Goodbye CompanyCommand.com?

In a recent grad school course that I finished, we did a project dealing with knowledge management networks and how an organization can leverage them to help educate its workforce. The Army's PL, Co Cmd, and BCKS networks were the best examples that we could find of effective knowledge sharing. There were a few "best practices" lists written by a few different consulting groups (McKinsey, etc). Those lists differed slightly, but the Army networks nonetheless met each item on each list.

Conditioned by experience to be cynical about the Army's ability learn and adapt as an organization, I was surprised. It was surprising and reassuring to see just how quickly and effectively the Army got it right in this case.

I have to echo what Rob said above. I want to go to specifics; I cant talk enough about what CompanyCommand.com has done for me and my Soldiers.

I joined it in 2000 prior to taking command. The CC forum has served as a vetting board for ideas, a place to vent to other commanders outside my brigade, and a social network of fellow commanders to talk about things that commanders talk about. In the forum I can talk about whatever I want to talk about in a relatively free setting - theres not a lot of moderating except from peers. There are commanders from every walk of life - active duty, Army Reserve, Army National Guard - and in every branch. There are former commanders who are now lieutenant colonels and colonels that every now and then chime in with a piece of wisdom. Where else can a captain get that - FOR FREE and not on any evaluation. And they can take it or leave it.

I, like Ryan Kranc above and many others, used the site as a small group instructor (SGI) at Fort Sill to give my students a resource base to draw from and use rather than beat their heads against a wall figuring out something that had already been figured out - or at least give them a further along starting point.

I, along with my friend and partner in crime Captain Kelly Jones, have been the topic leads for Professional Reading on the forum for the past four years. Both of us have a passion for professional reading and what it can do for our Soldiers and their units. I stepped up to help lead the Pro-Reading forum (http://ProReading.army.mil) because of what it did for me personally and my company in and out of combat. The Pro-Reading forum in one shape or another has enabled me and many other commanders to use books as a freebie rather than continue to repeat the same mistakes of others. I add this excerpt from the book, CompanyCommand: Unleashing the Power of the Army Profession because I cant write it any better than I spoke it five years ago. These are my words to the authors.

"I consider our reading program to be one factor in our success on the ground. For example, it helped give us a common reference point. It also helped my officers think deeper than just direct fire and maneuver of their forces. It taught them to use helicopters, recon assets, and anything else to avoid sending a man to do the job of a bullet. At the same time, it also taught them how one officer took his fight to the enemy, something that we have used several times. When we conduct split operations, when we have 'free radicals on the battlefield, or when we sense complacency settling in--we have a depth of shared understanding as a direct result of The Killing Zone conversations. I also think that reading this particular book helped connect my lieutenants with former Soldiers, which showed how we are part of a time-honored profession that is bigger than just ourselves. As we are finding, some lessons in war are timeless."

To take the forums away, or even to reduce the small support the Army is
providing to the forums, would be an injustice to our Soldiers.

The good news is that nothing has been decided yet. I believe that our
Army will wisely continue to fully resource BCKS and forums like CC. Like Rob mentioned above, when this decision comes before senior Army
leaders in the weeks ahead, they will support the forums. Stories like
these from members about the impact the forums have had will help shape that outcome.

Scott

Platoon Leader was my first peer-to-peer experience. It blossomed into a love affair with peer-to-peer information exchange networks, including SWJ, over the next 9 years.

I can't think of a day in the past 9 years where I haven't either referenced one of the PL/CC books, papers, or websites to increase my knowledge and proficiency as a Soldier. Platoon Leader and Company Command forums were at the forefront of the information age and the era of virtual communities. They predate such virtual communities as Small Wars Journal and Professional Soldiers.com, communities held in high esteem not just within the military, but throughout the national defense community, and constantly accessed by our junior and most senior leaders on a daily basis.

As a former instructor at The Armor School, I referenced my students, both lieutenants and captains alike, to both pl.com and cc.com regularly and encouraged them to share their experiences once they reached the force. One only needs to look at the wide range of topics on both websites to see the enormous tactical impact that both of these forums have had upon the force. No other place in the world can a young platoon leader seek and gain advise in such diverse topics as tactical employment of a scout platoon to supply management to dealing with FRGs. PL.com and CC.com offer young officers and company grade leaders a forum to speak candidly with each other, conduct informal AARs on personal performance, and share the lessons learned so that the mistakes of today do not repeat themselves within the force.

