Designing Law Enforcement: Adaptive Strategies for the Complex Environment

7/31/2019 Designing Law Enforcement: Adaptive Strategies for the Complex Environment

1/5

Law Enforcement Executive Forum 2012 12(2) 45

Designing Law Enforcement: Adaptive Strategies

for the Complex Environment

John A. Bertetto, Police Officer, Chicago Police Department

Crime Control Strategies

As law enforcement professionals, we oftenhold two things as fact. First, we acknowl-edge that the world in which we operate isever changing and different than the one wewere familiar with in the past. Second, whendesigning strategies to combat crime andcriminal activity, we look into the past for

strategies that have proven successful andreimplement them. That the contradictorynature of these two things is rarely recognizedand even more rarely reconciled continues tobe a source of mystery. However, by placingthese two statements side by side, it shouldbe clear that they stand in direct conflict withone another. If todays operational environ-ment is different than that of the past, howcan any previously implemented strategyhave any real hope of being successful? Crimeand criminal organizations may be similar to

those that came before them, but the playersand their relationships with each other are dif-ferent. This dramatically affects our existingframework for understanding these problems.Understanding this change in the operationalenvironment is the first step toward designingnew strategies that have the opportunity to beproven successful, but it is still not enoughfor operational success. The designing of suc-cessful law enforcement strategies must be anevolutionary process that occurs in real time inresponse to and, in the best of circumstances,

before the evolutionary and adaptive environ-mental changes occurring at the same time. Todesign such strategies, law enforcement agen-cies must change the way they think, evalu-ate, understand, and implement enforcementstrategies. They must use design thinking tocreate adaptive strategies that evolve in realtime with the operational environment.

Proof, Logic, and the Environment

Before any adaptive strategies can be imple-mented, the nature and relationship betweenproof, logic, and the environment must beclearly understood. For law enforcement, proofis typically described through statistical data:percent increase or decrease in crime or enforce-ment activity. These statistics are the yard mark

from which we measure operational success. Itis important to understand that this form ofproof comes at the conclusion of a process; itis its end state. Even proof of a purely philo-sophical nature must come at the conclusionof a logical process. The point to understand isthat one cannot prove something beforehand.

Logic involves the cognitive process thatallows for reliable inference. One thinks logi-cally when a judgment that is made is basedupon what has been known to happen in

the past, is likely to happen again, and canbe inferred to occur in the future. Reliabilityrequires that conditions be constant, or fairlyconstant, so that outcomes of like processesremain the same.

The environment that we in law enforcementoperate in is, of course, the real world. Ouroperational environment is that portion of thereal world in which we seek to implement anystrategy. The environment is an open and com-plex system. Complex systems, unlike merely

complicated systems, are dependant in natureand based upon relationships. Complicatedsystems are composed of multiple, interact-ing components that can be broken apart intotheir respective pieces and examined indepen-dently. Aircraft and wristwatches are compli-cated systems. Complex systems rely on rela-tionships, and the whole of the system turnsupon changes in those relationships. When


2/5

46 Law Enforcement Executive Forum 2012 12(2)

any relationship is affected, the whole of thesystem is affected. Complex systems all sharethe trait of emergence, which means they canchange without any outside influence. Con-sider as an example the criminal street gang.

The gang itself is a complex system, relying onrelationships to function and exist. It shows thequality of emergence as internal gang conflictsresult in the shifting of allegiances within thegang, and power struggles result in internalgang violence. It is also an open system in thatit is affected by outside influence. Conflictswith other gangs and enforcement activitiesfrom law enforcement affect it as a system.

The relationship between proof, logic, and theenvironment has critical implications for the

design of effective crime strategies. Given thatthe environment is a complex system and in aconstant state of evolution and that prior strate-gies, no matter how successful, are based uponan understanding of relationships that likely nolonger exist, it is not logical to think that a strat-egy proven successful in the past will provesuccessful today. Rather, those early strategiesserve, at best, as a starting point for designingnew strategies for todays environment.

Design Thinking and AdaptiveCampaigning

Design thinking and the concept of adaptivecampaigning are not new. Roger Martin, thedean of the Rotman School of Management atthe University of Toronto, has written exten-sively on design thinking. In his book TheDesign of Business, Martin (2009) describes theidea of design thinking as that of using whatwe know to look to what might be, rather thanwhat has been done before. Design thinking,then, is itself the practiced application of logic

to strategy.

