軍事決策與企業決策程序之比較研究 以2006年以黎衝突中以色列戰略決策為例證

A Comparison Study on Military and Enterprise Decision Making Process Exemplified by the Israeli Strategic Decision over its 2006 Conflict with Lebanon

陸小榮(Sheau-jung Lu)

指導教授 ： 黃崇興

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/高階公共管理組/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.01439

摘要

軍事決策與企業決策程序之比較研究
以2006年以黎衝突中以色列戰略決策為例證
摘要
正確的決策較能產生理想的結果及達成預定目標。不當或錯誤的決策，小則造成金錢、名譽或效能等損失；大則可能危及生命安全、組織興衰與國家存亡。因此身負重大決策責任者，必須瞭解如何做出明智決定。
從管理學的角度而言，決策程序將影響決策品質的良窳。所以，決策者必須熟悉及靈活運用決策程序，以有效率地制訂良好決策。
筆者曾接受各階層軍事決策之訓練，亦曾學習企業決策的知識，感覺兩者程序雖大同小異，但卻各有特色。因而思考企業與軍事決策程序究竟有何異同？孰優孰劣？從更高層次看，兩者能否相通互補？故本研究係針對兩者異同，進行系統化的比較研究，期能尋求截長補短、相互增益之效果。
本研究以2006年以色列與黎巴嫩（真主黨）的衝突為例，分別利用軍事及企業決策程序模擬以色列之決策，結果產生互有異同之方案與戰略構想。軍事決策程序分析之建議決策，為「立即對真主黨施以短暫、痛苦及強烈之懲罰，以達救俘目的」；企業決策程序分析之建議，則為「先談判救俘，再對真主黨施以懲罰」。兩者差異之主要原因，在於軍事決策程序受限於總理已宣示之目標（摧毀敵人），方案發展缺乏彈性；而企業決策程序則先探討較高層次（和或戰）的決策問題，且有較自由思考空間。但兩者均建議應「鎖定目標，採有限度之軍事行動」。
經與2008年底至2009年初之迦薩衝突（鑄鉛作戰）比對驗證，其策略與前述軍事決策程序之分析結果相似度甚高。從作戰成果言，鑄鉛作戰確已達成重創Hamas之目標，並湔雪前次以黎衝突失敗之恥辱。因此足可證明，如遵循合理之程序進行決策，確實可推導出較為可行之方案。
最後，本研究從不同角度比較與探討兩個決策程序之異同，發現兩者各有強項、優點與限制，並藉理論和技巧的互補與交叉運用，對兩者決策機制分別提出具體建議，期望提供決策者更周延、更具彈性的決策程序，以強化決策的技巧和能力。主要建議為：

一、軍事決策程序：
高階決策應在任務分析前先「確認問題」、掌握「成功關鍵」與「所望戰果」、活化「創新思維」機制、塑造「建設性辯論」決策文化、改進方案比較方法及避免制度僵化限制。
二、企業決策程序：
應適切充實規則方法、及早管控風險、強化計畫作為指導、先期蒐整決策資訊、導入兵推預演功能及實施決策訓練。

關鍵字

決策 ； 決策程序 ； 軍事決策程序

並列摘要

A Comparison Study on Military and Enterprise Decision Making Process
Exemplified by the Israeli Strategic Decision over its 2006 Conflict with Lebanon
Abstract
A proper decision is better able to provide more ideal results and the ability to reach expected objectives, while an improper or wrong decision tends to lead to the loss of money, reputation, and effectiveness. In the worst case, it can potentially result in the loss of life, or threaten the survival of an organization or a nation. Therefore, when making important decisions, the decision-maker must understand how to make wise decisions.
From the viewpoint of management science, the decision-making process influences the quality of decisions. Thus, in order to effectively craft superior decisions, decision-makers need to thoroughly understand and flexibly apply the decision-making process.
This author has previously received various levels of training related to the military decision-making process (MDMP) and had the opportunity to learn the knowledge of the enterprise decision-making process (EDMP). It is the belief of this author that there are degrees of similarity between the two, although both retain their distinctive characteristics. This author has contemplated several questions; including what specifically are their differences, which is superior, and can they complement one another? This study has therefore been undertaken with the purpose of systematically examining the similarities and differences between these two decision-making processes, and attempting to find how to compensate for potential shortcomings of one with the strength of the other, and enhancing their mutual impact.
Using the 2006 Israel-Lebanon (Hezbollah) conflict as an example, this study applies the MDMP and the EDMP to simulate Israel’s decision-making. The results obtained saw both similar and dissimilar alternatives and strategic concepts. The outcome obtained by the MDMP analysis was “give Hezbollah a short, but painful and strong punishment, in order to rescue the captured soldiers.” On the other hand, the analysis by EDMP resulted in a recommendation of “rescue the captured soldiers through negotiation first, and punish Hezbollah later.” The main reason for the differing outcomes is the alternatives presented by MDMP analysis are limited by the objective (pulverize the enemy) announced by the prime minister, and hence lacks flexibility. EDMP however begins by first considering the problem from a higher level (war or peace), allowing for relatively more freedom. However, both analyses led to a suggestion to “take limited military action towards a focused objective.”
A comparison with the recent Gaza conflict (Operation Cast Lead, OCL) during the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 found that the strategy employed in that operation of OCL matches extremely closely to that arrived at through analysis by the above-mentioned MDMP. From the outcome of the conflict, it can be said that through OCL Israel achieved its goal of striking a highly damaging blow to Hamas, and wiping away the humiliation of the 2006 failure in Lebanon. It also provides solid proof that a logical decision-making process leads to a more feasible course of action.
Finally, the study compares these two processes from several different perspectives and finds that each has its own strengths, advantages, and limitations. Through the application of the compensating and corollary factors of both theory and technique, the study provides some practical suggestions for each discipline to upgrade the thoroughness and flexibility of the decision-making process, thereby enhancing both the technique and capability of decisions. The suggestions are the followings:
1. For the MDMP:
High level decision-making should add “identify problems” before “mission analysis,” understand the “center of gravity” and “desired outcome,” utilize the mechanism of “innovative thinking,” shape the culture of “constructive debate,” improve the methods of “COAs comparison,” and prevent the “limitations of rigid regulations.”
2. For the EDMP:
Properly set more concrete rules and methodologies, control the risks in the early stages, strengthen planning directions, collect information for decision-making, apply the functions of “war gaming,” “rehearsal,” and conduct “decision-making training.”

並列關鍵字

decision-making ； decision-making process ； military decision-making process

參考文獻

李佩芝、商鴻翔譯（2007）決策的技術 (Why Flip a Coin? The Art and Science of Good Decision, Lewis H. 1998) 台北市：邦城文化（商周）。

The U.S. Department of the Treasury (2007). Alternatives Analysis Policy Guide, 2nd. Washington, DC: Department of the Treasury.

參考書目

中文書目

于紹樂（2003）西典軍校精英訓練課程。台北市：海鴿文化。