Designing at the Cutting Edge of Battle: The 75^th Ranger Regiment’s Project Galahad

REFERENCES

• 2017 Sept DPRK: CTBTO Preparatory Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/developments-after-1996/2017-sept-dprk/
   Google Scholar
• Beaulieu-Brossard, P. (2020). Encountering nomads in Israel defense forces and beyond. In Concepts at work: On the linguistic infrastructure of world politics,pp. 1–20. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beaulieu-Brossard, P., & Dufort, P. (2016, October 16). Introduction to the conference: The rise of reflective military practitioners. Hybrid Warfare: New Ontologies and Epistemologies in Armed Forces, Canadian Forces College, Toronto, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Beaulieu-Brossard, P., & Dufort, P. (2017). The archipelago of design: Researching reflexive military practices. The Archipelago of Design: Researching Reflexive Military Practices. www.militaryepistemology.com
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, B., Burrell, G., & Vurdubakis, T. (2017). Licence to kill? On the organization of destruction in the 21st century. Organization, 24(4), 441–455. doi:10.1177/1350508417700404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637
   Google Scholar
• Bureau, S. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a subversive activity: How can entrepreneurs destroy in the process of creative destruction? M@n@gement, 16(3), 204–237. doi:10.3917/mana.163.0204
   Google Scholar
• Clifford, C. (2018, May 17). Jeff Bezos: ‘If you cannot afford to be misunderstood, don’t do anything new or innovative’ [News]. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/17/jeff-bezos-on-what-it-takes-to-be-innovative.html
   Google Scholar
• Conklin, J. (2008). Wicked Problems and Social Complexity. In Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. CogNexus Institute. http://www.cognexus.org
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (n.d.). NEO^TM Personality Inventory-3 (pp. 2).  Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. (2012). No territory, no profit: The pirate organization and capitalism in the making. M@n@gement, 15(3), 264–272. doi:10.3917/mana.153.0265
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, Y. (2007, October 25). Dr. Naveh, or, how I learned to stop worrying and walk through walls [Online social media and news blog]. HAARETZ.Com. https://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/1.4990742
   Google Scholar
• Gero, J., & Kannengiesser, U. (undated). An Ontology of Donald Schön’s reflection in designing. Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Graicer, O. (2017a). Self disruption: Seizing the High ground of systemic operational design (SOD). Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 17(4), 21–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graicer, O. (2017b). Beware of the power of the dark side: The inevitable coupling of doctrine and design. In Experticia Militar (pp. 30–37). Colombia: Experticia Militar, Revista Profesional del Ejército Nacional de Colombia; Centro de Doctrina del Ejército (CEDOE).
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, A. (2019a). Introduction: What is design thinking and how is it of use to the Australian defence force. Australian Journal of Defence and Strategic Studies, 3, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, A. (2020). Civilian and military design thinking:A comparative historical and paradigmatic analysis, and its implications for military designers (pp. 1–31).  https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress/Display/Article/2437970/design-thinking-in-commerce-and-war-contrasting-civilian-and-military-innovatio/
   Google Scholar
• Keegan, J. (1988). The Mask of Command. New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2000). Propositions of human-centeredness; A philosophy for design. In D. Durling & K. Friedman (Eds.), Doctoral education in design: Foundations for the future: Proceedings of the conference held 8-12 July 2000, La Clusaz, France. Staffordshire University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lauder, M. (2009). Systemic operational design: Freeing operational planning from the shackles of linearity. Canadian Military Journal, 9(4), 41–49.
   Google Scholar
• MacLean, R. (2008). Environmental leadership: The power of scenario planning in executive communications. Environmental Quality Management, 18(2), 95–100. doi:10.1002/tqem.20210
   Google Scholar
• Martin, G. (2011). A tale of two design efforts [And why they both failed in Afghanistan]. Small Wars Journal, 16.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, G. (2015). Deniers of “The Truth”: Why an agnostic approach to warfare is key. Military Review, 95(1), 42–51.
   Google Scholar
• McFate, S. (2019). The new rules of war (First ed.). New York: William Morrow.
   Google Scholar
• Meiser, J. (2016). Ends + Ways + Means = (Bad) Strategy. Parameters, 46(4), 81–91.
