Agile C-IED Enterprises


By Paul Amoroso, an explosive hazards specialist at Assessed Mitigation Options (AMO) consultancy

INTRODUCTION

A paper published in The Counter-IED Report1 discussing the management of a C-IED enterprise, outlines the need for C-IED activities to be synchronized and unity of effort to be achieved across its constituent C-IED efforts. This paper stated ‘The temptation to pursue neat and clean synchronisation across C-IED efforts should be avoided, especially that which is rigid and inflexible. There is often a need to simultaneously invest in various C-IED efforts, each with different priorities. Over time, these initial prioritization requirements will change, necessitating adaptation and further synchronization. Thus flexibility is required as the rate at which various C-IED efforts mature to being impactful can vary, the threat can evolve, and the wider security environment can change.’ This points toward the need for a C-IED enterprise to be agile in nature. The need for C-IED efforts invested in to be managed in a flexible or agile manner is a key and consistent message when developing and sustaining a C-IED enterprise. This necessitates on-going monitoring and evaluation based on appropriate metrics of what impact the C-IED efforts are intended to have. Subsequently there needs to be the timely modification of efforts, supported by the provision of appropriate responsive resource allocations along with the political backing to modify the enterprise as lessons are identified and ensure the C-IED efforts invested in remain threat aligned, effective and efficient. The same paper2 published in The Counter-IED Report outlined that a coordinating committee can work to ensure that all C-IED efforts are harmonized in support of unity of effort as well as the effective and efficient utility of the resources invested. A C-IED coordinating committee can achieve this by:

  1. Facilitating communication and information sharing within the enterprise.
  2. Supporting oversight through monitoring, evaluating, and learning by tracking the C-IED efforts invested in.
  3. Providing strategic direction and adapting the C-IED enterprise as required.

This paper will outline the need for having a monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) process embedded within a C-IED enterprise along with the need for timely and efficient modification of existing or investment in new C-IED efforts to ensure the enterprise remains threat aligned, effective and efficient. A C-IED enterprise that embeds and operates a functional MEL process, allowing timely adjustments to its invested efforts, can be said to be agile. As such, it can then be best placed to remain threat aligned, effective and efficient in responding to and ultimately preventing IED incidents.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING WITHIN A C-IED ENTERPRISE

Managing a Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) enterprise presents a unique challenge compared to other endeavors. The IED system being countered directly and significantly influences the C-IED enterprise by determining the IED threat. Over time, this threat will inevitably evolve as the IED system seeks to circumvent the countermeasures introduced against it. This reality adds a level of complexity to C-IED enterprise management due to the fact that the problem being addressed is typically in a constant state of evolution. The challenge lies in engaging with and countering an IED system that is constantly moving and dynamic, persistently working to evade all C-IED efforts invested in against it. This evolution of an IED threat requires appropriate adaptation of the C-IED enterprise so it remains threat aligned, effective in responding to and ultimately preventing IED incidents and efficient in optimizing the resources invested in the enterprise. This requires a continual and embedded MEL process within the C-IED enterprise. Embedding a MEL process within a C-IED enterprise ensures a comprehensive understanding of the threat being countered and enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of C-IED efforts, enabling the enterprise to adapt accordingly.

From a defense and security perspective, the neces- sity and advantages of an embedded MEL process are typically widely accepted and embraced as part of the lessons learned process. Such communities of practice are used to addressing dynamic problems posed by adversaries who continually work to circumvent or out- maneuver any countermeasures introduced against them. However, there can be a disconnect between accepting the benefits of having an embedded MEL process and embracing a learning culture. The author John A. Nagl argues3 that organizational culture is key to the ability to learn from unanticipated conditions. Those organizations that have a learning culture are best suited to adapt to the challenges faced when countering an evolving and dyna- mic threat, as is the requirement of any C-IED enterprise.

