Biographical Information
APPENDIX B. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON EXPERTS
This appendix provides biographical information on the eight people who
participated as experts in the demonstration analysis. These individuals were all
associated with RAND—either as a member of the research staff, or as a visiting
military fellow or analyst—when they provided their assessments in October and
November of 1999. To protect their privacy, these experts are only identified by
number, not by name, in the following discussion of their education, and their
experience in the military and in defense analysis.
Table B.1
Education of Participants
Expert
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Degree
B.S.
M.S.
Ph.D.
B.A.
M.A.
Ph.D.
B.S.
M.S.
B.A.
M.A.
M.B.A.
Ph.D
(candidate)
B.S.
Ph.D.
B.S.
M.S. (3)
M.M.A.S.
Ph.D.
B.S.
M.S.
Ph.D.
B.A.
M.A.
Ph.D.
Area of Study
Humanities,
International Relations,
Modern History
Mathematics,
Operations Research
University/School
West Point (USMA),
California State University,
RAND Graduate School
Princeton University,
Boston University,
University of Heidelberg
University of Kansas,
Naval Postgraduate School
History,
International Relations,
Business Administration,
Policy Analysis
The Citadel,
St. Mary’s University,
Marymount University,
George Mason University
International Relations,
Policy Analysis
Aeronautical Engineering,
Aerodynamics
Systems Management,
Civil Engineering,
Operations Research,
Military Theater Operations,
American History
Chemical Engineering
(Nonlinear modeling/control)
International Relations,
Political Science
- 314 -
Southampton University
West Point (USMA),
University of Southern
California,
School of Adv. Military Studies,
Stanford University
Stanford University,
California Institute of
Technology
University of California, Irvine
Biographical Information
B.1 EDUCATION
As a group, the participants in the demonstration analysis have impressive
and extremely diverse educational credentials, which are shown in Table B.1.
They all have at least a masters degree, and three quarters of them have a Ph.D.
The institutions they attended include specialized military, science and policy
schools, as well as universities, many of which are quite prestigious. These
experts have studied a wide range of disciplines, encompassing the humanities,
social sciences, mathematics and engineering, in addition to multidisciplinary
fields like policy analysis and management. The breadth and quality of the
education received by the people in this group lend credibility to their opinions,
both in the aggregate and individually.
Table B.2
Military Experience of Participants
Expert
1
Active Years
5
Reserve Years
12
Service
Army
2
20
0
Army
3
4
5
17
20
0
4
0
0
Army
Army
N/A
6
22
0
Army
7
0
0
N/A
8
3
0
Army
Branch
Infantry
Intelligence,
Military Police,
Foreign Area
Officer program
Armor
Field Artillery
N/A
Corps of
Engineers
N/A
Airborne
Infantry
Highest Rank
Major
Major
Major
Lt. Colonel
N/A
Lt. Colonel
N/A
Sergeant
B.2 MILITARY EXPERIENCE
This group of experts includes people with quite different levels of military
experience, as indicated in Table B.2. Half of the experts have twenty or more
years of experience in the Army, and are either still serving or retired at the rank
of Major or Lieutenant Colonel. Among the remaining four participants, the
military experience levels ranges from none at all, to a three-year enlisted stint, to
- 315 -
Biographical Information
12 years as an Army Reserve officer (plus 5 years on active duty). Since all the
experts with military experience served in the Army, their opinions as a group
will tend to provide an Army-centered perspective. Each of them served in a
different branch of the Army, however, so they all had quite different types of
training and assignments, which should make their opinions more varied. While
the other two participants do not have any military experience, they have both
worked in defense analysis since completing their education. Thus, all of the
participants are familiar enough with combat—albeit from different perspectives
—to provide the inputs required for this demonstration of the HIMAX process.
Table B.3
Defense Analysis Experience of Participants
Expert
Years
1
10
Organizations
Army, RAND,
Office of the Secretary of Defense
(Program Analysis & Evaluation)
2
18
Center for Military History,
Defense intelligence Agency,
RAND
3
21
Army Armor units,
USMA Mathematics Professor
4
23
Army, RAND
5
5
Centre for Defence Analysis,
in the Defence Evaluation and
Research Agency (U.K.)
6
25
Army, RAND
7
2.5
RAND
8
17
RAND,
Office of the Secretary of Defense
- 316 -
Topics
Logistics, Infrastructure,
Ground force size/composition
Future Army forces,
Peace operations,
War games/modeling,
Special operations forces,
Theater-level operations
Tactical problem solving,
Resource allocation and training
Future Army force issues,
Concepts and technologies
Future force planning,
“Blue sky” and applied research,
Procurement support
Urban Operations,
Author of Operations, FM-100-5,
Planning for 3 rd Armor Division
In Operation Desert Storm
Air interdiction of ground forces,
Enhancing Air Force platforms,
Military use of commercial
satellites
Air operations analysis,
Air base security,
Military strategy,
Crisis management,
Arms control
Biographical Information
B.3 DEFENSE ANALYSIS EXPERIENCE
All of the experts have a considerable amount of experience in the analysis
of military problems, as indicated in Table B.3. Those with an extensive Army
background counted most of their time in the Army, since their work was largely
analytical in nature. Thus, not surprisingly, the years of experience for defense
analysis in Table B.3 are highly correlated with those for military experience in
Table B.2. The individuals in this group have worked on a very wide array of
research topics, ranging from military analysis of specific tactical and operational
situations, to analysis in support of high-level acquisition decisions, including
future force development choices.
- 317 -