Adaptive campaigning is a similar conceptthat has been used by the Australian militaryfor some time (Australian Army, 2006, 2009b).InAdaptive Campaigning Future Land Operat-ing Concept, the Australian Army (2009a) indi-cated the key themes of adaptive campaign-ing as

the influencing and shaping of percep-tions, allegiances, and actions of popu-lations through a persistent, pervasive,and proportionate response; the orches-tration of a whole-of-government effort

across five interdependent and mutuallyreinforcing conceptual lines of opera-tion; warfare as a continuous meetingengagement and competitive learningenvironment requiring a flexible, agile,resilient, responsive and robust LandForce; [and] a command climate thatchallenges understanding and assump-tions founded in the philosophy of Mis-sion Command. (p. 1)

The goal of adaptive campaigning is to under-

stand the complex environment and to designstrategies specific and adaptive to diverse anddiffuse threats. This is a theme that can betraced back still further to an article writtenby Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak(1999). In The Strategic Corporal: Leader-ship in the Three Block War, General Krulakdescribes future battles as being complex innature, in which operators may be confrontedby the entire spectrum of tactical challenges inthe span of a few hours and within the spaceof three contiguous city blocks (p. 4).

Design thinking and adaptive campaigninghave also recently been included in the U.S.Armys operational planning. In a very thor-ough and well-presented article, BrigadierGeneral Wass de Czege (2009) describes boththe need and the practice of design thinkingin strategic planning. Referring to the kind ofthinking needed to address complex missionsas operational art, Wass de Czege states,Fundamentally, operational art requires bal-ancing design and planning while remain-

ing open to learning and adapting quicklyto change. Design is not a new idea (p. 2).Owing to the efforts of military thinkers, suchas Wass de Czege, the latest version of the U.S.Armys (2010) Field Manual 5-0: The OperationsProcess contains a chapter devoted to designthinking as part of the creation process of mil-itary strategies.


3/5


4/5

48 Law Enforcement Executive Forum 2012 12(2)

spouses. Years of cohabitation and interactionhave created an understanding that allows onespouse to adequately predict the others reac-tion to an action or behavior. With this pre-diction, one spouse can determine the others

likely response to any given course of action.This can, in some instances, be applied to selectcriminal organizations. Once a thorough under-standing is achieved, law enforcement strate-gies can be created that not only affect targetedrelationships but also have a predictable expec-tation of the criminal organizations response.By anticipating the response, the designerscan have the next evolution in their adaptivestrategy prepared in advance. This type of logi-cal inference accomplishes two things: first,it allows the agency to get in front of the

criminal activity rather than always reactingto it, and second, it prevents the organizationfrom ever fully adapting to the changes in theenvironment.

For these criminal organizations, which oper-ate in a manner where habituation allows forprediction, the ability for the law enforcementagency to prevent adaptation will in short orderdismantle that organization. The criminal orga-nization will not be able to settle into any rou-tine behavior but will always be in a reactive

mode itself; the ground upon which it attemptsto operate will be unstable. Without this stabil-ity, control of the organization and its ability toefficiently conduct its business will be lost.

Adaptive strategies have another critical ben-efit when used against criminal organizationslike street gangs. In law enforcement opera-tions where the senior leader or leaders of thestreet gang are removed, a power vacuumwithin the gang is created. Middle-tier gangmembers often increase acts of violence as

they struggle both with each other for con-trol over the criminal organization and withrival gangs who see a weakened organization.However, by focusing on relationships, indi-viduals targeted using adaptive strategies aremost often these middle-tier operators. Theirremoval from the operational environmentvia incarceration prevents the kind of powervacuum that is created when the senior leader

or leaders of the gang are removed. Theirremoval from the organization also creates amanagement gap between senior gang lead-ers and street-level operators, resulting in fur-ther internal instability that can be exploited

to collapse the gang.