However, many of the stakeholders involved in a C-IED enterprise will typically not come from such a background and hence have a different mindset and culture. As such, the need to be responsive and accept the need for continual modification, adjustment and course correction by a C-IED enterprise needs to be communicated to all its members, advocated by leadership and embraced by its stakeholders. Another way to think about this required mindset is the need for a C-IED enterprise to remain flexible or agile, which speaks to many management systems. The realities of a C-IED enterprise to be agile in practice requires the ability to undertake the following three steps:

  1. Monitoring and evaluation to identify lessons related to the C-IED efforts invested in;
  2. Provide strategic direction to modify existing or invest in new C-IED efforts;
  3. Adapt the C-IED enterprise by modifying existing or investing in new C-IED efforts.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring and evaluation within a C-IED enterprise involves observation and documentation of the C-IED efforts invested in, followed by the subsequent evaluation of their impact on the IED threat. This process of observation and analysis is intended to identify lessons for each of the C-IED efforts invested in. While many metrics and methods can be applied to facilitate such identification processes, one simple approach involves a decision if a current C-IED effort is:

A. Impactful and fit for purpose and requires no adjustment with continued and potentially even increased investment;
B. Less than optimal with the potential for improved impact through modification;
C. Not impactful, misaligned to being beneficial to the overall C-IED enterprise and considered a poor use of limited and valuable resources that could be better employed, or even counter-productive to the overall strategic goal.

Such a simple approach to identifying lessons when analyzing the efforts invested in within a C-IED enterprise, can be considered as three main points on a lessons-identified spectrum.

PROVIDING STRATEGIC DIRECTION

The provision of strategic direction as part of a MEL process in the management of a C-IED enterprise refers to deciding to modify4 existing or invest in new C-IED efforts, so that the enterprise remains aligned with the overarching strategic goal of effectively and efficiently responding to and ultimately preventing IED incidents. The concept of a lessons-identified spectrum involving a red-amber-green (RAG) assessment can empower such decision making in support of providing strategic direction.

Figure 1: C-IED efforts lessons learned spectrum to empower such decision making in support of providing strategic direction.

When determining the need to modify existing or invest in new C-IED efforts, steps to be considered, include:

  • Determine the shortcomings of the current C-IED effort;
  • Determine the improvements required;
  • Identify potential modified or new C-IED efforts that can be invested in;
  • Confirm each modified or new C-IED effort remains within the ways of the strategic approach and aligned to support the overarching strategic goal;
  • Consider the impact each modified or new C-IED effort will have on the overall enterprise and how it can influence other C-IED efforts;
  • Decide on the modified or new C-IED efforts to be invested in.
ADAPTING THE C-IED ENTERPRISE

Unless a C-IED effort is assessed as impactful and fit for purpose requiring no adjustment with continued and potentially even increased investment, all other lessons identified will require either modifying existing or investing in new C-IED efforts. Once it has been decided to modify existing or invest in new C-IED efforts, an efficient process, involving key stakeholder engagement, resource mobilization and communication, is needed to ensure the resulting constituent C-IED efforts within the enterprise remain threat aligned, effective and efficient. This can involve inter alia, the following steps for each modified or newly invested in C-IED effort:

  • Undertake stakeholder mapping to determine which stakeholders5 have roles, need to be engaged with and in what manner;
  • Determine the subordinate objective of each, which needs to contribute to the overarching strategic goal of responding to and ultimately preventing IED incidents;
  • Determine the resources required;
  • Develop a plan to operationalize it, in close collaboration with the stakeholder(s) who will
  • implementit;
  • Seek approval from the lead entity6 within the C-IED enterprise;
  • Resource mobilization;7
  • Engage stakeholders with responsibility for their implementation, management
  • and sustainment;
  • Disseminate and share details with all other stakeholders within the C-IED enterprise.
TIMELY AND EFFICIENT MODIFICATION OF C-IED EFFORTS

