický slovník: Krizové řízení a plánování obrany státu [online].

Praha: Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, 2009 [cit. 2012-04-16].

The Future Land Operational Concept. The Development, Concepts

and Doctrine Centre, Ministry of Defence, Shrivenham SWINDON,
Wiltshire, October 2008

The Future Maritime Operational Concept. The Development, Concepts

and Doctrine Centre, Ministry of Defence, Shrivenham SWINDON,
Wiltshire, November 2007.

TRADOC Regulation 71-20.  Concept Development, Experimentation,

and Requirements Determination. Fort Monroe, Virginia: Training and
Doctrine Command, 2009.

Vojenská strategie. 1. vyd. Editor Vlastimil Galatík, Antonín Krásný, Karel

Zetocha. Praha: Ministerstvo obrany České republiky - PIC MO, 2008,
343 s. ISBN 978-807-2784-752.

WAISOVÁ, Šárka. Bezpečnost: vývoj a  proměny konceptu. Plzeň: Aleš

Čeněk, 2005, 159 s. Politologické učebnice. ISBN 80-868-9821-0.

WALTZ, Edward.  Knowledge management in the intelligence enterprise.

Boston [Mass.]: Artech House, c2003, xiv, 357 p. ISBN 15-805-3494-5.

ZEMAN, Petr. Česká bezpečnostní terminologie: Výklad základních

pojmů. Brno: Ústav strategických studií Vojenské akademie v Brně, 2002.
ISBN není. Available: http://www.defenceandstrategy.eu/filemanager/
files/file.php?file=16048

82
 Authors

Ivo PIKNER
LtCol, Dipl. Ing., Ph.D., (born 1963),
ivo.pikner@unob.cz

Graduated from Military Academy (VAAZ)

in Brno (1986), specialization for tanks and
automobiles unites. He was a  chief officer of
the motor service in the army (1986–1994).
During 1995–2003 he worked at Military
Academy in Brno, department of military
intelligence and electronic combat (EB), first as an assistant professor, and
since 2001 as a leader of the group for reconnaissance and foreign armies.
Since the beginning of December 2007 he has been appointed as the deputy
director of the Institute for Strategic Studies. He defended Ph.D. theses in
2006. Currently is the Chief Research Officer of the Department of Lifelong
Learning Faculty of Economics and Management University of Defense in
Brno. He is specialized in the character and tendencies of development in
military affairs, military strategy and defense planning. He is also dealing
with the problem of use of armed forces in present and future operations and
their impact on development of conceptual papers.

Jan SPISAK
Colonel (Ret.), Dipl. Ing., (born 1958),
jan.spisak@unob.cz

After graduating from Ground Forces Military

Academy he served as a tank platoon and
company commander, battalion and regiment
deputy chief of staff during period 1983–1995.
Later on he took positions at the mechanized
brigade HQ as chief J3 (1995–1999), deputy
chief J3 at the Mechanized Division HQ (1999–2003), deputy chief J3
(2003–2005) and deputy director of the Doctrine Centre (2005–2007)

83
at the Czech Armed Forces Training and Doctrine Centre. During years
2007–2009 served as a chief Department of the Military Art Studies at the
Institute of Operational and Tactical Studies and Institute of Strategic and
Defense Studies. He retired from military service in 2009. He currently holds
the position of the assistant professor at the Department of Career Education
of the Faculty of Economics and Management with specialization in military
strategy, operational art and force capabilities.

Pavel ZUNA
Colonel (Ret.), Dipl. Ing., MSS. Ph.D.,
(born 1962),
pavel.zuna@unob.cz

After graduating from Ground Forces University

he served as platoon, company, battalion
commander and chief of the NBC service of
the regiment. From 1991 till 2005 he served
within Military Intelligence and Military
Counter-Intelligence Services. During this time he was posted to Belgium
as Assistant to the Defence Attaché (1994–1998), to United Kingdom as
Defense Attaché, (2001–2002), he sit as the director of the Defense Diplomacy
Branch(2002-2003), deputy director of the Military Counter-Intelligence
(2003-2004), and deputy director of the Military Intelligence (2005). During
his career he represented the Czech Republic at the NATO Intelligence Board,
NATO Special Committee, EU MS Intelligence Board, National Committee
for the Coordination of the Foreign Security Policy and Allied Joint Operation
Doctrine. From 2005, after retiring from active service, he worked as the analyst
and head of office at the Doctrine Institute, Training Command – Military
Academy. His main field of expertise was the Lessons Learned from allied and
coalition operations worldwide.

84
Vlastimil GALATIK
Colonel (Ret.), Dipl. Ing., CSc.,
(born 1956),
vlastimil.galatik@unob.cz

In 1980 he completed his university degree

at Military University of the Ground Forces
(Vyskov, Czech Republic) for his tank
units commanding and staff officer career
between 1980 and 1986. In 1986–1989 he
passed the post-graduate studies at the Military Academy (Brno, CR),
followed by in-site doctorate research in 1989–1992 to get “Candidate of
Military Sciences” degree, which was used in that time for approximately
Ph.D. level, in 1993. He led the Strategy, Operational and Strategic Art
History section of the Military Academy’s National Defense Management
Department between 1993 and 1998. In 1996 he completed general staff
higher academic course at the Military Academy and Collège Interarmées
de Défense (Paris, France) course in 1999. In the period from 1999 till
2005 he was appointed deputy director of the Strategic Studies Institute
of Military Academy and later of the University of Defense. After that
period he worked for the Institute in the position of researcher. Since
2008, he was head of Defense Analysis and Conflict Research group of
Institute Strategic and Defense Studies. He currently holds the position
of the assistant professor at the Department of Career Education of
the Faculty of Economics and Management. He specializes in military
strategy, strategic and operational art and force capabilities.

85
Title: Military Operating Concepts Development

Authors: Ing. Ivo PIKNER, Ph.D.

Ing. Pavel ZUNA, MSS., Ph.D.

Ing. Jan SPISAK

Ing. Vlastimil GALATIK, CSc.

Publisher: SHOPMYBOOK

Pages: 88

Edition: First

Printing: December 2012

Format: 6˝× 9˝

Printed by: SHOPMYBOOK

Design: Ing. Jaroslav MRAZ

ISBN: 978-16-1627-370-5

86