Blog


← Back


Task Management For The Military

December 12, 2024

I think a lot about task management. Software engineers have made tremendous progress here, adopting pull-based Kanban systems. A Kanban workflow uses a board divided into columns representing stages of a process (e.g., "To Do," "In Progress," "Done"). Cards represent individual tasks, moving across the columns as work progresses. The workflow limits the number of tasks (cards) allowed in each column to reduce bottlenecks and maintain focus. Teams pull tasks forward when capacity is available. The implementations of these systems aren't perfect, but they remain far ahead of anything non-engineers might use. But what about task management for service members? Managing tasks is challenging enough for desk-bound knowledge workers, who have constant access to email and slack. For forward deployed service members, the problem grows more complicated. Not everyone has a laptop, and even if they did, most military work centers don't allow laptops or cell phones. Knowledge workers today grapple more acutely with these issues because of exponential increases in communication. The physical world hasn’t changed much - except that open offices sometimes fail us - but we now experience an almost unlimited capacity to disseminate and ingest information. The result is a hyperactive hivemind: a workflow dominated by unstructured, unscheduled interruptions via email, text, and instant message. Meanwhile, sailors on a Navy ship rarely face these issues at the same scale; life there remains closer to its early 20th-century rhythms. It's disheartening to realize that while the hyperactive hivemind is new to modern knowledge workers, some version of this problem has always plagued the military. Is it possible for service members to enjoy a healthy, evenly-paced work environment that doesn't leave them feeling overloaded? Let’s focus on sailors. To address this topic, three key questions come to mind:

