CHIPS Articles: The Battle Rhythm Challenge: A Key Joint Enabler

“I am planning and executing operations as best I can. I admit we missed predicting some minor wrinkles that put us slightly behind the power curve, but we are catching up,” said the operations officer.

“We are providing way more intelligence than anyone should ever need,” the intelligence officer said defensively.

“That is part of the problem,” the plans officer chimed in, “we have too much information most of the time. Don’t get me wrong, it is all good stuff, but we just can’t figure out what applies and what doesn’t sometimes.”

The Operations Officer finished the Plans Officer’s thought, “We aren’t determining what is relevant to our operations and plans, so we just present it all.”

“The battle rhythm has me spending all of my time in non-productive meetings that we get nothing out of,” added the communications officer.

The Chief of Staff, discouraged, said, “We aren’t providing the information that is relevant to the decisions the commander needs to make. Battle rhythm or not, we are out-of-synch with his decision cycle. Something needs to change.”

Sound familiar? This scenario, although fictional, may hit close to home for many organizations. Few headquarters achieve the proper alignment of relevant information exchanges in order to maximize effectiveness. Establishing an effective battle rhythm within a joint force headquarters is not just academic; it is the only way to provide actionable information to the commander when he or she needs it.

Knowledge management (KM) professionals from the Joint Planning Support Element (JPSE), a subordinate command of the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command (JECC), United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), have developed an effective and repeatable battle rhythm analysis process and supporting model detailed in the following article.

The Challenge

Joint Publication 3-33, “Joint Task Force Headquarters,” of 30 July 2012 (JP 3-33) defines a battle rhythm as “the sequencing and execution of activities within a joint force headquarters that are regulated by the flow and sharing of information that support all decision cycles.” To achieve an effective battle rhythm, the staff must identify all information exchange requirements, establish cross-functional entities — those that contain multiple staff functional areas — to provide complete answers to the commander’s questions, and synchronize the information flow within the commander’s decision cycle. However, a process to accomplish this cannot be found in joint doctrine.

Historically, improperly identified information exchange requirements cause commands to suffer from either information overload or information starvation. Information overload is seen in staffs that do not properly filter information prior to presentation — causing the commander to perform mental gymnastics to cull what is important from the data-level material provided. Information starvation, on the other hand, does not offer enough points of reference for the commander to comfortably make a decision.

Quality staff products require collaboration across multiple functional staff elements. Ideally, products and answers to information requests are generated by cross-functional entities and inherently examined prior to being presented to the commander. Cross-functionality is derived through a set of cyclic or standing battle rhythm events.

An optimal battle rhythm aligns information flow to present filtered information at the point of decision. In this respect, information refers to sets or series of data that, when integrated with other elements of information, provide for the creation of knowledge and shared understanding that answers the “so what” question. Filtered in this context is defined as cross-functionally synthesized and bearing relevance on the immediate decision. Poorly aligned information flow keeps the staff constantly scrambling to answer the commander’s questions.

The Analysis Model

Theories abound on the ideal form and function of a battle rhythm, but a doctrinal methodology for analyzing and evaluating battle rhythm functionality has yet to be defined. JPSE’s KM professionals recommend the following model, which has been developed and refined over time following its employment during various operational deployments.

This model is centered on products designed to bring visibility to the command’s information flow and provide battle rhythm management and analysis tools. The analysis model’s major products (Figure 1) include the following:

• The 7-Minute Drill Matrix which incorporates consolidated information on individual battle rhythm events. The term 7-minute drill, as stated in JP 3-33, refers to the fact that the staff officer briefing has seven minutes to explain to the chief of staff why that particular cross-functional staff element is necessary and how it supports the overall commander’s decision cycle.
• The Information Flow Diagram (Figure 2) is a flow-chart style diagram depicting battle rhythm events as color-coded nodes situated along planning horizons with input and output relationships as connections. This helps organizational leadership visualize staff information exchange requirements, identifies the critical paths of information flow within the command, and demonstrates how staff events support the commander’s decision cycle.
• The Staff Matrix cross-references the major staff and subordinate elements against battle rhythm events. Used to identify staff section and functional area event membership requirements — especially low-density, high-demand staff sections — the Staff Matrix helps the chief of staff manage staff priorities for supporting battle rhythm events.
• The Battle Rhythm Event Schedule shows the battle rhythm in calendar-style time blocks. Used to deconflict event timing, physical space and equipment resources, as well as codify the sequencing of events that best supports the information exchange requirements of the commander and staff.

