• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The IKMP Overview
 

The IKMP Overview

on

  • 1,151 views

Overview of the Information and Knowledge Management Process I developed to support the Marine Corps Planning Process.

Overview of the Information and Knowledge Management Process I developed to support the Marine Corps Planning Process.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,151
Views on SlideShare
1,151
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
12
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The IKMP Overview The IKMP Overview Presentation Transcript

    • Marine Corps Planning Process Overview
      From an IKMP Perspective (v2.0)
      Marine Corps Tactics & Operations Group
      Captain Daryl Horton
      May 2010
    • Information superiority is fundamental to the transformation of the operational capabilities of the joint force. The joint force of 2020 will use superior information and knowledge to achieve decision superiority, to support advanced command and control capabilities, and to reach the full potential of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full dimensional protection, and focused logistics. The breadth and pace of this evolution demands flexibility and a readiness to innovate.
      -Joint Vision 2020
    • Purpose
      Provide doctrinal linkages to planning
      Discuss the tenets of the Marine Corps Planning Process (MCPP) from a IKMP and Infostructure Perspective
      Introduce the six steps of the MCPP & the IKMP
    • Agenda
      IKM
      MCPP & IKMP
      The Infrostructure
      Infostructure Analysis
      Infostructure Development
      InfostructureWargame
      Infostructure Decision
      IKMP Development
      Transition
    • IKM
    • Information & Knowledge Management (IKM)
      Information management (IM) connects people to information systems.
      Knowledge management (KM) connects people to people.
      IM is defined as the sum of all activities involved in the identification, collection, filtering, fusing, processing, dissemination and usage of information. MCDP 3-40
      Knowledge management is the art of creating, organizing, applying, and transferring knowledge to facilitate situational understanding and decision making. Knowledge management supports improving organizational learning, innovation, and performance. Knowledge management processes ensure that knowledge products and services are relevant, accurate, timely, and useable to commanders and decision makers. FM 3-0
      Effective information management (IM) can deliver critically important information in a timely manner to those whom need it in a form they quickly understand. Effective knowledge management (KM) can put in place the processes and shared information environment that can improve decision-making.
    • Three Focal Points of IKM
      Process
      People
      Technology
      The execution of command and control is greatly influenced by the different environments a commander can find himself making decisions in. For the most part, the general tenants of command and control do not change. However, the application and management of information and knowledge change according to each new situation and environmental parameters. Even more so, within the structure of command and control the efforts and focus of Information Management (IM) and Knowledge Management (KM) as separate entities supporting the command and control process, vary along the lines of the three elements that make up command and control.
      -MCTOG IKM SOP
    • Process
      - Do we have the right organizations linked?
      - Is there need to stand up/stand down an organization?
      - Do we have the right skill sets in place
      • Can we organize the battle staff more effectively?
      • Training
      *Culture: How do we develop in our staff a mindset that:
      -Aggressively seeks to understand
      - Fosters coordination and info sharing
      Three Focal Points of IKM
      People
      Technology
    • Three Focal Points of IKM
      Process
      People
      Technology
      - Board and cell processes SOPs/ TTPs
      -membership, Inputs, outputs, products, tasks tools
      - What are information exchange requirements?