Paragraph 1-83, page 1-19 from FM 3-0, Operations, dated 27FEB08 describes the attributes required of today's Army leader. It includes the following bullets:

o Competent in their core proficiencies.
o Broad enough to operate across the spectrum of conflict.
o Able to operate in joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) environments and leverage other capabilities in achieving their objectives.
o Culturally astute and able to use this awareness and understanding to conduct operations innovatively.
o Courageous enough to see and exploit opportunities in the challenges and complexities of the operational environment.
o Grounded in Army Values and the Warrior Ethos.

All of these bullets are strengthened and enhanced by the free exchange of ideas and innovative solutions to complex problems through the exchanges taking place each day on both forums. I have personally used the forums to bounce ideas off others for enhancement prior to presenting the same to my chain of command. Technological advancements have allowed forums of this type to flourish in today's society. In a decentralized knowledge management system where all have equal say and freedom to express their perspectives on a wide variety of issues, PL.com and CC.com have afforded the deployed fighting force an opportunity to communicate with those who have gone before them so as to continue safe and effective tactical operations and cease bad practices and failed precepts.

The numbers speak for themselves: 18,000 members and 60,000 page views a month. There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 company grade officers in the Army. This means almost 1 of every 2 company grade officers are influenced and impacted by these systems. There is no other leadership development program in the Army outside of TRADOC assignments that can boast these numbers.

I can say, without reservation, that these forums have made me a better Soldier, leader, and officer throughout my 9 year career.

Both cc.com and pl.com have taken off lives of their own and become bigger and better than ever since been adopted into the BCKS system. In The Starfish and the Spider by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, the authors talk about the power of decentralized systems. The principles of decentralization, as explained in the book are:

1. When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized.
2. Its easy to mistake starfish for spiders.
3. An open system doesnt have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system.
4. Open systems can easily mutate.
5. The decentralized organization sneaks up on you.
6. As industries become decentralized, overall profits decrease.

One of the larger concerns I, as well as many other, have about the termination of services like pl.com, cc.com, and the BCKS system is the fact that our junior leaders have grown up in a culture with free exchanges of information. Since falling under the BCKS umbrella, these two forums in particular have enjoyed a vetting process through the AKO system that validates the identity of the user and protects information with the power of authentication through CAC cards and AKO logins. Termination of services or removing this outlet from the toolbag of our leaders will not prevent the free exchange of ideas. It will, however, potentially jeopardize OPSEC by forcing these same leaders to have similar discussions in less secure forums and outlets. As discussed in The Starfish and the Spider, one only needs to look at the status of peer-to-peer data sharing after the major recording industry took Napster to court and essentially shut it down to find a model of further decentralization, a decentralization that, in this case, may ultimately end up harming the United States Army by allowing our enemies less restricted access into our leaders concerns and contemporary issues. In essence, destruction of the Armys BCKS systems and, in particular, pl.com and cc.com could have potentially catastrophic affects at the tactical level for our young leaders and further put our Soldiers in harms way.

If the question is "what do these websites do to contribute to the mission" my answer is simple: They are a significant and vital tool in the professional development of our leaders that incorporate the three facets of leadership development defined in our doctrine and FM 3-0 (experience, education, and training) and allow for a melting pot of ideas and different perspectives that cannot be replicated elsewhere without serious, and potentially disastrous, degradation to the quality, control, and OPSEC found in the current format. Since the dissolving of CAS3 five years ago, the only chance for officers of varying backgrounds and branch specialties to come together and learn from each other at the company-grade level has been pl.com and cc.com. The knowledge gained in these sites is priceless and the free exchanges, while costing nothing but the time the user takes to type out his or her response, has allowed for the continual professional and tactical development of so many of our junior leaders, which has inevitably translated to Soldiers lives saved in combat during a time of persistent conflict.

