温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.spa.com/focus-putting-force-design-first-logically
点击访问原文链接

Putting Force Design First – Logically - SPA

进入原网站 导航首页
Putting Force Design First – Logically - SPA Skip to the content

SPA International SPA Australia

About Us Leadership Company Leaders Board of Directors Fellows Locations and Facilities Locations and Facilities Freedom Wargaming and Conference Center SPA Arlington Research Collaboration Center (SPARCC) Intrepid, an SPA Company Red Six, an SPA Company Group W, an SPA Company Doing Business with SPA Contracts Joint Venture Partnerships Small Business Legal Privacy Policy Compliance Statements Terms of Use Contact Us Markets and Domains Defense Intelligence Homeland Security Capabilities Strategic Analysis and Force Design Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Digital Wargaming Advanced Data Analytics Digital Program Management Digital Systems Engineering DevSecOps Innovation Software Tool Application Investment in People Approach to Complex Challenges Careers Life at SPA Benefits Veteran Hiring Early Careers and Internships Hiring Events Search Jobs Community Volunteering and Partnerships Puppy Fleet Thought Leadership Latest News Contract Wins Corporate Awards Leadership Awards Leadership Updates M&A News Making an Impact Events FOCUS: SPA Blog Information Sheets Ebooks Videos Subscribe Join our team! About Us About Us   – Leadership        Company Leaders        Board of Directors        Fellows   – Locations and Facilities        Locations and Facilities        Freedom Center        SPARCC   – Intrepid, an SPA Company   – Red Six, an SPA Company   – Group W, an SPA Company   – Doing business with SPA        Contracts        SPA’s Joint Venture Partnerships        Small Business Legal Privacy Policy Compliance Statements Terms of Use   – Contact Markets and Domains Markets and Domains   – Defense   – Intelligence   – Homeland Security Capabilities Capabilities   – Strategic Analysis and Force Design   – Modeling and Simulation (M&S)   – Digital Wargaming   – Advanced Data Analytics   – Digital Program Management   – Digital Systems Engineering   – DevSecOps Innovation Innovation   – Software Tool Application   – Investment in People   – Approach to Complex Challenges Careers Careers   – Life at SPA   – Benefits   – Veteran Hiring   – Early Careers and Internships   – Hiring Events   – Search Jobs Community Community   – Volunteering and Partnerships   – Puppy Fleet Thought Leadership News   – Latest News   – Contract Wins   – Corporate Awards   – Leadership Awards   – Leadership Updates   – M&A News   – Making an Impact Events FOCUS: SPA Blog Information Sheets Ebooks Videos Subscribe SPA International SPA International   – SPA Australia Share this post Focus: SPA Perspectives Categories: Capabilities  |  SPA Fellows

Putting Force Design First – Logically Author: LtCol Noel Williams, USMC (Ret), SPA Fellow for USMC Strategy, Policy, and Force Development

Alexandria, VA | June 17, 2025 Noel Williams is SPA’s Fellow for USMC Strategy, Policy, and Force Development 

LtCol Noel Williams, USMC (Ret), SPA's Fellow for USMC Strategy, Policy, and Force Development In a time of accelerating threats and rapid technological shifts, the U.S. military should reconsider how it approaches force design in its modernization process. Force design represents the logical first step in force modernization—and it should be performed concurrently with development and employment, not sequentially as current doctrine suggests. 

Force design is not merely a checklist or a bureaucratic formality. It is a creative, systems-level process—a way to build a coherent, threat-informed force capable of fighting and winning future wars. As I argued in my Marine Corps Gazette article, “design is first and foremost an act of creation.” To prepare for the challenges ahead, the Joint Force would benefit from professionalizing this function, rethinking its doctrine, and aligning its organizations accordingly. 

What Is Force Design—And How Is It Currently Positioned?

