Anybody Talked to the Analysts?

The dust trail was thick as the convoy of four vehicles carrying precious civilian cargo rolled toward the HLZ. The sky was moonless on this night, the lunar cycle aligning by chance with this evacuation. So far, it appeared the Marines on the ground owned the night.

In the 24x7 command center, the oncoming junior analyst (Aaron) who had just arrived to sit the Analysis and Reporting (A&R) Desk, was coming up to speed by talking with his counterpart, quickly skimming the flood of emails waiting in his email tool and glancing at the digital visualization picture on the misnamed "knowledge wall." The items shared by the outgoing analyst, who was anxious to head home, included (1) status of the Ambassador; (2) movement of the convoy; (3) status of the HLZ and helos; (4) projected timeline for the last of the Marine Security Forces to be wheels-up from the HLZ; and (5) a veiled reference to a rumored threat in vicinity of the HLZ. 

The analysts exchanged some parting best wishes as Aaron sat down to get immersed in the flow of information, feeling somewhat overwhelmed as he was coming in from a three-day break. During pass-down with his counterpart on console, the rumored threat reference caused Aaron's "spidey senses" to tingle and his mind to think hmmm. His current Situational Awareness (SA) was focused on what had happened and is happening. Not much of what was shared during pass-down spoke to the future and an understanding of any options if threats appeared. Aaron's SA could best be described as single-viewpoint and poor since each supporting element had systematically defaulted to stove-piped, point-to-point communications using email and phone calls. Cross-talk amongst the teams? It was limited at best. 

Aaron swiveled in his chair and quickly picked up the phone. Like sands through the hourglass, he could feel an opportunity slipping away.

Back at HQ, the three-person analytical team was head-down sifting and scanning the flow of information to identify threats to the convoy and helos inbound to the HLZ. The phone came to life on the desk of Jack, a senior analyst who picked-up after the third ring and with irritation in his voice, curtly identified himself. On the other end of the phone he heard "Hey Jack, this is Aaron at the command center A&R Desk - I have a question on this unconfirmed threat you guys sent out awhile back - can you talk for a minute 'cause this looks eerily familiar to me."

The analytical teams in the command center were making final preparations for the upcoming brief to the Ops Commander. The convoy was still 20 minutes out, its overwatch still on station. Radio comms on the lead helo crackled asking for an estimated time of arrival for the birds...

To be continued...

Single-viewpoint SA - John G.

Single-viewpoint SA - a challenge for any 24x7 watch center like an Incident Command Post, State Emergency Operations Center, Tactical Operations Center, etc. and something that is not done with malicious intent. My experience has shown that organizational culture is typically a driving factor. When asked why, a classic response is usually: that's just how we do things here. The point I want you to remember is shown in the graphic to the right: Single-viewpoint SA is important but insufficient in a complex, adversarial context. Why? An individual or a single team simply cannot reconcile contradictory information and multiple causes and effects. 

The solution?

Using the Human Net concept you build an online collaborative environment (typically chat channels) were people can talk to each other in a team of teams setting. John G. describes it as "rapid dialog with people whose mental model of the situation are correlated but slightly different." Thus, the quote at the top of this post - "Anybody talked with the analysts about what they are really thinking?" What do we know, what don't we know, what do we think?

Additionally, single-viewpoint SA can be minimized within the Human Net through application of collaboration tradecraft and behavior. As John G. shared, humans are very good at mimicking the behavior they see. Imagine a team of skilled, trained online collaborators modeling the behavior built on the cycle: observe, share, discuss and if appropriate, act. Simple and it works. I have witnessed countless exchanges from new folks in a chat channel where they were mimicking this behavior they observed over time. Basically saying, "I see how this Human Net works, I can do this too." Following that behavior comes praise and encouragement from the facilitator and others in the chat channel which encourages more of the same. Over time, you begin to build a high-performing team of teams where this type of tradecraft and behavior is the norm. Yes, this actually works and I have been part of a team were the Human Net, using enabling technology, got us "left of bang."

What are your thoughts? Share a comment below and thank you!

Preview of Coming Attractions: Up next, the rest of the story and a look at the changes that were made to address the AAR findings. Any guesses on what came out of all of this?

Humbly,
- Collabman