The three steps outlined for agility within a C-IED enterprise, need to be timely and efficient in practice. This presents a considerable challenge as the process outlined involves numerous actions, requiring different levels of engagement across multiple stakeholders, modification of existing or investment in new C-IED efforts along with securing required resources. This can often be undertaken within an environment of existential critical security and defence issues which demand the introduction of immediate countermeasures against them. Time, in most circumstances, will be a critically limited resource. This considerable challenge to be able to adapt a C-IED enterprise in a timely and efficient manner is competing with the fact that the IED system being countered is often more agile than the C-IED enterprise working against it. Typically, an IED system can often circumvent the countermeasures implemented against them in a far quicker response time and often requiring far less resource investment than the countermeasures introduced against them. The time gap between achieving impactful C-IED efforts to respond to and prevent IED incidents and the adaptations made by IED systems to evade them, compared to the subsequent implementation of modified or new C-IED efforts, can often be significant. This can leave those involved in a C-IED enterprise with a sense of always being on the back foot or a fighting an uphill battle. A C-IED enterprise engaged in an action-reaction- counteraction cycle, where its responses are seen as slow, unresponsive, or ineffective, can be politically perceived as defeated.

Figure 2: Conceptual process of the action-reaction-counteraction cycle between a C-IED enterprise and an IED system

The intent should be to close the gap between an IED system evolving to circumvent a C-IED effort introduced against them and the subsequent modified C-IED efforts to adapt the enterprise to effectively respond to the change in the IED threat. The shorter the time lag between IED system evolution and C-IED enterprise adaptation the greater the pressure placed on an IED system and the more effective the C-IED enterprise becomes. The key to a C-IED enterprise achieving this required short time lag agility is to empower and invest in those C-IED efforts which are most impactful in responding to and ultimately preventing IED use. One could say those efforts which are showing greatest return on investment during the monitoring phase should be prioritized at least initially.

CONCLUSION

The need for an embedded MEL process within a C-IED enterprise along with timely and efficient modification of C-IED efforts are needed to ensure the enterprise remains threat aligned, effective and efficient. When achieved, a C-IED enterprise can be described as agile. Once an agile enterprise has synchronized C-IED activities and unity of effort across its constituent C-IED efforts, it is best placed to remain threat aligned, effective and efficient in responding to and ultimately preventing IED incidents. ■

 

FOOTNOTES
  1. Managing a C-IED Enterprise, The Counter-IED Report, Winter 2024 / 2025 edition.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, by John A, Nagl, Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya to Vietnam, ISBN: 9780226567709, Published September 2005
  4. From a lessons learned perspective, these are often referred to as remedial actions.
  5. The RACI headings can be used to identify which stakeholders will be responsible and accountable for amended or alternative C-IED effort(s) and those who need to be consulted and informed about them.
  6. For more information on a designated lead entity within a C-IED enterprise see, Necessity of a Designated Lead Entity within National C-IED Enterprises, The Counter-IED Report, Spring / Summer 2024 edition.
  7. Mobilizing resources for modification of existing or investment in new C-IED efforts may require reallocating resources from existing efforts within the enterprise. This reallocation will impact the resources of the existing C-IED efforts, necessitating an assessment of the consequences for these efforts and the overall C-IED enterprise.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Paul Amoroso is an explosive hazards specialist and has extensive experience as an IED Threat Mitigation Policy Advisor working in East and West Africa. He served in the Irish Army as an IED Disposal and CBRNe officer, up to MNT level, and has extensive tactical, operational, and strategic experience in Peacekeeping Operations in Africa and the Middle East. He has experience in the development of doctrine and policy and was one of the key contributors to the United Nations Improvised Explosive Device Disposal Standards and the United Nations Explosive Ordnance Disposal Military Unit Manual. He works at present in the MENA region on SALW control as well as in wider Africa advising on national and regional C- IED strategies. He has a MSc in Explosive Ordnance Engineering and an MA in Strategic Studies. He runs a consultancy, Assessed Mitigation Options (AMO), which provides advice, support, and training delivery in EOD, C-IED, WAM as well as Personal Security Awareness Training (PSAT) and Hostile Environment Awareness Training (HEAT). This article reflects his own views and not necessarily those of any organisation he has worked for or with in developing these ideas.
LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-amoroso-msc-ma-miexpe-60a63a42/


Download PDF: 23-27 Paul Amoroso – Agile C-IED Enterprises – COUNTER-IED REPORT, Winter 2024-25


Counter-IED Report Winter 2024/25