This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Are there lessons we could all learn from how the modern military copes with unexpected situations?

Hi,


A couple of serious issues I was involved with this weekend made me think of this. One was in the engineering world to do with the day job, I was reviewing a very serious incident report (fortunately no fatalities but very close) involving a mixture of everyone trying to do the best they could, but perhaps over reliant on structured checklists which had completely missed an entire piece of equipment in a fairly unique situation. The other was a medical issue in the family, once again all the individual hospital staff were doing their best, but there was a bit of the process that just didn't cope with a particular situation.


Which made me think of something that's long been at the back of my mind: I've never worked in a military environment, but my impression of the modern military from the contacts I have had is that there is still a very structured hierarchy, chain of command, and focus on process, but equally it appears that somehow there is also the ability for small units to have the skills and freedom to evaluate and make their own decisions when challenging circumstances arise - exactly the key skills that were missing in the two examples above. 


So really two questions I'd really like to know other people's views on (particularly those who have worked across both the military and civilian worlds): firstly are my impressions above correct? And if so (or even if a bit wrong but on the right lines) are there lessons we can learn from how this works that we can apply to the management of engineering activities in the wider world - particularly in safety critical issues where we need structure but also need the ability to rapidly and effectively cope with new problems when they come up?   


Thanks,


Andy
Parents
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Well, the mission statement wasn't to lose a bucketful of soldiers, it was to take ground, dominate that area, break the stalemate of attritional trench warfare (which was still killing a lot of men) and use that as the jumping off point for the next objective, until the enemy were subdued. It's why the army use the term "move through the position"


    Sure it was all a bit grim if you were in the first wave - no different to D-Day,  but it got easier with each and every successive wave of men and material you can move up, and keep deploying. (See, for example the efforts of the red ball express strategy to keep supporting the advancing front line troops until the port of Antwerp was opened up). It's also why the south coast ports weren't designated to receive casualties from D-Day - it was one way, with the injured being moved into places like the Bristol Channel where they could be landed on the Somerset and South Wales coasts on big open beaches where ships could be beached, and the casualties disembarked to clearing hospitals (Swansea as one example, where new roads were constructed to expanded hospital capability)


    Which probably brings us back on subject as to how the military devolve responsibility down to an almost individual level, but maintain control and oversight through the commanders intent 


    Regards


    OMS


Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Well, the mission statement wasn't to lose a bucketful of soldiers, it was to take ground, dominate that area, break the stalemate of attritional trench warfare (which was still killing a lot of men) and use that as the jumping off point for the next objective, until the enemy were subdued. It's why the army use the term "move through the position"


    Sure it was all a bit grim if you were in the first wave - no different to D-Day,  but it got easier with each and every successive wave of men and material you can move up, and keep deploying. (See, for example the efforts of the red ball express strategy to keep supporting the advancing front line troops until the port of Antwerp was opened up). It's also why the south coast ports weren't designated to receive casualties from D-Day - it was one way, with the injured being moved into places like the Bristol Channel where they could be landed on the Somerset and South Wales coasts on big open beaches where ships could be beached, and the casualties disembarked to clearing hospitals (Swansea as one example, where new roads were constructed to expanded hospital capability)


    Which probably brings us back on subject as to how the military devolve responsibility down to an almost individual level, but maintain control and oversight through the commanders intent 


    Regards


    OMS


Children
No Data