      • How do we share knowledge
      -personalization, codification
      • Identifying/sharing best practices/ lessons learned
      • Battle Rhythm
    • Three Focal Points of IKM
      Process
      People
      Technology
      - Facilitate information exchange and collaborationwithin and external to the organization
      - Support the commanders decision cycle
      - Package and display information the way the commander wants to see it
      - Disseminate Commander’s intent, CCIR, RFIs and Taskings
      - Enhance situational awareness
      - Share lessons Learned
      - Post, Distribute, access and learn from information
    • MCPP & IKMP
    • Top-Down Planning
      Commander’s
      Intent
      CCIRs
      CBAE
      Centers
      of Gravity
      Battlespace
      Commander drives the process through CBAE and:
      Initial Guidance
      Planning Guidance
      Approves COA(s)
      Evaluation Criteria
      Selects the COA
      Approves Plan / Order
      Confirmation Briefs
      Higher Commander’s Directives
      Execution
      Mission Analysis
      COA Development
      Concurrent
      Transition
      6 Step
      Process
      Orders Development
      Scalable
      COA War Game
      COA Comparison & Decision
    • RECEIPT OF MISSION
      MISSION ANALYSIS
      MISSION ANALYSIS
      DETERMINE INFO REQMTS
      COA DEVELOPMENT
      INITIAL STAFF ORIENTATION
      INITIAL CONFERENCE
      COA WARGAME
      PLANNING DIRECTIVE
      CMDR’s PLNG GUIDANCE
      DEVELOP COAs
      COA COMPARISON AND
      DECISION
      CMDR APPROVES COAs
      STAFF ESTIMATES
      ORDERS DEVELOPMENT
      CMDR’s ESTIMATE/DECISION
      CONCEPT OF OPERATION
      TRANSITION
      PREPARE DETAILED PLANS
      CMDR’s APPROVAL
      CMDR AND STAFF SUPERVISION
    • MARINE CORPS PLANNING PROCESS
      MISSION ANALYSIS
      ANALYZE WHAT WE
      NEED TO DO
      COA DEVELOPMENT
      DEVELOPMENT A
      RANGE OF OPTIONS
      COA WARGAME
      EXAMINE OPTIONS
      THROUGH WARGAME
      COA COMPARISON
      DECISION
      COMPARE AND SELECT THE BEST
      COA TO ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION
      ORDERS
      DEVELOPMENT
      ARTICULATE THE PLAN
      TRANSITION
      MOVE FROM PLANNING TO EXECUTION
    • Top-Down Planning
      Commander’s
      Intent
      CCIRs
      CBAE
      Centers
      of Gravity
      Battlespace
      Higher Commander’s Directives
      Infostructure
      Analysis
      IKMP CYCLE
      MCPP CYCLE
      Mission Analysis
      Infostructure
      Development
      Transition
      COA Development
      Concurrent
      Concurrent
      Transition
      6 Step
      Process
      6 Step
      Process
      Infostructure
      War Game
      IKM Plan
      Development
      Orders Development
      Scalable
      Scalable
      COA War Game
      Infostructure
      Decision
      COA Comparison & Decision
    • The Infostructure
    • The Infostructure
      An infostructure is the information infrastructure and networks that encompass the range of activities associated with people, processes, and technology in an information age environment. The focus of an infostructure is information. An infostructure is the layout of information in a manner such that it can be navigated -- it's what's created any time an amount of information is organized in a useful fashion.
      The information itself, which may be in the form of videos, databases ...
      Application and software that allow users to access, manipulate, organize, and digest the mass of information...
      The network standards and transmission codes that facilitates interconnection and interoperation between networks, and ensures the privacy of persons and security ...
      The people who create the information, develop applications and services, construct the facilities, and trains others to tap its potential...
