Fall 2006 - Air & Space Power Chronicle - Air Force Link

MILITARY TRANSFORMATION 87to organize army capabilities effectively toprovide the joint force with needed groundcapabilities.” 7Thomas P. M. Barnett has different ideasabout military transformation, which becomeapparent when he writes about or briefs hisvision to attentive audiences. He bases hisworldview on a key assumption that the conventionaland nuclear military might of theUnited States and global interdependencehave made major warfare a thing of the past—that the United States is more likely to be “embroiledin dysfunctional parts of the world[what Barnett calls the “gap”] battling terroristsand rebuilding failed states.” 8 For Barnett,transformation depends upon the geostrategicsetting—the way the world has changedand the need to be proactive in response tothose changes.All of these transformational efforts are important,but it becomes difficult to determineif the focus for transformation is on equipmentand technologies, the way the militarydoes war fighting, the organizational structureof the military, or the geostrategic setting. Infact, all of these components are critical, butwe must tie them together coherently to producea shared vision of transformation, allowingthe military culture to transform the mindsetof those who do the fighting. Without thecoherence of addressing all components oftransformation, change can still take place—but it becomes something less than real transformation.The true version requires considerationof the ends, ways, and means of theorganization within the strategic context.A Different TransformationMind-SetEffective transformation requires that organizationsaddress four specific considerations:the geostrategic setting (the context for transformation),the ends (the purpose of the organization),the ways (the methods that the organizationuses to achieve those ends), and themeans (the resources used to accomplish theways). This approach of “context, ends, ways,means” provides a holistic, coherent approachto transforming an organization; without it,an organization does not truly transform.The context provides the purpose for undergoingtransformation. It could be the geostrategicsetting or perhaps an emerging technologyor method that demands dramatic, innovativechange. For the United States, the context ofthe geostrategic setting changed dramaticallyin 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and thesubsequent downfall of the Soviet Union. Todaywe still grapple with the impact of thosechanges—and the world keeps changing whilewe contemplate the end of the Cold War. Regardlessof whether one believes that the worldis shaped according to the “core” and the“gap,” as does Barnett, or by a “clash of civilizations,”as does Samuel Huntington, or themyriad other ways of depicting the world, wedo not have a bipolar world on the edge of asuperpower confrontation—at least not today.Since the world has changed dramatically, themilitary must do so as well or become irrelevant.Organizations generally don’t have the luxuryof setting the strategic context, but theydo have a choice in their reaction to contextualchange. Once the context is determined,three approaches—one of which is transformation—addressthe changing needs of large,complex organizations (similar to changes inthe business world). The approaches, whichdeal with the ends (purpose or product), ways(methods), or means (technology and resources),include transforming the organization’spurpose (focusing on ends), reengineeringits methods (focusing on ways), ordownsizing or “rightsizing” its technology andresources (focusing on means) (see table).Table. Focus of organizational changeStrategic Secondary TertiaryFocus Focus FocusTransformation Ends Ways MeansReengineering Ways MeansRightsizing MeansTransformation is the most comprehensiveapproach. To transform a large organization,one must look at the end product and be will-