  1. How do sailors in the Navy manage their time?
  2. What are the best tools available to knowledge workers?
  3. What would a new system look like?
How do sailors in the Navy manage their time? When I think back to being on a Navy destroyer, I remember it as organized chaos. Here's what my planning system looked like:
  • As soon as I got on the ship (or woke up), I'd grab a copy of the Plan of the Day (POD). I'd then create my own version in a notebook using the command's POD, any outstanding notes from the previous day, recurring tasks my division needed to accomplish, ongoing deadlines, and any late-breaking items I'd gleaned from emails over the past eight hours. This hour of planning was critical.
  • Most events on the POD were also published to the command's Outlook calendar, so some officers printed out the day's calendar, merging their own schedule with the command's plan on a single page.
  • At 0700, there were department head meetings with the XO. Sometimes I attended. The XO would give guidance for the day.
  • At 0715, we held khaki quarters. The CDO, XO, and department heads addressed division officers and the chiefs' mess.
  • At 0730, we held division quarters. My chief and I would brief our division on the day's plan.
  • Throughout the day, though, the POD might change at a moment's notice. An announcement would come over the 1MC, equipment would fail, or higher authority would edit our operational schedule. By lunchtime, my carefully drafted personal POD would effectively be useless.
My sailors had even less structure. The only guidance they received came at division quarters or through brief check-ins. If I didn't stop by their workspace, they simply kept doing what they had been told. This arrangement was both a blessing and a curse because although I always knew exactly what they were doing, but they had no reliable way to reach me unless I visited them. In port, we sometimes sidestepped this by texting each other, but that, too, was limited because many areas on the ship prohibited phones. The only people who seemed less stressed were the department heads. They had staterooms that functioned like offices, where they could carve out quiet moments to think, stay in front of their laptops, and keep their thoughts organized. They could even act on their ideas in real time. One system deserves genuine respect: SKED. This software underpins the Navy's 3M system (Maintenance and Material Management), which ensures equipment is maintained. Each piece of equipment is tracked by an NSN (National Stock Number) and an APL (Allowance Parts List), connecting specific components with the appropriate tasks. Maintenance is organized through MIPs (Maintenance Index Pages), summarizing what must be done, and MRCs (Maintenance Requirement Cards), which provide step-by-step instructions. SKED isn’t perfect but it works because it is a single source of truth, managed by a dedicated 3M Coordinator (3MC). The 3MC's exclusive responsibility is to ensure the 3M program's consistent, effective implementation. Because SKED offers a shared, authoritative platform that everyone trusts, it reinforces accountability and allows leaders and sailors alike to confirm that necessary tasks are completed accurately and on time. What are the best tools available to knowledge workers? What makes the hyperactive hivemind so alluring is its simplicity. If I think of something that needs doing, no matter how ambiguous or daunting, I can send an email to someone or a group, saying, "I just remembered that analysis the boss needs by the end of the week - who's got it?" In an instant, the task leaves my plate. But what happens when everyone plays this game of “task hot potato”? Tools matter less than the underlying philosophy. Consider that certain sectors of the knowledge economy, like software engineering, have learned how to embrace structured, transparent approaches to managing work. Many software organizations rely on shared task boards, status updates, regular check-ins, and a pull-based system. The critical step here is translation: someone - a program manager or a senior engineer - invests time to transform ambiguous requirements into manageable, atomic tasks. Outside of software engineering, most fields never implement similarly evolved, structured systems. This is likely because it's inherently difficult to define requirements for many types of knowledge work. Instead, these industries rely on ad hoc workflows, shifting priorities, and unclear ownership, all of which produce inefficiency and burnout. Without adopting more transparent and structured processes, they will continue to struggle. What would a new system look like? Designing a structured task management system for the Navy poses unique challenges: limited access to technology, frequent shifts in plans, and OPSEC constraints. Tasks often remain ambiguous until leaders formally define them, and without a single source of truth, sailors struggle to track their workloads. Before integrating any new technology, two prerequisites must be met:
  1. Tasks must be fully understood and broken down into actionable steps, much like the way a software engineering manager transforms vague requirements into clear, atomic tasks.
  2. All agreed-upon tasks must appear in one centralized, authoritative system. If it's not on this system, sailors cannot be held responsible for it.
We might maintain a digital board in a few common areas and update it only at scheduled intervals (e.g., 0900, 1300, 1700). This prevents the constant interruptions that sap productivity. The Work Center Supervisor (WCS) role already exists to manage maintenance with SKED. Typically held by an E-4 or E-5, the WCS is trusted to ensure that maintenance tasks are well-organized and timely. I propose broadening this role to encompass all tasks, not just maintenance. The WCS would become the division's single point of authority for posting, updating, and reprioritizing tasks. Only the WCS could edit the boards. Leaders must submit requirements through the WCS, and if those requirements are unclear, the WCS would push back until they're made actionable. Sailors completing tasks and volunteering to take on new ones can happen at any time, and the board would reflect these changes as soon as they occur, assuming the WCS is available to update it. This ensures that work continues to flow efficiently and that sailors enjoy the flexibility to pick up tasks as bandwidth allows. However, new requirements from leadership would still only arrive at the designated times. This distinction between continuous task assignment and scheduled requirement updates helps maintain stability in the broader system. Sailors can adapt as they go, while leaders must exercise restraint and deliberate planning before adding fresh demands. This approach builds on a known, respected role. Every division's WCS would serve as a gatekeeper - exactly as they do in the 3M world - coordinating with other WCSs at the department and command levels. A Task Management Coordinator (TMC) could oversee the entire network. Leaders could no longer drop extra work at random. Instead, they'd need to think strategically and add tasks during set intervals. Meanwhile, sailors would pull from a stable, predictable backlog - only after telling their WCS. Much like a Kanban board, this pull-based model provides clarity, order, and fairness. As we adopt this model, sailors gain a clearer view of their responsibilities, and leaders can more easily track progress and adjust priorities - all without slipping into chaos. So now, at 0700, the XO and department heads finalize the day's objectives - maintenance tasks, administrative tasks, and training tasks. Under the old system, these requirements might trickle down throughout the morning via email, word of mouth, or the 1MC, leaving everyone guessing. By lunchtime, confusion reigns. Under the new system, leaders submit their tasks to each division's WCS queue before the first update window - say, 0900. The WCS reviews them, ensures they're actionable, and posts them on the centralized boards at the appointed time. Example tasks:
  • Maintenance (ET2 Smith, start NLT 0930): Inspect the Radar Antenna Assembly (MRC #X) and submit inspection log to Chief by 1500.
  • Administrative (YN3 Johnson, start NLT 1300, due EOD): Update Section 3 watchbill for the next underway; final version due to XO.
  • Training (FC1 Adams and FC2 Lee): Prepare for tomorrow’s firefighting drill. Complete the training checklist and ensure all firefighting gear is stowed.
  • Other Division Tasks (BM3 Ortiz and BM2 Nguyen, due 1600): Clean and inventory the storeroom, completing inventory sheets.
From 0900 until the next update window (say, 1300), no new tasks appear. Sailors know they won't be blindsided at 1000 by a sudden request. If a piece of equipment critically fails mid-morning, the chain of command can highlight the issue, but unless it's a direct safety or mission concern, it still waits for the next scheduled update. In rare emergencies, the TMC might authorize an immediate change, but this would be both documented and exceptional. By noon, sailors have a stable workload, leaders have had time to think before adding tasks, and everyone can trust that no last-minute shocks lie in wait. At 1300, the WCS updates the board again, adjusting priorities as needed. Over time, this process could produce a more balanced, manageable work environment, allowing each member of the crew to perform confidently and effectively. We need to acknowledge that the military's approach to managing work needs an overhaul. Whether or not we adopt this exact model matters less than embracing the underlying philosophy: tasks should be transparent, requirements must be refined before assignment, and leaders ought to respect the time and focus of those executing the work. By shifting our culture and practices in this direction, we can give our service members the clarity and predictability they deserve.