    • Infostructure Analysis
    • Top-Down Planning
      Commander’s
      Intent
      CCIRs
      CBAE
      Centers
      of Gravity
      Battlespace
      Higher Commander’s Directives
      Infostructure
      Analysis
      IKMP CYCLE
      MCPP CYCLE
      Mission Analysis
      Infostructure
      Development
      Transition
      COA Development
      Concurrent
      Concurrent
      Transition
      6 Step
      Process
      6 Step
      Process
      Infostructure
      War Game
      IKM Plan
      Development
      Orders Development
      Scalable
      Scalable
      COA War Game
      Infostructure
      Decision
      COA Comparison & Decision
    • Mission Analysis
      Reviews and analyzes orders, guidance, and other information through a structured and disciplined process
      Focuses the efforts of the Commander and the staff
      Synthesizes an understanding of the problem into a mission statement
    • Output:
      • Mission Statement
      • Cmdr’s Intent
      • Cmdr’s Planning
      Guidance
      • Warning Order
      Mission Analysis
      Process:
      • Identify tasks
      • Assumptions
      • Constraints / restraints
      • Draft Mission Statement
      • Information requirements
      Red Cell
      Input:
      • HHQ
      • Order
      • Intel products
      • Cmdr’s Orientation
      • CBAE
      • Battlespace
      • COG
      • Intent
      • CCIR
      • Cmdr’s Initial
      Guidance
      IPB & Staff Estimates
    • Infostructure Analysis
      Whether deliberately as part of an operational planning team or rapidly as apart of an R2P2 process, the information management officer begins formulating the infostructure by first dissecting the challenge at hand into manageable parts. Infostructure analysis frames the problem and identifies information exchange requirements. The communications planner—
      Analyzes the command’s mission, commander’s intent, tasks (specified, implied, and essential), and purpose of the operation.
      Analyzes the friendly force task organization including higher and adjacent units.
      Evaluates and develops initial assumptions as well as constraints and restraints.
      Evaluates the battlespace from the information, knowledge, and cognitive domains, with respect to friendly and enemy forces, terrain, and weather to determine how these factors and conditions may influence information and knowledge flow.
      Analyzes resource availability.
      Determines and assesses information exchange requirements, both specified and implied.
      Develops an information and knowledge management mission statement.
      Develops, from a information perspective, initial commander’s intent and conducts a infostructure center of gravity analysis.
      End State: Information Requirements (IR) and Information Exchange Requirements (IER) Identified
    • Infostructure Development
    • Top-Down Planning
      Commander’s
      Intent
      CCIRs
      CBAE
      Centers
      of Gravity
      Battlespace
      Higher Commander’s Directives
      Infostructure
      Analysis
      IKMP CYCLE
      MCPP CYCLE
      Mission Analysis
      Infostructure
      Development
      Transition
      COA Development
      Concurrent
      Concurrent
      Transition
      6 Step
      Process
      6 Step
      Process
      Infostructure
      War Game
      IKM Plan
      Development
      Orders Development
      Scalable
      Scalable
      COA War Game
      Infostructure
      Decision
      COA Comparison & Decision
    • COA Development
      The OPT’s functional translation of the Commander’s conceptual vision and planning guidance
      COAs are potential solutions to the problems ID’d in Mission Analysis
      COAs seek answers to key questions:
      What do we want to do?
      How do we want to do it?
      Each prospective COA is examined to ensure that it is:
      Feasible, Acceptable, Suitable, Distinguishable, Complete
      COAs should:
      Accomplish the mission
      Meet the Commander’s Intent and guidance for decisive action
    • Output:
      • Designated COAs
      for War Game
      • War Game Guidance
      • Evaluation Criteria
      COA Development
      Process:
      • Develop Initial COAs
      • Commander’s input
      • COA Refinement
      • Graphic & Narrative
      • COA Criteria
      • Feasible
      • Acceptable
      • Suitable
      • Distinguishable
      • Complete
      Input:
      • Mission Statement
      • Cmdr’s Intent
      • Planning Guidance
      IPB & Staff Estimates
    • Infostructure Development
      There are two complementary aspects of the role of the IMO in COA development. First, the IMO helps shape and influence the development of tactical COAs by providing input, from the IKM and infostructure perspectives, regarding a COA’s feasibility, acceptability, and suitability. Second, the IMO begins developing infostructure concepts—potential infostructure networks supporting one or several COAs—that satisfy IRs and IERs within the context of resource availability. The IMO—
      Assigns resources to meet IRs and IERs.
      Develops a infostructure concept in support of each COA.
      Ensures each infostructure concept is feasible, acceptable, suitable, and complete.
