Summary of Findings: Red Teaming (3.5 out of 5 Stars)

Note: This post represents the synthesis of the thoughts, procedures and experiences of others as represented in the articles read in advance (see previous posts) and the discussion among the students and instructor during the Advanced Analytic Techniques class at Mercyhurst University in October 2016 regarding Red Teaming as an Analytic Technique specifically. This technique was evaluated based on its overall validity, simplicity, flexibility and its ability to effectively use on structured data.

Description:

Red teaming is a general classification method used in analysis that looks at scenarios and situations from the enemy’s/adversary’s/partner's perspectives.  Descriptions and processes for how this is precisely done varies widely by the source and application of the technique.

Strengths:

• Gives an alternate perspective for situational analysis and evaluating scenarios
• Can be highly effective for SOME applications (i.e. utilization of OpFor training for military operations)
• Flexible and can be applied to a wide variety of topics / scenarios

Weaknesses:

• Lack of definition and evidence to support this technique.
• Red Teaming is easy to set up but difficult to replicate.

How-To:

1. Identify a scenario which requires analysis from the perspective of the “enemy”
2. Identify a team designated to “think like the enemy” and come up with plausible actions the enemy may take (recommended to use nominal group technique, screening criteria, and any other methods or modifiers to produce plausible plans)
3. Ask for as much detail as possible regarding the surroundings of the scenario or actors within the operating area to refine analytic assessments
4. Present the team's findings to the decision maker(s)
5. Decision maker(s) then take action to mitigate the opportunities or threats identified by the red team

Application of Technique:

The following exercise was presented to a group of students

Scenario: There is a presentation titled “The Joys of Big Brother” being given in CAE 204, Mercyhurst in several days. We have reason to believe there is a group or several groups related to the campus (aka college kids) that wants to subvert/disrupt/stop this presentation. We have security measures in place (which amount to locking the door), but we need to know what these groups could/would do.

Enemy Team: College kids mostly. Rumors consist of computer sciences majors as well as recreational sports (dirty hippies) types predominantly. We have no real information beyond the known of them being college kids, so they could bring a wealth of skills.

Target: Presentation in CAE 204. We have locked the doors, but we are certain that there are other avenues of approach to that presentation (windows, power, network, etc).

Red Team: Will have 10 min to “think like the enemy” to assess different ways to attack this presentation. Will be free to use computers, ask experts, and generally seek information in any way they want in order to ascertain a top 5 of ways this opposing force could attack.

The Red Team came up with several novel ideas that the decision makers could act upon.

For Further Information:

Red Team: How to Succeed By Thinking Like the Enemy - Micah Zenko:

https://www.amazon.com/Red-Team-Succeed-Thinking-Enemy/dp/0465048943

Micah Zenko on Red Teaming

http://www.cfr.org/defense-and-security/red-team-succeed-thinking-like-enemy/p37204

Defense Science Board Task Force on “The Role and Status of DoD Red Teaming Activities”

https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/redteam.pdf

Red Teaming and Alternative Analysis:

http://redteamjournal.com/about/red-teaming-and-alternative-analysis/

National Training Center:

http://www.irwin.army.mil/

Penetration Testing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_test

Cyber Red Team Operations:

https://www.fireeye.com/services/red-team-operations.html

Red Team Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team

The “Red Team”

Summary

In this article authors Malone and Schaupp break down the intended application of ‘red teams’ and explain their use for military planning. The authors give step by step guidance on the planning and execution of creating a red team scenario and notes the potential issues that can be generating from the method.

Malone and Schaupp begin by explaining the missteps in the planning phases of Operation Allied Force in the late 1990’s. The authors make the argument that because no one planning the strategic military operation challenged the effectiveness in using airstrikes to achieve he overall goals of the mission, the strikes took far longer than originally intended. The authors argued that strategists could have foreseen this with some simple red teaming exercises.

The authors then provide a background on red teaming and its typical uses in military applications. The authors talk about how to construct a red team effectively and use it for planning.  According to the article, red teams need to contain their own experts and must be well versed in its practical application. Using the actions of General Gregory S. Martin, the authors depict an example for how red teams should be formed.  In General Martin’s red team operations, he pulled on the experience and strategic expertise of outside personnel from areas unrelated the area of operations of the blue team.

The authors also note the importance of participation in the practice by the blue team, or the team whose plan is being tested.  They warn that this is a fast way to limit the effectiveness of the exercise because of the inherent tensions that exist when testing a plan. The authors explain that the red team needs to work closely with the planning and construction of teams with the blue team in order to develop a trusting relationship that will function effectively.

The authors break down the necessary parts of creating a red team into a check list for planners to follow. They then set rules of engagement to ensure that the exercise is helpful and not outside of the scope of operations. Then the actions of the red team in the planning process is broken down into a generalized timeline consisting of 5 phases. The authors also state that the red team should be present as observers for mission rehearsals along with the blue team leadership following the exercise. The authors conclude that red teaming is a valuable practice that can provide much needed insight into strategic contingency planning.

Critique

While the authors went to great lengths to explain the process of red teaming, they offer little evidence to support its effectiveness.  The authors only explain where its practice would have been useful and where it has been helpful through loosely explain anecdotes.  Far more could have been done to test the method and explain why the authors were giving some of the planning advice they were giving.

Malone, T. G., & Schaupp, R. E. (2002). The “Red Team.” Aerospace Power Journal,

16(2), 22.

Logistics and the (Lost?) Art of Red Teaming

Summary:

This article describes the various barriers that aid in the knowledge of effective red teaming within the joint logistics community. Authors Christopher Paparone and George Topic address issues that arise for this tool within senior management and leadership positions. Paparone and Topic define red teaming as “the process of critically examining and challenging the basic assumptions underpinning professional knowledge, planning, programming, ideas, or initiatives.”

Used within the fields of business and national security, red teaming provides organizations with the ability to use unconventional methods in order to tackle simple or complex problems. Within this article, Paparone and Topic ask “How often and how well does the U.S. defense logistics enterprise red teaming and its major efforts?” Running contrary to the concepts and designs of red teaming, the authors state that many institutions within the logistics community tend to rely on unchallenged thought processes and ideas. 

Paparone and Topic stated that group think is one major issue that red teaming attempts to mitigate as much as possible due to its negative influence on group members as a whole. Controlling and bypassing group think has at least three barriers that the authors discuss throughout this article.

The first barrier that Paparone and Topic address is hierarchy. While hierarchy does provide uniform and efficient organization within the military for instance, it also can require unquestioned compliance. This compliance can prevent a specific environment from developing and encountering innovative ideas.

The second barrier presents the idea that the team should be valued more than the ultimate decision made in any given situation. According to Paparone and Topic, respecting team members and their ideas signifies a willingness to be open to new ideas and criticism.

The third and final barrier offered in this article displays a theme of self-censoring which in this case, there is no desire to offer an alternative solution for fear that it will fail. With this in mind, the individual not only fears failure, but also the blame that comes with that from other teammates.

One solution that the authors present in the academic realm to counter hierarchy, group think, and fear of blame is the process of double-blind peer reviews. This process helps to protect criticism from being concealed under any of these three previously discussed barriers. The authors conclude this article by stating that one of the most important lessons to teach future leaders is the “importance of candid and critical assessments.”

Source:

Paparone, Christopher R., Topic Jr., George L. (2015). Logistics and the (lost?) art of red teaming. Army Sustainment, 47(2), 7-8.