To argue anything less would be a gross misunderstanding of the power and scope these online communities provide, a misunderstanding that may ultimately result in Soldier deaths and a far less developed and competent United States Army. Id like to believe that the leaders who lead my Army do not fall into the trap of falsely perceiving that a few dollars saved in the short term with budget cutting initiatives like this do not have a counterbalance affect down the road. Bluntly stated, the counterbalance and consequence to losing such programs is more memorial services, more hurt families, more fatherless and motherless children, more widows and widowers, and more brothers and sisters-in-arms making the ultimate sacrifice due to the negligence of their leaders failing to provide the information that could have kept them alive.

It is hard to quantify just how much CompanyCommand.com and its sister site has done for leadership, but there is no doubt in my mind they have advanced it in ways that could not have been done otherwise.

I (and many others who participate here on SWJ) first got involved with communities of practice on CC.com. We were excited by the prospect that a place had been carved out for us as company commanders where we could go and learn from former commanders and peers who faced the same challenges as ourselves - we were no longer limited to either discovery learning at the expense of those we were responsible for, or from peers whose experience was commensurate to our own. We had a place to go that was only limited by the amount of those willing to participate, and because of the nature of CC.com's founders and membership - this was nearly limitless.

For those who don't know the story Tony and Nate began CC.mil with a similar concept to Dave and Bill - provide a place where ideas could be shared and discussion could produce understanding on tough issues that faced the community. In this case it was focused on the Company Commander. Its worth mentioning that we've stated time and again how important the company grade officers are, and how their responsibilities and authorities on the battlefield have grown beyond what our pre-war doctrine anticipated and outlined.

I'm of the mind that CC.mil has played, and continues to play a strong role in preparing future, present and past company commanders to assume those responsibilities in ways that simply cannot be measured, or adequately expressed. CC.mil has never sought to be a place that blew its own horn because it respected the need to be a place where its participants can express themselves without fear of rebuke from the CoC. There are no pseudonyms, only names and contact info. There is both what you see on the site, and then there is the countless professional relationships and events the site fostered behind the site.

Not only does CC.mil foster discussion, but it provides a repository for tools (such as SOPs, best practices, reports, training ideas and briefs, etc.) that take time to develop and verify. This gives back the most precious resource to a commander, time -and places context around these tools because they come with an endorsement by the people who use and develop them.

What has always made CC.mil good is similar to what makes the SWJ discussion board good - its character is its membership who express a sense of loyalty and pride in it. Its not simply a lifeless site, or bank where things are deposited and withdrawn, but is a place where ideas are contested, haggled over, defended and advanced - the membership like here know the stakes and are willing to argue to get it right. I think most who frequent SWJ know how rare and valuable that is.

If leadership is truly the lever which we use to accomplish the mission, then there should be no question as to if CC.mil and PLTLDR.mil continue to provide the valuable service they have. I have not only used it, but have referred my subordinates to it and watched their knowledge and performance increase dramatically. I also saw an increase in their interest in the profession increase. I've had BN and BDE CDRs reflect the same comments about their Company Commanders. CC.mil has influenced leadership beyond its original audience and many of its participants are now BCT CDRs and GOs.

The "costs" of running the site are a infinitely small amount compared to some of our most basic hardware expenditures. This is a "no brainer" in my mind, that it would have to be considered shows that we don't really understand the connection between what we say we want out of our leaders and the means to accomplish it. The ability to continually advance leadership is priceless, and in this case is not even a drop in the budget.

What cc.mil really supports is targeted continued learning that is carried forward throughout a career (and beyond in many cases) - that the huge return on leadership for such a small dollar investment cannot be measured by methods accustomed to probability of kill ratio, MPG or mean time between failure is irrelevant - and may in fact indicate we focus on measuring the wrong things.

I would like to think that the question of closing down the sites was made by budget wonk or that it automatically popped up like when your operating system asks you a mindless question because it does not really think, or know your intent. I'd like to believe that as soon as it came to the attention of a leader - the thought of getting rid of them was crushed. If that is true, then good on us, it still gave me a chance to write about the value of some fantastic leadership communities.

Best regards, Rob