The Joint Staff defines force design in CJCSI 3030.01A as “a process of innovation through concept development, experimentation, prototyping, research, analysis, wargaming, and other applications of technology and methods to envision a future joint force.” The Marine Corps has embraced this concept since 2019, treating design as a centerpiece of transformation under the 38th Commandant. But across the broader Department of Defense, force design is often treated as a phase that follows current operations and precedes acquisition, positioned years in the future. 

This positioning is problematic. Design should logically lead development and employment, just as an architect precedes a builder and occupant. The current CJCSI 3030.01A describes three timeframes:  

While any process naturally takes time, these artificial time horizons can be counterproductive. 

The Russo-Ukraine war has demonstrated that such a time-specific process cannot work effectively. Forces must be designed and redesigned in important ways in the near future, and the inability of a force to do so means defeat. Today’s security environment demands near-term force redesign to keep pace with peer adversaries. That makes force design a continuous task rather than a distant, one-time event. 

A Critical Distinction: Concept-Driven vs. Threat-Based Planning 

Calling out distinctions between concept-informed/concept-driven and threat-based/threat-informed may seem overly pedantic, but these distinctions have significance beyond semantic nitpicks. The shift to capabilities-based planning (CBP) in the early 2000s under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld replaced threat-based design with a model that treated enemies as abstract sets of technologies without connection to geography, culture, or fighting methodology. 

This approach encouraged military planning to shift focus inward rather than on the enemy, allowing institutional preferences to prevail over war-winning imperatives. The result was a force modernization effort that focused on refining legacy systems (e.g., better tactical aircraft and towed artillery) instead of developing more innovative capabilities like uncrewed systems, loitering munitions, or agile command-and-control networks. 

The most important contribution of the 2018 National Defense Strategy was the unequivocal shift back to threat-based planning. Subsequent joint doctrine made improvements to how the Department approaches planning, requirements development, and solutions development. Yet adjustments must continue given the changing nature of threats, technologies, budgets, and strategies. 

Shift the Sequence: From Time-Based to Logic-Based Design 

Current doctrine divides force planning into three distinct timeframes, with Force Design positioned farthest in the future. This sequencing implies that design occurs mainly in the distant timeframe. But in reality, the logical sequence should be: 

It is critical that designers, developers, and operators maintain a continuous dialog to ensure healthy feedback loops for rapid adjustment to processes and plans. The current time-dependent characterization serves as an implicit segmentation that discourages interactions among these groups and thus compromises essential feedback. 

Forward-deployed commanders and operating forces are increasingly conversant in both current and future adversary capabilities. When they ask for capabilities to counter existing and near-term adversary threats, they are often asking for capabilities far in advance of what’s currently planned in the acquisition pipeline. 

Vision First, Not Concepts First 

CJCSI 3003.01A states, “Concept-driven, threat-informed, capability development begins with a vision of the future operating environment that guides the DOD through a campaign of learning to identify the capabilities required to achieve the objectives established in national strategic guidance.” 

However, concepts should not be the primary driver. Force Design should be concept-informed rather than concept-driven. Vision—a hypothesis about the desired attributes of the future force needed to solve a specific military problem—should come first. As Einstein said, “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask.” 

Concepts are useful because they pull together desired attributes into a coherent whole, but they are of varying quality and utility. Deconstructing concepts to transliterate them from conceptual think pieces to mechanistic lists, and then converting these lists to gaps and requirements, is likely to lead to confusion as the logical structure of force design is removed from the process. 

An architect does not take a pile of materials and build a house from what is in the pile. Similarly, force designers should not simply compile lists from concepts without maintaining the systems perspective that makes those concepts meaningful. 

Watch: Noel Williams, SPA Fellow for USMC Strategy, Policy, and Force Development interview

Force Design Requires Professionals 

Currently, the Marine Corps’ combat development organization (CD&I) lacks dedicated force designers and instead relies upon ad hoc process teams, study groups, and organizational reviews. The initial planning for Force Design 2030 was performed by an ad hoc group known as Provident Stare. When this work was handed off to the Deputy Commandant CD&I, they had to proceed with a continuing series of integrated product team efforts focused on pieces of the overarching design. This approach structurally exposes the process to discontinuities and confusion given the lack of continuity. 

