Games and Guided Discussions

CDR Phil PournelleDr. Yuna Wong

2

Agenda

• Renewed DoD Interest in Wargaming• What is DoD “Wargaming”?• Differences in Games vs. Guided Discussions• Professionalizing Guided Discussions• Professionalizing Gaming• Recommendations

3

Renewed Interest in Wargaming

• Senior leader interest– SECDEF memo on the DII (Nov 2014)– DEPSECDEF memo (Feb 2015)– SECNAV memo (May 2015)

• Bottom-up interest– MORS Wargaming CoP– Connections wargaming conferences– Demand for education

4

But What Does DoD Mean by “Wargaming”?

• DoD uses the term “wargaming” to cover many types of events

• Many of these activities are facilitated group discussions but not “games”

• Both facilitated group discussions and games are useful to DoD but have:– Different purposes– Different mechanics– Different design considerations

5

DoD “Wargaming” vs. Gaming

Title X Game

TTX

Planning/ StaffEx

DOTMLPF Gap Discussion

Seminar Discussion

COA Wargames

Role Playing Games

Peace Games

Pol-Mil Games

Sand Table Exercises

20XX Games

Rainbow Plans

Board Games

Smart Phone & Tablet Games

Card Games

Social Media Games

DoD “Wargames” Gaming

Wargames as defined by Peter Perla

6

Games vs. Guided Discussions

1. Historic differences2. Philosophical differences3. Mechanical differences4. Product differences

7

1. Historic DifferencesGames Guided Discussions

Intellectual origins ChessKriegsspielCommercial games

Planning processAcademic seminarsDOTMLPF gap lists

Champions War CollegesAmateur gamersTactical trainersCollege professors

Joint StaffSystems analysisServices at top level

Wargamer “skillset”(legitimizing background)

Avid board gamerMinatures wargamerPolitical scientists (some)

Military plannersNovice facilitatorsComputer modelersPolitical scientists (other)

Examples Schelling nuclear gamesONA 20XX gamesSandtable exercise

Title 10 gamesGap list validation “games”Staff exercises (planning)

Current DoD standing Minority view of wargames? Dominant paradigm?

8

2. Philosophical DifferencesGames Guided Discussions

Path dependence Path-dependent on specific adjudication outcomes (not predictable)

Result path-dependent on scripted scenario or discussion agenda

Participant perspective Is a player actively taking on a role

Is a subject matter expert (SME) who is discussing their area of expertise

Goal of Participant Win the game Raise meaningful issues

Goal of Sponsor TrainingDiagnose competitionInform decisions

Identify contributing factorsProduce planning productsIdentify generalized gapsAlign participants

Validity Difficult to align with science-based concepts of experimental validity

Comments by participants “validate” issues & gaps

Overall focus Emergent interaction between opposing sides

Blue processes and organizational issues

9

3. Mechanical DifferencesElements Games Guided Discussions

How the events progress Adjudicated events Discussion agenda

Scenario Is the departure point Is the scripted backdrop of the entire discussion

White Cell/Facilitator Determines consequences of player actions

Guides discussionMay give planning guidance

Red Cell Is an active player with equal ability to shape the outcome as the Blue Cell

May not existOften not an equal or active player

Design Can be similar to board games, turn-based games

Can be similar to DoD planning process or a political science seminar discussion group

Probability May be a key mechanical element (frequentist)

Is never an element

10

4. Product DifferencesElements Games Guided Discussions

Overall output Synthetic history and path-dependent outcome

Planning details, coordination issues, implementation issues;thorough but usually mostly one sided

Hypothesis generation Dialectic with two sides presenting opposing; hypothesis in fully constructed form (orders)

Only one thesis is complete in form but may be more detailed

Diagnosis of competitive environment

Exploration of possible actions by competitive factions

Explorations of potential factors on competitive environment (technological developments, etc.)

