Printer-friendly version Planning Techniques Many different methods for planning exist, each with their own benefits and drawbacks in different situations.
Just a Set of Labels? Newsletter of the Directorate of Army Research and Analysis, no.
Throughout history, war has been perceived as action on three broad levels: Clausewitz distinguished the three levels by relativity in time, space and mass. His writings only refer to two levels: If fighting consisted of a single act, no further subdivision would be needed.
However, it consists of a greater or lesser number of single acts, each complete in itself, which This gives rise to the completely different activity of planning and executing these engagements themselves, and of coordinating each of them with the others in order to further the object of the war.
One has been called tactics, and the other strategy According to our classification, then, tactics teaches the use of armed forces in the engagement; strategy, the use of engagements for the object of the war. In his era it made sense. Control was limited by what the commander could see, and the distances travelled by visual and audio signals.
Troops fought concentrated and weapons were, by today's standards, short-ranged. The battlefield was a small and well-defined place, and the battle usually short. Although, even here Clausewitz recognised that there could be exceptions and potential for blurring of the two. Now while current Australian doctrine admits three levels of war see box and Clausewitz discusses only two, other theorists have produced different constructs.
Luttwak, for example, postulates five levels.
It is at this level that military strategy is implemented by assigning missions, tasks and resources to tactical operations. Campaign A controlled series of simultaneous or sequential operations designed to achieve an operational commander's objective, normally within a given time or space.
See also operational level of war. He dissented from Clausewitz's emphasis on the battle as the instrument of strategy something implicit in the Australian definitions of the levels of war. More significantly, he argued that Clausewitz confused the responsibilities of government and military leaders, which should remain distinct.
Thus Liddell Hart defined "higher" or "grand strategy" what we might today call "national strategy" as distinct from "pure" or "military strategy", under which sits tactics. We saw in Indochina, Vietnam, Malaya and elsewhere how Communist political and military organisations were integrated down to the local level, and local military action often was in support of political goals.
Further, successful counter-guerrilla campaigns, such as in Malaya, found it desirable to mimic Communist organisation and closely coordinate military and political decision-making. Here it was impossible to successfully separate military and political aspects at the local level, let alone the national.
The discovery of an operational level of war has been attributed to Helmuth von Moltke, who led the Prussian, and eventual German, army in a series of successful wars in the s and s. Certainly, by the time of Moltke, warfare had changed significantly.
Prior to Napoleon a campaign was defined by season more often than geography. In the Napoleonic Wars, divisions and corps provided more flexible command structures, separate campaigns were fought under different generals in geographically dispersed areas, and in some cases fighting continued through winter.
By late 19th century, technology was catching up with warfare, and the wars in Europe and North America at this time were different in character to those that both preceded and followed them.
The railway and improvements to the road system were allowing armies to become more mobile. The telegraph made control of dispersed forces a practical proposition.
Together these permitted forces to be controlled within a theatre of operations, and then concentrated at the point where they needed to give battle—something practiced by Moltke. They also permitted the mobilisation of much larger armies than hitherto fielded, and improvements in industry and agriculture allowed them to be sustained.There are many factors that influence Wal-Mart’s strategic, tactical, operational and contingency planning.
Although Wal-Mart has been a very successful corporation throughout its existence, it has had to absorb the impact of legal issues, ethics, and corporate responsibility in its management planning. LESSON PLAN PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING CORPORATE LEARNING COURSE “TEAM BUILDING” BLOCK SEMINAR It is more concerned with current operations, and Ask for examples of some successful strategic, tactical or contingency plans.
Have. Walmart is planning $ billion of capital investments in the U.S. in the coming fiscal year, which includes construction and remodeling of stores, clubs and distribution centers, as well as the expansion of new services such as Online Grocery Pickup. Analyze at least three factors that influence the company’s strategic, tactical, operational, and contingency planning.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH DELUXE PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT. Analyze the influence that legal issues, ethics, and corporate social responsibility have had on management planning at BP. Provide at least one example for each.
Analyze at least three factors that influence the company’s strategic, tactical, operational, and contingency planning. At the Agency, at least through the s, a rough balance prevailed between tactical and strategic, if all forms of event reporting and crisis management support were generously defined as tactical warning, and all forms of research and estimative work were similarly defined as strategic warning.