The designed instability and collapse of acriminal organization can be difficult. Manystreet gangs can often be impossible to pre-dict due to their fragmented and young lead-ership, which can lead to a form of constantinstability. For these organizations, the design-ing of adaptive strategies may be most effec-tive. The unpredictability of an institutional-ized instability aids in the dismantling of theorganization; chaos leads to inefficiency, both

in criminal activity and the ability to concealthat criminal activity. By understanding theoperational environment and the criminalorganizations within it, and then designingadaptive strategies that target relationships, aconstant pressure is created that will serve todisrupt, destabilize, and ultimately dismantlethose organizations.

Command and Leadership

Most law enforcement agencies, being hier-

archical in design, lend themselves easily tothe implementation of adaptive strategies.The question is, at what level in the organi-zation should command of the design teambe inserted? Command must be high enoughwithin the organization to allow for the holis-tic overview of all interagency assets and theauthority to use them and to coordinate allagency efforts with whatever external lawenforcement agencies, intergovernmentalsupporting agencies, and nongovernmentalagencies are required. At the same time, com-

mand must have the ability to work directlywith those agents engaged in the day-to-dayinteraction and enforcement efforts. For largeragencies, where regions inside their jurisdic-tions have operational environments andcriminal organizations distinct from those inother regions, command should be separatedinto different efforts. For smaller agencies,command may be consolidated.


5/5

Law Enforcement Executive Forum 2012 12(2) 49

Command should also welcome a differencein opinion from members of their design team.Dissent is not negative so long as it serves toeither increase the understanding of the opera-tional environment or advance the understand-

ing of the problem. If the environment is notthoroughly understood or the problem is notproperly framed, the developed strategy will

be limited in its success. Command should notsee these types of questions as a threat to theirauthority but as the necessary part of the designprocess.

Conclusion

By using design thinking as the primary processfor creating adaptive crime control strategies,

law enforcement agencies will find themselvesincreasingly effective in disrupting criminalactivity and reducing crime. Command staffmembers in charge of such strategic planningshould assemble a group of critical and creativethinkers who can take the necessary time tounderstand the complex network of relation-ships in their operational environment andwho can use this knowledge to design adap-tive strategies that target those relationships.The endeavor requires a substantial time andresource commitment, but in doing so, agen-

cies may eventually find themselves with athorough enough understanding of the vari-ous criminal organizations within their opera-tional environment that they can predict likelyresponses to enforcement actions and plan thenext wave of enforcement actions in advance.By understanding the environment as it existsin real time and continuing the cycle of under-standing, designing, influencing, and evaluat-ing, designers can guide their target through aseries of intended responses. When used againstcriminal organizations, such as street gangs,

adaptive strategies target and exploit the rela-tionships among middle-tier operators result-ing in their incarceration and removal from theoperational environment. Without these mid-dle-tier operators, the ability for the criminalorganization to effectively conduct its criminalaffairs is lost, resulting in the disruption, desta-

bilization, and dismantling of the organization

in a way that prevents a power vacuum and theviolence typically associated with it.

References

Australian Army. (2006). Adaptive campaigning.Canberra, Australia: Department of Defence.

Australian Army. (2009a). Adaptive cam-paigning Future land operating concept.Vanguard, No. 4, 1. Canberra, Australia:Department of Defence.

Australian Army. (2009b). Armys futureland operating concept. Canberra, Australia:Department of Defence.

Krulak, C. C. (1999). The strategic corporal: Lead-ership in the three block war. Fort Meade, MD:Marine Corps Production Directorate.

Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Whydesign thinking is the next competitive advantage.Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.

U.S. Army. (2010) Field Manual 5-0: The oper-ations process. Ft. Leavenworth, KS: U.S.Army.

Wass de Czege, H. (2009). Systemic operationaldesign: Learning and adapting to complexmissions.Military Review, 89(1), 2-12.

John A. Bertetto is a sworn memberof the Chicago Police Department. Heis the co-author of Leadership for thePatrol Officer, a course of instructiontaught at the Chicago Police Academy,and Toward a Police Ethos: DefiningOur Values as a Call to Action. Officer

Bertetto holds a Master of Science degreefrom Western Illinois University and aMaster of Business Administration fromSt. Xavier University.

Designing Law Enforcement: Adaptive Strategies for the Complex Environment

Documents

Transcript of Designing Law Enforcement: Adaptive Strategies for the Complex Environment