      Provides an estimate of supportability for each COA.
      End state: Communications concepts are developed to support each tactical COA.
    • InfostructureWargame
    • Top-Down Planning
      Commander’s
      Intent
      CCIRs
      CBAE
      Centers
      of Gravity
      Battlespace
      Higher Commander’s Directives
      Infostructure
      Analysis
      IKMP CYCLE
      MCPP CYCLE
      Mission Analysis
      Infostructure
      Development
      Transition
      COA Development
      Concurrent
      Concurrent
      Transition
      6 Step
      Process
      6 Step
      Process
      Infostructure
      War Game
      IKM Plan
      Development
      Orders Development
      Scalable
      Scalable
      COA War Game
      Infostructure
      Decision
      COA Comparison & Decision
    • COA War Game
      Allows the staff and subordinate commanders to gain a common understanding of friendly and possible enemy COAs (via a Red Cell)
      Assists planners in identifying strengths, weaknesses, risks, and shortfalls for each friendly COA
      Involves a detailed assessment of each COA as it pertains to the enemy and the battlespace
      Helps identify branches and potential sequels
    • COA War Game
      Process:
      • Conduct COA War Game
      • Refine Estimates
      • Refine IPB products
      • Prepare COA War Game Brief
      Red Cell
      Output:
      • War Gamed COA’s Graphic & Narrative
      • Information on Commander’s EvaluationCriteria
      • Branches and sequels
      Input:
      • Designated COAs for War Game
      • War Game Guidance
      • Evaluation Criteria
      IPB & Staff Estimates
    • Infostructure War Game
      As the tactical COAs are war gamed, the IMO evaluates each infostructure concept. During this evaluation, the IMO continually tests and “what ifs” the potential infostructure network in order to expose weaknesses. The IMO—
      Compares the infostructure concept with the COA and evaluates whether it can effectively respond to friendly and enemy tactical events in the battlespace as they unfold.
      Evaluates the infostructure concept with respect to equipment failure or degradation.
      Identifies the strengths, weaknesses, risks, and shortfalls associated with the infostructure concept.
      Refines the infostructure concept.
      Identifies potential branches and sequels.
      End state: Infostructure concepts are tested through war games and the infostructure concept is further refined.
    • Infostructure Decision
    • Top-Down Planning
      Commander’s
      Intent
      CCIRs
      CBAE
      Centers
      of Gravity
      Battlespace
      Higher Commander’s Directives
      Infostructure
      Analysis
      IKMP CYCLE
      MCPP CYCLE
      Mission Analysis
      Infostructure
      Development
      Transition
      COA Development
      Concurrent
      Concurrent
      Transition
      6 Step
      Process
      6 Step
      Process
      Infostructure
      War Game
      IKM Plan
      Development
      Orders Development
      Scalable
      Scalable
      COA War Game
      Infostructure
      Decision
      COA Comparison & Decision
    • COA Comparison & Decision
      The Commander evaluates friendly COAs against his established Evaluation Criteria (i.e.):
      Commander’s Intent / Guidance
      Principles of War
      Warfighting Functions
      Speed
      Asymmetric operations
      Risk
      COA Comparison provides the Commander with an understanding of the relative merit of each COA and aids the decision making process
      Once all COAs have been evaluated and compared, the Commander selects a COA to become the basis of the CONOPs
    • COA Comparison & Decision
      Process:
      • Perform COA Evaluation
      • Perform COA Comparison
      • Commander’s Decision
      • Prepare CONOPs
      Output:
      • CONOPs
      • Warning Order
      Input:
      • War Gamed COAs graphic & narrative
      • Information on Commander’s Evaluation Criteria
      IPB & Staff Estimates
    • Infostructure Comparison & Decision
      Using both the commander’s COA evaluation criteria and the principles of IKM as the lens through which the infostructure concepts are evaluated, the IMO assesses the supportability of each COA and the strengths of the concepts compared to one another. The best possible concept emerges and becomes the basis of the IKMP. The IMO—
      Provides input to the commander and conveys the supportability of each COA.
