Institutionalizing Futures Thinking in the Canadian Army
The future cannot be predicted to any useful degree as uncertainty rules. Indeed, uncertainty is a predominate characteristic of the twenty first century security environment and armed forces around the world continue to strive to understand and define how their national security policies fit within this paradigm. In this age of complexity, military planners often get caught in the trap of attempting to diminish uncertainty rather than learning how to function with it. So, in the face of such a complex and uncertain global security environment, where do military planners start? This chapter discusses a futures methodology that can provide capacity to systematically explore, create, and test both possible and desirable futures to improve military decisions. As a result of this project, the Canadian Army institutionalized futures thinking to help military strategists more effectively plan in the complex and uncertain global security environment.
KeywordsFutures thinking Military planning Global security Cultural paradigm shift
- Canadian Army Land Warfare Centre. (2015). Canada’s future Army, volume 1: Methodology, perspectives and approaches. Kingston: Army Publishing Office.Google Scholar
- Canadian Army Land Warfare Centre. (2017a). Canada’s future Army, volume 2: Force employment implications. Kingston: Army Publishing Office.Google Scholar
- Canadian Army Land Warfare Centre. (2017b). Canada’s future Army, volume 3: Alternate worlds and implication. Kingston: Army Publishing Office.Google Scholar
- Canadian Forces (CF). (2010). The comprehensive approach concept. Ottawa: Chief of Force Development.Google Scholar
- Conway, M. Introduction to scenario planning. Thinking Futures. Retrieved from: https://thinkinfutures.net.
- Glenn, J. C. (2003). Introduction to futures research methodology. Futures research methodology—V2.0. The Millennium Project. Washington: American Council for the United Nations University.Google Scholar
- Glenn, J. C. (2009). Futures research methodology—V3.0. The Millennium Project. Washington: American Council for the United Nations University.Google Scholar
- Grey, C. (2005). Another bloody century. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
- Grey, C. (2008–2009). The 21st century security environment and the future of war. Parameters, 38, 14–24.Google Scholar
- ISS Think Tank. (2016). STEEP analysis. Retrieved from: http://issthinktank.wikispaces.com/STEEP+Analysis.
- Lauder, M. A., Eles, P., & Banko, K. (2012, Spring). The glaucus1 factor-red teaming as a means to nurture foresight. The Canadian Army Journal, 14.1, 45–59. Kingston: Army Publishing Office.Google Scholar
- North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). (2017). NATO comprehensive approach. Retrieved from: http://www.natolibguides.info/comprehensiveapproach/documents.
- Patrick, S., & Brown, K. (2007). Greater than the sum of its parts? Assessing “whole of government” approaches to fragile states. New York: International Peace Academy.Google Scholar
- Pestle Analysis 2018. Retrieved from: http://pestleanalysis.com/.
- Rostek, M. A., & Gizewski, P. (Eds.). (2011). Security operations in the 21st century: Canadian perspectives on the comprehensive approach. Montreal and Kingston: Queen’s Policy Studies Series and McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
- Rostek, LCol M. A., Gizewski, P., & Reshke, R. (2010, December). Conceiving an army for the 21st century (DRDC CORA TM 2010-264). Ottawa: Defence Research and Development Canada Ottawa (Ontario) Centre for Operational Research and Analysis. Google Scholar
- Sayers, N. (2010). A guide to scenario planning in higher education. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.Google Scholar
- van der Heijden, K. (2010). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar