On 15/01/07, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1/14/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What would you describe as the "objects" in a military scenario who > > state determines the next step? I'd have a similar questions in other > > scenarios (e.g. American Footbal coaching with its fixed plays called > > from the side lines). > > A battle plan is fabulous right up until the start of battle. Then it > must adapt to the current state of the battle -- the actual deployment > of enemy troops, the weapons in use, the weather, civilians, > casualities, etc. > > As Gervas said, the Army is not truly centralized. Officers in the > field must constantly make their own decisions. They are goal-driven > rather than execution-driven. "Take that hill." "Secure that > building." "Destroy that bunker."
Agreed, but down at the edge where sarge orders his privates around its very very directed. Of course things change and adapt, but the point is that there are different types of process scenario, and one of them is where a controlling entity gives the orders. "Forward, the Light Brigade!" Was there a man dismay'd? Not tho' the soldier knew Someone had blunder'd: Their's not to make reply, Their's not to reason why, Their's but to do and die: Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. Or of course Jack Nicholas in "A Few Good Men" - "We follow orders or people die" Now clearly the army is a dramatic demonstration of this, but if you've ever had to deal with a trainee in a position who wasn't the brightest I'm sure you'll have muttered the phrase "Just sit there, don't do anything, if anything changes call me and I'll tell you what to do" My point is that there are many different forms that process can take and its very unlikely that one technology solution will be able to solve all of them. > > Anne >
