Playing the Bad Guy: How Organizations Design, Develop, and Measure Red Teams

The study is a descriptive analysis using a case-study methodology that identifies the critical elements (methods, tools, processes, personnel, and practices) of adversary analysis identified as a red team and red-teaming. A red team is the adversary element of the analytic method of red-teaming. Th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Fleming, James Michael
Other Authors: Public Administration and Public Affairs
Format: Others
Language:en_US
Published: Virginia Tech 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77095
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05242010-170020/
id ndltd-VTETD-oai-vtechworks.lib.vt.edu-10919-77095
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-VTETD-oai-vtechworks.lib.vt.edu-10919-770952020-09-29T05:34:30Z Playing the Bad Guy: How Organizations Design, Develop, and Measure Red Teams Fleming, James Michael Public Administration and Public Affairs Khademian, Anne M. Dull, Matthew Martin Woodard, Colleen A. Hickok, Thomas Wolf, James F. Murch, Randall S. intelligence red teams red teaming terrorism war fighting war game simulation defense alternative adversary analysis The study is a descriptive analysis using a case-study methodology that identifies the critical elements (methods, tools, processes, personnel, and practices) of adversary analysis identified as a red team and red-teaming. A red team is the adversary element of the analytic method of red-teaming. The study incorporates interview data with organization leadership, subject matter experts, and red-team developers from Department of Defense (DoD), Intelligence Community (IC), and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) organizations. The study also includes red-team governance documents, red-team briefings, and discussions to first identify the concepts, analyze the critical design elements of the concept(s), and develop a fundamental taxonomy or classification of red-team approaches based on these artifacts. The study compares and contrasts four red teams that utilize groups of adversary subject-matter experts for common themes, differences, and best practices. The data collection builds on grounded theory—i.e., identification of the methods, tools, processes, and personnel as the organizations understand and develop their red teams as part of their red-teaming analyses to address gaps in understanding possible adversaries. The four organizations studied are the U.S. Army, Training and Doctrine Command, University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies; a Department of Defense unified combatant command; the U.S. Naval War College (NWC) and its red-team detachment; and a Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Homeland Security and Defense, National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC). Two basic types of red teams are identified from the data with a hybrid between the two among the variations of the red-teaming concept. Some of the other findings from the four red teams include a need to develop common terms and standards; a need to explain the benefits of alternative analysis to decisionmakers; a need to develop trend analyses on types of red teams requested by sponsors; a need to design methods to capture non-state actors; a need to include more coalition and foreign partners; and a need to immerse red teams more fully into the culture to be understood. Ph. D. 2017-04-06T15:42:40Z 2017-04-06T15:42:40Z 2010-04-26 2010-05-24 2016-09-30 2010-08-17 Dissertation Text etd-05242010-170020 http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77095 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05242010-170020/ en_US In Copyright http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ application/pdf Virginia Tech
collection NDLTD
language en_US
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic intelligence
red teams
red teaming
terrorism
war fighting
war game
simulation
defense
alternative adversary analysis
spellingShingle intelligence
red teams
red teaming
terrorism
war fighting
war game
simulation
defense
alternative adversary analysis
Fleming, James Michael
Playing the Bad Guy: How Organizations Design, Develop, and Measure Red Teams
description The study is a descriptive analysis using a case-study methodology that identifies the critical elements (methods, tools, processes, personnel, and practices) of adversary analysis identified as a red team and red-teaming. A red team is the adversary element of the analytic method of red-teaming. The study incorporates interview data with organization leadership, subject matter experts, and red-team developers from Department of Defense (DoD), Intelligence Community (IC), and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) organizations. The study also includes red-team governance documents, red-team briefings, and discussions to first identify the concepts, analyze the critical design elements of the concept(s), and develop a fundamental taxonomy or classification of red-team approaches based on these artifacts. The study compares and contrasts four red teams that utilize groups of adversary subject-matter experts for common themes, differences, and best practices. The data collection builds on grounded theory—i.e., identification of the methods, tools, processes, and personnel as the organizations understand and develop their red teams as part of their red-teaming analyses to address gaps in understanding possible adversaries. The four organizations studied are the U.S. Army, Training and Doctrine Command, University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies; a Department of Defense unified combatant command; the U.S. Naval War College (NWC) and its red-team detachment; and a Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Homeland Security and Defense, National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC). Two basic types of red teams are identified from the data with a hybrid between the two among the variations of the red-teaming concept. Some of the other findings from the four red teams include a need to develop common terms and standards; a need to explain the benefits of alternative analysis to decisionmakers; a need to develop trend analyses on types of red teams requested by sponsors; a need to design methods to capture non-state actors; a need to include more coalition and foreign partners; and a need to immerse red teams more fully into the culture to be understood. === Ph. D.
author2 Public Administration and Public Affairs
author_facet Public Administration and Public Affairs
Fleming, James Michael
author Fleming, James Michael
author_sort Fleming, James Michael
title Playing the Bad Guy: How Organizations Design, Develop, and Measure Red Teams
title_short Playing the Bad Guy: How Organizations Design, Develop, and Measure Red Teams
title_full Playing the Bad Guy: How Organizations Design, Develop, and Measure Red Teams
title_fullStr Playing the Bad Guy: How Organizations Design, Develop, and Measure Red Teams
title_full_unstemmed Playing the Bad Guy: How Organizations Design, Develop, and Measure Red Teams
title_sort playing the bad guy: how organizations design, develop, and measure red teams
publisher Virginia Tech
publishDate 2017
url http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77095
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05242010-170020/
work_keys_str_mv AT flemingjamesmichael playingthebadguyhoworganizationsdesigndevelopandmeasureredteams
_version_ 1719343904181977088