Red activity Coherent and adaptive behavior that emerges from the game play

No new red activity: scripted or static and pre-defined by the scenario

11

How Should We Understand Differences?

• Organizational purposes?• As part of a larger set of processes?• Types of cognitive tasks being asked of

participants?• Identifiable points of divergent versus

convergent thought?• First person role-playing (imaginative play)

versus drawing upon expert knowledge?

12

Commonalities Across Both Games and Guided Discussions

• Participant input as a primary element– Otherwise it’s a study or model– Heterogeneity between events

• Participant “quality” and level of engagement is key!– Bad events merely “beat the data” out of SMEs– Marginalized participants are a sign of issues

• Human behavior, perceptions, beliefs, interactions are at the heart

13

Joint Planning Process• Planning Initiation• Mission Analysis

– Red threat (including Centers of Gravity)• COA Development

– Enemy Courses of Action: Most Likely, Most Dangerous, Strengths and Weaknesses• COA Analysis

– Action, Counter-Action, Reaction– “The most sophisticated form of wargaming is computer-aided modeling and

simulation.” (JP-5, IV-28)– “The red cell is normally composed of personnel from the joint force J-2 staff and

when available they may be augmented by other subject experts.” (JP-5, IV-33). J-2 Staff have a stake in the COA development process.

• COA Comparison• COA Approval• Plan/Order Development

14

Joint Planning Process

• Origin in General Eisenhower Headquarters– Perhaps earlier in Napoleonic HQ organization

• Product/Process oriented• Based on Operational Art and historic examples• Mission Analysis dominated by higher HQ

mission statement• Not designed to diagnose the competitive

environment

15

Current State of theDoD Wargaming Community

• Community is largely self taught• “Tribes” centered around individual

techniques, often in isolation from one another and other closely related fields

• Groups often do not find approaches from other groups to be legitimate

• Little formal or continuing education• Little in the way of formal theory about

gaming or guided discussions

16

Facilitation in Wargaming

• DoD “wargame facilitators” are self-identified and have an uneven level of skill

• International Association of Facilitators (IAF)– Has accepted professional standards– Certification in facilitation with core competencies– Distinguish between process and context– Database of 500+ facilitation methods

• Other facilitated methods: PSMs, SATs, etc.

17

IAF Methods Database

18

IAF Methods Database

19

Structured Analytic Techniques

20

Red Teaming & Liberating Structures

21

Professionalizing Guided Discussions

• Formalization of facilitation skills– More training and certification– Deliberate identification of core competencies

• Conscious methods– Problem structuring methods– Structured analytic techniques– Red teaming/liberating structures– Combining methods into overall research design

• Formal data analysis methods

22

Professionalizing Gaming

• Formal facilitation methods• Incorporation of interdisciplinary research

designs and methods currently lacking– Theories of learning and empirical methods of

studying learning (education)– Positive and negative small group dynamics

(industrial/organization/small group psychology)• Formal data analysis methods consistent with

prevailing standards of research in other fields• Add structured methods to hot washes

23

Synthesis of Methods

• Research design can incorporate good combinations of methods

• Examples of research designs:– Realistic red & blue planning (JP 5.0) + wargame

with equal standing + structured brain storming improved planning and wargames and WFF issues

– Seminar discussion + scenario development method + seminar wargame w/ narrative analysis + structured analytic technique in hot wash enhanced exploration of an emerging topic

24

Current State of the DoD Wargaming Community

• Participants in DoD wargaming largely self taught• Many tribes which matches the many purposes

of games, many isolated from work elsewhere• Development of skillsets– Game or event design– Facilitation– Formal analysis methods

• Theoretical development of the field• Professional, continuing, formal education

25

Recommendations

1) Professionalize both guided discussions and gaming by improving quality of facilitation and structured methods

2) Draw on known small group theory and formal research methods to be systematic in analysis and ability to see empirical markers of good games and guided discussions

3) Education: continue with PME, CoPs, continuing ed, wargaming classes in existing programs, and formal degree programs