Center of Gravity Analysis Guide: Difference between revisions

Line 108:

'''Criteria for Assessment:'''

* '''Impact on COG (I)''': How significantly would exploiting the vulnerability affect the COG?

''' Definition''': Evaluate how a vulnerability affects the COG’s essential functionality or stability. This includes considering both the immediate impact and the potential for escalated disruptions or impairments over time.

** '''Definition''': Evaluate how a vulnerability affects the COG’s essential functionality or stability. This includes considering both the immediate impact and the potential for escalated disruptions or impairments over time.

''' Application''': Analysis should include a detailed examination of how the vulnerability might compromise the COG, considering scenarios of varying severity and their probable impacts on the COG's operations and objectives.

** '''Application''': Analysis should include a detailed examination of how the vulnerability might compromise the COG, considering scenarios of varying severity and their probable impacts on the COG's operations and objectives.

* '''Attainability (A)''': How feasible is exploiting the vulnerability with available resources?

''' Definition''': Assesses the feasibility of exploiting or mitigating the vulnerability, given the available resources, capabilities, and situational constraints.

** '''Definition''': Assesses the feasibility of exploiting or mitigating the vulnerability, given the available resources, capabilities, and situational constraints.

''' Application''': This involves evaluating the logistical, technological, and temporal resources required to address the vulnerability effectively. It should consider both the available resources and those that can be realistically obtained or mobilized.

** '''Application''': This involves evaluating the logistical, technological, and temporal resources required to address the vulnerability effectively. It should consider both the available resources and those that can be realistically obtained or mobilized.

* '''Potential for Follow-Up Actions (F)''':

''' Definition''': Measures how addressing the vulnerability can provide strategic advantages or enable further actions that strengthen the COG or degrade an adversary's position.

** '''Definition''': Measures how addressing the vulnerability can provide strategic advantages or enable further actions that strengthen the COG or degrade an adversary's position.

''' Application''': Focus on identifying opportunities for additional strategic actions post-mitigation or exploitation. These could include enhanced security measures, increased political leverage, or any actions further weakening the opposition.

** '''Application''': Focus on identifying opportunities for additional strategic actions post-mitigation or exploitation. These could include enhanced security measures, increased political leverage, or any actions further weakening the opposition.

==== Scoring System ====

Line 123:

Line 125:

'''Traditional Scoring'''

Traditional scoring is a linear method where each criterion is rated on a simple scale, often between 1 and 5. This system is straightforward and effective for scenarios where planners need a basic method to compare and prioritize factors.

Line 139:

Line 142:

'''Logarithmic Scoring'''

Logarithmic scoring is a more nuanced system that allows for greater differentiation between scores, especially at the higher end of the scale. This method is particularly useful when certain factors exponentially impact outcomes. For example, a small increase in a critical capability may drastically affect the overall mission, and logarithmic scoring captures that non-linear impact.

* '''Scale''': Rate each criterion using a logarithmic scale, such as (1, 3, 5, 8, 12).

* '''Definition''': "1" represents the least advantageous (or least critical), and "12" represents the most advantageous (or most critical). The intervals between scores increase exponentially to account for larger differences in importance or impact.

* '''Application''': This method is useful when a small increase in one criterion ~~can~~ disproportionately ~~affect~~ the mission or operation. For example, moving from "5" to "8" might represent a far more significant improvement or risk than moving from "1" to "3."

* '''Application''': This method is useful when a small increase in one criterion disproportionately affects the mission or operation. For example, moving from "5" to "8" might represent a far more significant improvement or risk than moving from "1" to "3."

* '''Example''': If evaluating cyber vulnerabilities, a "1" could signify minor risks that are unlikely to affect the overall mission, while a "12" would indicate severe vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could lead to mission failure.

Line 155:

Line 159:

'''Calculating a Composite Score'''

Once each criterion has been scored using the chosen system, a composite score should be calculated to prioritize vulnerabilities or opportunities. This involves summing the scores for each criterion to obtain an overall assessment of each factor's criticality or advantage. Higher composite scores typically indicate higher priority or criticality.

Line 170:

Line 175:

Example Assessment Table:*

Example Assessment Table:

{| class="wikitable sortable"

Line 202:

Line 207:

== Tools and Techniques ==

'''SWOT Analysis''': Evaluate Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats for each COG.

* '''PMESII-PT Framework''': Analyze the operational environment comprehensively.

* '''[[PMESII-PT|PMESII-PT Framework]]''': Analyze the operational environment comprehensively.

* '''Systems Thinking''': Understand the interdependencies within the operational environment.

* '''Red Teaming''': Use adversarial thinking to challenge assumptions and identify vulnerabilities.