The Analysis Process

This process — centered on populating and continually updating the products of the analysis model — consists of four phases, each with a spiraling series of actions and questions designed to identify and fill gaps in the command’s information flow process.

Phase I - Identify and Document the Existing Organizational Battle Rhythm. Initial battle rhythm analysis focuses on discovering the existing processes and products used to inform decision makers. Efforts to capture newly discovered information will result in continuous cyclical updates to the Information Flow Diagram, 7-Minute Drill Matrix and Staff Matrix. Activities in this phase are conducted simultaneously.

• Gather existing documents, such as organizational charts; 7-Minute drills; commander’s and organizational calendars; and Information Flow Diagrams for the command, the higher headquarters, and all subordinate elements. Organizational charts define how the command is structured and provide a staff configuration that will be the basis of the Staff Matrix. 7-Minute drills or equivalent documents, if accurate, define the purpose, participation and scheduling of existing battle rhythm events and contribute to the development of the 7-Minute Drill Matrix and the initial Battle Rhythm Event Schedule. Various unit calendars inform the process as to the separation of battle rhythm events from other activities.
• Talk to staff members about the organization’s culture. Many aspects of an organization’s daily processes cannot be discovered in a document or database, but only by observing processes, talking to participants, and even taking part in them. Using the evolving Information Flow Diagram and 7-Minute Drill Matrix as discussions points will reveal additional details. Figure 2 shows a draft crisis action Information Flow Diagram.

Phase II – Conduct Assessment. Once an existing battle rhythm is identified, conduct a detailed assessment consisting of a series of questions designed to highlight shortcomings or gaps in battle rhythm knowledge sharing and manageability. The products of the analysis model, namely the 7-Minute Drill Matrix, Information Flow Diagram, Staff Matrix and Battle Rhythm Event Schedule, serve as both assessment and management tools. The following considerations make up the assessment criteria.

• Are the commander’s decision cycle touch points identified? Understanding the commander’s requirements for touch points — interactions between the commander and staff — and individual preferences is central to creating an effective battle rhythm that supports the decision cycle. Include external touch point events the commander conducts such as battlefield circulation or video teleconferences with the higher headquarters.
• Are all information exchange requirements accounted for in the battle rhythm? Normally documented as battle rhythm event inputs and outputs, information exchange requirements include named products, such as Target List Worksheets, or intangible products, like verbal leadership feedback. Properly identifying information exchange requirements brings visibility to both redundancy and gaps in the information flow of the organization. The Information Flow Diagram highlights the connections between battle rhythm events ensuring no events are isolated and all feed other events in support of the commander’s decision cycle. It also highlights the specified products and information inputs required by higher headquarters.
• Are the critical paths defined? Critical paths represent the information flow to decision makers and distinguish the mission critical processes within planning horizons from supporting processes. An Information Flow Diagram depicts staff information exchange requirements as input and output links between battle rhythm events. Color coding links by major lines of operation or lines of effort helps identify the critical path events.
• Is the battle rhythm in synch with the commander’s decision cycle? Not aligning the information flow with the commander’s decision cycle causes the staff to be out of synch and only able to concentrate on “the topic of the day.” If the battle rhythm is out of synch, the commander is unsure when required information will be provided for approaching decision points. Second-order effects often force longer lead times for information exchange requirements rendering information, and by virtue, decisions irrelevant.
• Does the battle rhythm reflect only repetitive, cross-functional events that support commander's decision making? The battle rhythm consists of cross-functional events that support decision making. Meetings consisting of a single functional area are kept internal to that staff section as a normal course of staff work. In addition, the battle rhythm is not the organizational calendar. One-time staff activities like organizational days, VIP visits, or even a commander’s non-routine meeting are not battle rhythm events. Maintaining a separate Battle Rhythm Event Schedule, Organizational Calendar and Command Calendar — knowing there will be some redundancy — helps maintain understanding of the relationship of the battle rhythm to staff product development and time management.
• Are battle rhythm events in a logical order? Sequencing of events must allow outputs from one battle rhythm event to feed inputs to others. Sequencing events is typically done from the top down, or boards to working groups, factoring in the commander’s touch points and higher headquarters’ requirements. Battle rhythm periodicity could ultimately be daily, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly and will vary per event. The Battle Rhythm Event Schedule represents the time sequence of battle rhythm events.
• Is the battle rhythm staff and subordinate element supportable? Personnel time management is the most important and constraining factor for a battle rhythm. The Staff Matrix identifies when the battle rhythm is not supportable by the staff — often a critical oversight. Low-density, high-demand staff sections and subordinate elements are easily overtaxed with event participation.
• Does the battle rhythm have sufficient “white space”? Maintaining sufficient unscheduled time or “white space” between events is crucial for the commander’s reflection time and staff product generation. This ensures that the outputs from one event are understood and staffed prior to using them to inform a follow-on event.
• Does the chief of staff approve all changes to the battle rhythm? As the key staff integrator, coordinating and maintaining the battle rhythm becomes one of the chief of staff’s primary responsibilities per the JP 3-33. The battle rhythm is a staff management process that is highly influenced by minor, innocuous changes. Only the chief of staff has the staff oversight and sense of the commander’s most immediate priorities to evaluate the impact of changes to an organizational battle rhythm.
• Are there enough supporting resources for event requirements? Supporting resources include physical or virtual spaces and information technology requirements like video teleconference suites. Resources often become constraints when scheduling battle rhythm events and should not be overlooked when conducting the analysis.

