Quantifying a State's Reputation in the Strategic Competition and Crisis Wargame for the Center for Army Analysis
Main Article Content
The Center for Army Analysis (CAA) developed the Strategic Competition and Crisis (SC2) wargame to capture how modern military competition operates in today’s world. The CAA tasked our interdisciplinary team with developing a more robust, well-rounded reputation model for quantifying a state’s reputation based on another state’s perspective using each of our respective specialties within systems engineering, defense and strategic studies, and operations research. The team leveraged tools within the Systems Decision Process (SDP) to quantify the theoretical, intangible concept of reputation. Research began with a qualitative value model based on expert stakeholder analysis and a literature review. The team then identified value measures to build a swing weight matrix that produced a reputation score for each state from another state’s perspective. The concept of swing weighting incorporates prioritized value measures while accounting for variance in the raw data that is used to aggregate a score for each country’s reputation level. That score, alongside an enhanced Game User Interface (GUI), can now be integrated into the existing SC2 wargame to provide a more complete, narrative experience that charts player decisions throughout the game and educates senior Army leaders on how to effectively leverage military activities towards achieving strategic goals.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
The copyediting stage is intended to improve the flow, clarity, grammar, wording, and formatting of the article. It represents the last chance for the author to make any substantial changes to the text because the next stage is restricted to typos and formatting corrections. The file to be copyedited is in Word or .rtf format and therefore can easily be edited as a word processing document. The set of instructions displayed here proposes two approaches to copyediting. One is based on Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature and requires that the copy editor, editor, and author have access to this program. A second system, which is software independent, has been borrowed, with permission, from the Harvard Educational Review. The journal editor is in a position to modify these instructions, so suggestions can be made to improve the process for this journal.
Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. The World Factbook – Explore All countries. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/.
Engelmann, K. & Kearney, P. (2021). Global Strategic Competition and Crisis Strategy Game. Center for Army Analysis.
Frederick, B., Watts, S., Lane, M., Doll, A., Rhoades, A. L., & Smith, M. L. (2020). Understanding the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Overseas Forces. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. (2021). Chief of Staff Paper #2: The Army in Military Competition. Washington, DC.
Keohane, R. O. (1999). International Relations and International Law: Interests, Reputation, Institutions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25659335.
Lemahieu, H. & Leng, A. (2021). Lowy Institute Asia Power Index: Key Findings 2021. Lowy Institute. https://power.lowyinstitute.org/downloads/lowy-institute-2021-asia-power-index-key-findings-report.pdf.
Lupton, D. L. (2020). Reputation for Resolve: How Leaders Signal Determination in International Politics. Cornell University Press.
Parnell, G., et al. (2011). Decision Making in Systems Engineering and Management. Wiley Series. 2011.
Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F., & Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006.
Russet, B. (1993). The Face of Democratic Peace. In Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton University Press.
Schelling, T. C. (1966). The Manipulation of Risk. In Arms and Influence (pp. 92–125). Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm52s.6.
The World Bank Group. (2020). Worldwide Governance Indicators | DataBank [Dataset]. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/worldwide-governance-indicators#.
Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power. International Security, 9(4), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538540.
Worley, D. R. (2012). Orchestrating the Instruments of Power: A Critical Examination of the U.S. National Security System, Lulu Press Inc, 275-276.
X. Li, J. Zhao, H. Li, M. Cheng and Z. Fan. (2013). Research on systems modeling and analysis method based on wargaming, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation (ICIA), 242-247, doi:10.1109/ICInfA.2013.6720303.
Yarhi-Milo, Keren. (2013). In the eye of the beholder: how leaders and intelligence communities assess the intentions of adversaries. International Security, 7-51.