¶ … Army Problem Solving Model Process and the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process Comparison When comparing the Army Problem Solving Model Process and the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process, there are fundamental characteristics that hold true for both processes. When each is investigated more deeply, the contrasts become evident. The surface comparisons can be seen as follows:

Both decision processes are used by the military to arrive at a viable solution as called for by certain situations.

Both processes are well established and often used by the Army.

Both decision capabilities are developed by Army personnel by means of practice and training.

Both capabilities are utilized according to the demands of specific situations.

Both capabilities involve a number of steps to arrive at the decision made according to the nature and demand of the situation at the time.

Steps of Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process

The Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process concerns five basic steps, the first two of which can be performed in any order, while the other three are performed interactively until an acceptable coarse of action is developed in terms of the third step. The first step is to 1) compare the current situation to the order.

This step involves commanders who identify the likely variances during the planning stage. Options are then identified in order to match each potential variance. These options will then be carried out when the variances occur. During the performance of the process, the current situation is compared to the variances envisioned and an appropriate option can then be matched to it. The second step, that could occur concurrently with the above-mentioned processes, is 2) determine the type of decision required.

During this step, the identified variance is followed by directing action. This task is handled by the commander, while the chief of operations works with the other chiefs to quickly compare the current situation with the expected situation. This is doen in terms of opportunities or threats. If it is estimated that intervention is required, the appropriate action is implemented either by the chiefs themselves...

Comparisons are continually being made to determine variances; hence these steps run in any order and at times concurrently.
Step 3 is to 3) develop a course of action. This involves the screening of a number of courses of action, according to factors such as the mission, the commander's intent, the current dispositions and freedom of action, CCIRs, and limiting factors such as supplies, boundaries, and combat strength. After this step, the next action is to 4) refine and validate the course of action.

The given course of action is analyzed according to a number of criteria that include its feasibility, suitability, and acceptability. The course of action is then refined to meet the required needs in terms of the mission and combat power. This step occurs very quickly, since it is often done under the pressure of time constraints. The final step then occurs, which is to 5) implement.

Implementation is recommended by the XO to the commander, or occurs directly according to the delegation of duties. These final three steps are integrated until mission stability is achieved, or until no further courses of action are required. Synchronization, responsiveness, and timeliness are integrally important in the final implementation step.

Contrasts: Army Problem Solving and Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization.

The most obvious contrasting point between the two models is the number of steps taken to arrive at the final implementation, with the Army Problem Solving consisting of seven steps and the Rapid model involving only five steps.

A second contrast is the fact that the Rapid method often involves the integration and repetition of steps, while the sequence in Army Problem Solving tends to occur in sequence.

Third, the Army Problem Solving process takes time to search for the optimal solution. It does so by comparing a variety of possible solutions. The Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process searches for solutions that can be implemented as rapidly as possible. It therefore avoids time-intensive requirements such as decision criteria development and comparisons.

A fourth contrast is that the Rapid model is more suitable for quick…