Phase III – Implement Changes. Change in any organization is difficult. Buy-in from key players throughout the organization is critical to a successful battle rhythm implementation. Stakeholders who see the benefit become advocates and provide the tipping point that leadership needs to take ownership. A systematic implementation plan defines the realities of the current battle rhythm, articulates the advantages of the proposed battle rhythm, and provides details of the transition making leadership comfortable and allowing them to foster change.

Phase IV – Manage. Organizational information exchange requirements do not remain static. Transitions between operational phases, modification of unit mission, and leadership changes, among other activities, should prompt a review of the effectiveness of the battle rhythm. The products of the Battle Rhythm Analysis Process supporting model serve as the management tool for the chief of staff to determine how new information exchange requirements can be integrated into the current battle rhythm and when refinement is necessary.

Process Roots and Refinement

Having roots in challenges faced in 2009 and 2010 in operational commands, the analysis process and supporting model have been validated through numerous deployments and exercises. In Iraq, the challenge was integrating multiple commands into a single battle rhythm to support the emerging United States Forces Iraq headquarters. In Afghanistan, the challenge was developing a battle rhythm for the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, a newly-forming three-star level headquarters. These experiences identified pitfalls and success factors in battle rhythm constructs that later became key in the initial development of the JPSE battle rhythm analysis process.

Refinements were driven from experiences during deployments in support of U.S. Central Command’s Joint Task Force 435 and U.S. Africa Command during Operation Odyssey Dawn, as well as multiple staff exercises. In-depth analyses for U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, United States Pacific Command in Hawaii and the 1st Armored Division in Fort Bliss, Texas, provided validity and refinement of the process.

Conclusion

The JPSE battle rhythm analysis process and supporting model provides a proven, effective way to identify information exchange requirements, establish cross-functional entities that answers commander’s questions, and synchronize information flow within the commander’s decision cycle. Since no methodology for analyzing and evaluating battle rhythm functionality currently exists within joint doctrine, the knowledge management professionals from JPSE will continue to refine, train, implement and execute this process.

The JPSE is a subordinate joint command of the JECC, USTRANSCOM. The JECC is designed to assist combatant commanders in accelerating joint operational-level command and control capabilities through alert-postured, low density, high demand skill sets. For more information on this capability described in this article or the JECC’s other enabling capabilities, please contact the JECC J3 at 757-836-8939 or by email at JECC_Watch_Officer@ustranscom.mil.

Lt. Col. Joel L. Houk and Michael G. Cushing are members of the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command’s Joint Planning Support Element Knowledge Management Branch.