   Google Scholar
• Military Design 101: JSOU Enabling Innovative Thought and Action for USSOCOM - YouTube. (2020, May 4). [Video Mp4]. JSOU campus studio. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjZ-NpjsxUs
   Google Scholar
• Monk, J. (2017). End state: The fallacy of modern military planning [Research Report].
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, G. (2006). Images as organizations (Updated Edition of the International Bestseller). London, UK: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Naveh, S. (1997). In pursuit of military excellence: The evolution of operational theory. New York: Frank Cass.
   Google Scholar
• Naveh, S. (undated document). Northern storm: A narrative of reflective command, systemic learning, and operational design 2002-2005 [PowerPoint Presentation].
   Google Scholar
• Naveh, S., Schneider, J., & Challans, T. (2009). The structure of operational revolution: A prolegomena. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Booz Allen Hamilton.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way (Second). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Newport, C. (2016). Deep work: Rules for focused success in a distracted world (1st ed.). New York: Grand Central Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Paparone, C. (2008). On metaphors we are led by. Military Review, 88(6), 55–64.
   Google Scholar
• Paparone, C. (2013). The sociology of military science: Prospects for postinstitutional military design. New York: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Paparone, C. (2019). Designing meaning in the reflective practice of national security: frame awareness and frame innovation. In A. Jackson & F. Mackrell (Eds.), Design thinking: Applications for the Australian defence force, (editor’s manuscript pre-publication version, pp. 1–18). Canberra, Australia: Defence Publishing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Protzen, J.-P., & Harris, D. (2010). The universe of design: Horst Rittel’s theories of design and planning. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, L. (1983). The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism. In L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 31–54). Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Rothenberg, A. (1971). The process of janusian thinking in creativity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 24(3), 195. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1971.01750090001001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, A. (2016, November 4). A personal reflection on introducing design to the U.S. Army. The Medium. https://medium.com/the-overlap/a-personal-reflection-on-introducing-design-to-the-u-s-army-3f8bd76adcb2
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sikander, A. (2016). Scenario-planning as a stand-alone tool for strategic foresight: Limitations and options. Change Management: An International Journal, 16(1), 13–18.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley, K., & Lehman, J. (2015). Why greatness cannot be planned: The Myth of the objective. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• The JSOU JAWS Exercise and How SOCOM is Dropping Cognitive Tools with Military Design—YouTube. (2020, April 10). [Video Mp4]. JSOU campus studio. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf_IQ5uCS8g
   Google Scholar
• Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J. (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations, 54(8), 979–1013. doi:10.1177/0018726701548001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review, 73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. doi:10.2307/2393339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 301–313. doi:10.2307/2393722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weizman, E. (2007). Hollow Land: Israel’s architecture of occupation. New York: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• White, H. (1990). The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation (paperback edition ed.). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, A., & Kupers, R. (2013). Living in the futures: How scenario planning changed corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 119–127.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zweibelson, B. (2015a). Military ‘Deep Dives’ and organizational management: The continuing Hazards of Hubris, centralized hierarchies, and insular perspectives | Small Wars Journal. Small Wars Journal. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/military-%E2%80%98deep-dives%E2%80%99-and-organizational-management-the-continuing-hazards-of-hubris-centra
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B. (2015b). One piece at a time: Why linear planning and institutionalisms promote military campaign failures. Defence Studies Journal, 15(4), 360–375. doi:10.1080/14702436.2015.1113667
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B. (2016). Special operations and design thinking: Through the looking glass of organizational knowledge production. Special Operations Journal, 2(1), 22–32. doi:10.1080/23296151.2016.1151753
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B. (2017a). Change agents for the SOF enterprise: Design considerations for SOF leadership confronting complex environments. Special Operations Journal, 3(2), 127–140. doi:10.1080/23296151.2017.1384274
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B. (2017b). An application of theory: Second generation military design on the horizon. Small Wars Journal.
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B. (2018, June 20). Designing through complexity and human conflict: Acknowledging the 21st century military design movement. Design Lecture with Phil Gilbert and Ben Zweibelson on Military Design and IBM Design Movements. SPADE 2018: Rethinking Defense and Security in the Digital Age, Copenhagen, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B., Whale, K., & Mitchell, P. (2019). Rounding the edges of the maple leaf: Emergent design and systems thinking in the Canadian armed forces. Canadian Military Journal, 19(4), 25–33.
   Google Scholar