      Articulates the relative advantages and disadvantages of each infostructure concept and provides an assessment of capabilities and limitations.
      End state: The chosen infostructure concept becomes the basis of the final IKMP.
    • IKM Plan Development
    • Top-Down Planning
      Commander’s
      Intent
      CCIRs
      CBAE
      Centers
      of Gravity
      Battlespace
      Higher Commander’s Directives
      Infostructure
      Analysis
      IKMP CYCLE
      MCPP CYCLE
      Mission Analysis
      Infostructure
      Development
      Transition
      COA Development
      Concurrent
      Concurrent
      Transition
      6 Step
      Process
      6 Step
      Process
      Infostructure
      War Game
      IKM Plan
      Development
      Orders Development
      Scalable
      Scalable
      COA War Game
      Infostructure
      Decision
      COA Comparison & Decision
    • Orders Development
      Orders communicate the Commander’s Intent, guidance and decisions in a clear, useful form that is easily understood by those executing the order
      Orders should contain only critical or new information, not routine matters normally found in SOPs
      The CoS or the Executive Officer, as appropriate, directs Orders Development
    • Orders Development
      Process:
      • Prepare OPORD / OPLAN
      • Orders reconciliation
      • Orders crosswalk
      • Commander’s approval
      Input:
      • Mission Statement
      • Refined Commander’s Intent
      • Task Organization
      • CONOPs
      • Tasks
      • Staff Estimates
      Output:
      • OPORD / OPLAN
      IPB & Staff Estimates
    • IKMP Development
      As the tactical COA is converted into the overall CONOPS and the command’s OPORD is crafted, the IMO translates the infostructure concept into the infostructure CONOPS and develops the IMKP. While the formal manifestation of a IMKP is annex U, time available, size of the unit, and mission dictate the extent to which a plan is documented. The IMO—
      Develops the IMKP.
      End state: IMKP is delivered to the receiver through the most effective and efficient means.
    • Transition
    • Top-Down Planning
      Commander’s
      Intent
      CCIRs
      CBAE
      Centers
      of Gravity
      Battlespace
      Higher Commander’s Directives
      Infostructure
      Analysis
      IKMP CYCLE
      MCPP CYCLE
      Mission Analysis
      Infostructure
      Development
      Transition
      COA Development
      Concurrent
      Concurrent
      Transition
      6 Step
      Process
      6 Step
      Process
      Infostructure
      War Game
      IKM Plan
      Development
      Orders Development
      Scalable
      Scalable
      COA War Game
      Infostructure
      Decision
      COA Comparison & Decision
    • Transition
      Provides a successful shift from planning (FOPs) to execution (COPs)
      Enhances situational awareness of those executing the order
      Maintains the intent of the Concept of Operations
      Promotes unity of effort and generates tempo
      MCWP 5-1
    • Transition
      Process:
      • Transition brief
      • Drills
      • Confirmation brief
      Output:
      Subordinate Cmdrs and staff that are prepared to:
      Input:
      • OPORD / OPLAN
      • Execute the order and possible branches, plans, & sequels
      IPB / Staff Estimates
    • Transition
      Carrying the plan through to successful execution requires a deliberate, focused transition that enhances the situational awareness of those who will execute the plan. It also generates tempo and ensures unity of effort. The IMO—
      Provides a confirmation brief to the commander.
      Conducts transition briefs with the staff as well as with communications personnel.
      Conducts a review that validates the planned network.
      End state: Personnel are prepared to execute the plan.
    • FLAT ORGANIZATION
      The world is a much flatter place due to current developments in technology and new concepts of operations. The IMO must be able to incorporate these new ideas which promise to improve speed, power, and agility through strong information and knowledge management processes and the creation of networked infostructure.
      Conclusion