Force. As such, DJFHQ problem framing and planning relied on the communication of information from the ground up. DJFHQ also enabled observation for civil-military engagement and interagency decision-making requirements due to the participation of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Agency for International Development and Australian Federal Police at this level. This step ends with the requirements, values and barriers of thinking models. Case Study. The third step, corresponding to Chapter 5, is an historical investigation of barriers, values and mitigating strategies for the use of the MAP in an operational context. It nuances the theoretical assumptions and model requirements against their practical realities. The RTF was selected as the main case study due its population mission using tasks within a conflict environment. Other and follow-on rotations of Australian forces in Afghanistan including the Special Operations Task Group, Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force (2008-2010), Mentoring Task Force (2010-2012) and Advisor Task Force had a focus on security and kinetic action. The RTF also worked under conditions where the United Nations, aid agencies and other government agencies were unable to work in Uruzgan Province due to the security situation. This meant that there was direct interaction between the military force and the local population without third party involvement. Information about the RTF has also been published in books making the information releasable at an unclassified level. The data was collected through a series of personal interviews with junior commanders from the RTF and their immediate higher chain of command. The interview questions focused on their personal experience and strategies they practically implemented at the individual level for the MAP. This historical analysis tested and adjusted the assumptions from the theoretical analysis and model requirement steps. Part II - Model Development Part II develops and refines the model through a further two steps. Develop the Model. The fourth step, corresponding to Chapter 6, develops the initial modifications for the MAP. Firstly, the MAP is examined against the baseline requirements determined in Part I with modifications proposed where disparities exist through a qualitative process. Secondly, a side-by-side analysis with existing models including the DSF and ICAF, is conducted for cross-sectoral learning. This step ends with the proposed modifications to the MAP with the value identified for each modification.
Force. As such, DJFHQ problem framing and planning relied on the communication of information from the ground up. DJFHQ also enabled observation for civil-military engagement and interagency decision-making requirements due to the participation of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Agency for International Development and Australian Federal Police at this level. This step ends with the requirements, values and barriers of thinking models. Case Study. The third step, corresponding to Chapter 5, is an historical investigation of barriers, values and mitigating strategies for the use of the MAP in an operational context. It nuances the theoretical assumptions and model requirements against their practical realities. The RTF was selected as the main case study due its population mission using tasks within a conflict environment. Other and follow-on rotations of Australian forces in Afghanistan including the Special Operations Task Group, Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force (2008-2010), Mentoring Task Force (2010-2012) and Advisor Task Force had a focus on security and kinetic action. The RTF also worked under conditions where the United Nations, aid agencies and other government agencies were unable to work in Uruzgan Province due to the security situation. This meant that there was direct interaction between the military force and the local population without third party involvement. Information about the RTF has also been published in books making the information releasable at an unclassified level. The data was collected through a series of personal interviews with junior commanders from the RTF and their immediate higher chain of command. The interview questions focused on their personal experience and strategies they practically implemented at the individual level for the MAP. This historical analysis tested and adjusted the assumptions from the theoretical analysis and model requirement steps. Part II - Model Development Part II develops and refines the model through a further two steps. Develop the Model. The fourth step, corresponding to Chapter 6, develops the initial modifications for the MAP. Firstly, the MAP is examined against the baseline requirements determined in Part I with modifications proposed where disparities exist through a qualitative process. Secondly, a side-by-side analysis with existing models including the DSF and ICAF, is conducted for cross-sectoral learning. This step ends with the proposed modifications to the MAP with the value identified for each modification.
O'Neill%20Chapter%201%20-%20Introduction.docx