The Army has addressed this challenge by creating a force management occupational specialty (FA 50) and establishing a Futures Command headed by a four-star general. The Marine Corps could consider a similar approach by converting existing capability portfolio managers (CPMs)—active-duty colonels—to force designers 

These force designers would work together as an integrated team, with research, seminars, and supporting analysis culminating in the development of a blueprint for the Objective Force. Their routine would include regular briefings on concepts, guest speakers from academic and military institutions, and travel to exercises, experiments, wargames, and industry partners. 

Align Development and Solutions with Design 

Once the blueprint is established, force developers (who could be redesignated from deputy CPMs) would translate the vision into detailed requirements or problem statements. These should be directly aligned with the design portfolios. 

Force developers would focus exclusively on requirements and problem statement development. Solutions would best be accomplished by solution developers under a single roof to benefit from multi-disciplinary expertise. Force developers would work in close coordination with solution developers to continually refine requirements while benefiting from the creative tension caused by the clear separation of responsibilities. 

A Call to Evolve Doctrine, Culture, and Capability 

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) should be benchmarked against real-world conflicts like the Russo-Ukrainian War and its ability to deliver capabilities as defined by operational commanders. If it cannot deliver against these tests at the speed of relevance, it should be reconsidered. 

“

“Force design is not about producing another list. It’s about building a system—based on threats, refined through vision, informed by concepts, and tested through warfighting logic. It forms the foundation of modernization and should be treated as such in our doctrine and processes.” – LtCol Noel Williams, USMC (Ret), SPA’s Fellow for USMC Strategy, Policy, and Force Development Conclusion: Make the First Thing First 

Force design is where innovation and force modernization begin. It should become a permanent, professionalized, and prioritized discipline across all Services. The traditional incremental approach to force development worked in an era of incremental change, but the increasing complexity of the modern battlefield requires a more sophisticated approach. 

Force design is the locus of innovation and the architect of force development; we should evolve our processes and organization and professionalize the force design workforce to do it effectively. 

Read Noel’s previous post, “Shaping the Future of Force Design and Structure in an Era of Rapid Technological Change” 

Subscribe for Future FOCUS: SPA Perspectives Updates Related Posts 17 Feb Advanced Data AnalyticsAI/ML and Decision AnalyticsCapabilitiesFocus - SPA PerspectivesFuture Force Assessment​Modeling & SimulationModeling, Simulation, and AnalysisStrategic Analysis and Force Design Inside the Model: How Data-Driven Manpower Tools Improve Decision Options Read More 03 Feb Advanced Data AnalyticsAI/ML and Decision AnalyticsCapabilitiesFocus - SPA PerspectivesModeling & SimulationModeling, Simulation, and AnalysisSPA Community and Culture SPA’s Maritime Plaza Collaboration Space Opens to Support SLCM-N Collaboration Read More 06 Jan Advanced Data AnalyticsAI/ML and Decision AnalyticsCapabilitiesFocus - SPA PerspectivesFuture Force Assessment​Modeling & SimulationModeling, Simulation, and AnalysisStrategic Analysis and Force Design How Manpower Production Modeling Strengthens Future Force Readiness Read More We invite you to subscribe and stay informed. Never miss an update as we continue providing the rigorous insights and expert analysis you rely upon to protect and advance our national security.


I agree to sign up for email updates from FOCUS: SPA Perspectives.
Sign up


I agree to sign up for email updates from FOCUS: SPA Perspectives.
Sign up

Objective. Responsive. Trusted.

Home About Us Markets and Domains Capabilities Innovation Careers Community News SPA International

Our address

2001 N. Beauregard St.
Alexandria, Virginia 22311
Contact us

703.931.3500

Our social

Terms of Use Privacy policy Ad and Cookie Policy ©2026 Systems Planning & Analysis

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit eiusmod tempor

leroux@qodeinteractive.com

智能索引记录