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 '''Criteria for Assessment:'''
 * '''Impact on COG (I)''': How significantly would exploiting the vulnerability affect the COG?
-''' Definition''': Evaluate how a vulnerability affects the COG’s essential functionality or stability. This includes considering both the immediate impact and the potential for escalated disruptions or impairments over time.
+** '''Definition''': Evaluate how a vulnerability affects the COG’s essential functionality or stability. This includes considering both the immediate impact and the potential for escalated disruptions or impairments over time.
-''' Application''': Analysis should include a detailed examination of how the vulnerability might compromise the COG, considering scenarios of varying severity and their probable impacts on the COG's operations and objectives.
+** '''Application''': Analysis should include a detailed examination of how the vulnerability might compromise the COG, considering scenarios of varying severity and their probable impacts on the COG's operations and objectives.
 * '''Attainability (A)''': How feasible is exploiting the vulnerability with available resources?
-''' Definition''': Assesses the feasibility of exploiting or mitigating the vulnerability, given the available resources, capabilities, and situational constraints.
+** '''Definition''': Assesses the feasibility of exploiting or mitigating the vulnerability, given the available resources, capabilities, and situational constraints.
-''' Application''': This involves evaluating the logistical, technological, and temporal resources required to address the vulnerability effectively. It should consider both the available resources and those that can be realistically obtained or mobilized.
+** '''Application''': This involves evaluating the logistical, technological, and temporal resources required to address the vulnerability effectively. It should consider both the available resources and those that can be realistically obtained or mobilized.
 * '''Potential for Follow-Up Actions (F)''':
-''' Definition''': Measures how addressing the vulnerability can provide strategic advantages or enable further actions that strengthen the COG or degrade an adversary's position.
+** '''Definition''': Measures how addressing the vulnerability can provide strategic advantages or enable further actions that strengthen the COG or degrade an adversary's position.
-''' Application''': Focus on identifying opportunities for additional strategic actions post-mitigation or exploitation. These could include enhanced security measures, increased political leverage, or any actions further weakening the opposition.
+** '''Application''': Focus on identifying opportunities for additional strategic actions post-mitigation or exploitation. These could include enhanced security measures, increased political leverage, or any actions further weakening the opposition.
 ==== Scoring System ====
@@ Line 123: / Line 125: @@
 '''Traditional Scoring'''
 Traditional scoring is a linear method where each criterion is rated on a simple scale, often between 1 and 5. This system is straightforward and effective for scenarios where planners need a basic method to compare and prioritize factors.
@@ Line 139: / Line 142: @@
 '''Logarithmic Scoring'''
 Logarithmic scoring is a more nuanced system that allows for greater differentiation between scores, especially at the higher end of the scale. This method is particularly useful when certain factors exponentially impact outcomes. For example, a small increase in a critical capability may drastically affect the overall mission, and logarithmic scoring captures that non-linear impact.
 * '''Scale''': Rate each criterion using a logarithmic scale, such as (1, 3, 5, 8, 12).
 * '''Definition''': "1" represents the least advantageous (or least critical), and "12" represents the most advantageous (or most critical). The intervals between scores increase exponentially to account for larger differences in importance or impact.
-* '''Application''': This method is useful when a small increase in one criterion can disproportionately affect the mission or operation. For example, moving from "5" to "8" might represent a far more significant improvement or risk than moving from "1" to "3."
+* '''Application''': This method is useful when a small increase in one criterion disproportionately affects the mission or operation. For example, moving from "5" to "8" might represent a far more significant improvement or risk than moving from "1" to "3."
 * '''Example''': If evaluating cyber vulnerabilities, a "1" could signify minor risks that are unlikely to affect the overall mission, while a "12" would indicate severe vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could lead to mission failure.
@@ Line 155: / Line 159: @@
 '''Calculating a Composite Score'''
 Once each criterion has been scored using the chosen system, a composite score should be calculated to prioritize vulnerabilities or opportunities. This involves summing the scores for each criterion to obtain an overall assessment of each factor's criticality or advantage. Higher composite scores typically indicate higher priority or criticality.
@@ Line 170: / Line 175: @@
-Example Assessment Table:*
+Example Assessment Table:
 {| class="wikitable sortable"
@@ Line 202: / Line 207: @@
 == Tools and Techniques ==
 '''SWOT Analysis''': Evaluate Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats for each COG.
-* '''PMESII-PT Framework''': Analyze the operational environment comprehensively.
+* '''[[PMESII-PT|PMESII-PT Framework]]''': Analyze the operational environment comprehensively.
 * '''Systems Thinking''': Understand the interdependencies within the operational environment.
 * '''Red Teaming''': Use adversarial thinking to challenge assumptions and identify vulnerabilities.