1 of 12

Operations Coordination Approach

Cdr Leif Hansson, Lt Col Ed Vickers

2 of 12

Introduction

Reevaluating Command and Control (C2)
The Need for a New Approach
Operations Coordination Approach (OCA)
Challenges with Traditional C2
Collaborative Leadership and OCA
Addressing Complexity in Modern Warfare
Moving Forward

Good afternoon,

Introduction

Today, we stand at a crucial crossroads in military strategy, one that requires us to critically evaluate the terms and concepts that have long defined our operations. Specifically, we must confront our historical over-reliance on the term "Command and Control," or C2, as it has traditionally been understood.

For too long, C2 has served as the default label for our command structures, even as the nature of warfare has evolved dramatically. What began as a convenient shorthand has now become a limiting framework—overused, often misunderstood, and no longer adequate for the complexities of modern military operations.

C2 is frequently misconstrued as a noun, a static idea, rather than a verb—a set of actions that must be actively carried out. This misperception leads to the dangerous assumption that C2 is a comprehensive solution, rather than a tool that requires continuous adaptation and application.

Leading researchers in Command and Control have long warned us that clinging to this term constrains our thinking, locking us into outdated concepts and approaches. Despite these warnings, we remain bound to a term that no longer serves us well, restricting our strategic thinking and operational effectiveness.

This brings us to a critical question: If warfare has evolved beyond traditional Command and Control, why do we still use C2 to describe our operations? The truth is, C2 is not the focus of modern military strategy. Instead, we must adopt an approach that embraces complexity, multi-domain operations, and multilateral integration.

To address this need, I propose a shift from C2 to what we are calling the "Operations Coordination Approach," or OCA. OCA represents a future-oriented framework that draws on systems thinking, NATO's Multi-Domain Operations (MDO), and the Future Operating Environment (FOE) concepts. This approach provides greater situational and command awareness than C2, offering a more dynamic, collaborative system that encourages synchronization and convergence among diverse entities.

The adoption of OCA, tailored to the unique complexities, actors, and domains of each situation, will allow us greater agility, focus, and convergence in our operations. It offers an overarching framework for the coordination and synchronization of military effects—moving us beyond the confines of C2.

This shift is not just about terminology. It’s about recognizing that C2 carries negative connotations for our partners across government, civilians, and non-military actors. The right to command and control resources that are not our own is inherently contentious and often impossible. We must therefore dismantle the military hierarchies embedded in MDO that hinder true collaboration.

Using C2 within MDO is also problematic because it can distort a military commander’s understanding of their environment, leading them to believe they have control over all domains and actors in an operation. This false sense of control undermines situational awareness and operational effectiveness. MDO is inherently complex, with challenges such as force integration and conflicting priorities that extend beyond the simple clear-cut scenarios that C2 was designed to manage.

Furthermore, C2 posits that a military commander can command and control all domains—land, air, sea, cyber, electromagnetic, and space. However, in reality, within MDO, a commander cannot control all these assets, especially those provided by allied nations or other organizations. They can influence but not command these resources. So, if a commander can only control their own assets, why continue to use C2 to describe this?

OCA is better suited to address the complexities of MDO because it acknowledges that while commanders do have command and control in certain bounded environments, there are also areas where assets cannot be commanded or controlled. For example, in the cyber and space domains, assets are often pooled and not fully under one commander’s control.

The over-reliance on C2 becomes particularly troublesome when considering the diversity of partners involved in modern operations—military, civilian, industry, government, and non-governmental organizations—all operating within a fluid, highly complex system. OCA is designed to address these complexities, offering a more flexible and collaborative leadership approach.

By adopting OCA, we align ourselves with the need for seamless collaboration with diverse entities, incorporating non-military organizations, industry, and academia into our operational framework. This approach allows us to harness a broader range of expertise, promoting effective communication and collaboration among all stakeholders.

In conclusion, successful operations in the modern era require a blend of military, civilian, and academic insights. The Operations Coordination Approach provides the flexibility and adaptability needed to navigate the complexities of multi-domain operations. It encourages a holistic, collaborative mindset that acknowledges the interconnected nature of today’s challenges and the necessity of a comprehensive, coordinated response.

-- SLIDE --

3 of 12

Examples from UK

SJFHQ deploy alongside FCDO on overseas ops/exercises
MOD work with FCDO during Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO) – MOD are not in overall command!
MOD work with Home Office during Military Aid to Civilian Authorities (MACA) – MOD are not in overall command!