In 2003 the Defense Science Board prepared a report for then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on red teaming. The report is broken down under seven sections:
2 -What Are Red Teams And Red Teaming?
3 -What makes an Effective Red Team?
4 -Observations About Current Red Team Activities
5 -Red Teams At The Strategic Level
7 - Recommendations
The report indicates that the Defense Science Boards takes on a rather broad role in their definition of red teaming. In their definition, they not only describe playing the adversary role as important but include devil’s advocate and other similar roles. They justify this definition due to the shared goal of challenging the norms of an organization. The board states that red teaming can be used by the Department of Defense at the strategic, operational and tactical level for a variety of areas. Red teaming can and is currently used by the DoD in training, concept development, security of complex networks, and for scenarios that provide little flexibility such as nuclear weapon stockpile issues (DSB, 2003). Red teaming can also be used to hedge against bias, conflict of interest and against inexperience which is common in the DoD and OGA due to short leadership tenure (DSB, 2003).
In detailing what makes an effective red team, the defense science board indicates common causes of failure as well as attributes that create effective red teams. The top failure listed was when a red team does not take their assignment seriously. The authors of the report include an additional note about this failure from task force members, the TF members explain that they have often never been provided a clear statement of purpose when assigned to a red team (DSB, 2003). Other failures listed include:
- - Lack of independence due to bureaucracy,
- -Removal from the decision-making process
- -Inadequate interaction with the blue team
- - Destruction of the integrity of the findings due to information leaks
After addressing those failures, the Defense Science Board details the attributes of effective red teams and identifies the following:
- - A culture that supports internal criticism
- -Independence with accountability
- -Serious consideration of the red team’s output
- - Robust interaction between red and blue team
- -Careful selection of staff
- - Skillful timing and implementation (using them too late, or too soon)
The report ultimately concludes that red teaming is effective and underutilized by the DoD and it should be expanded. The Defense Science Board indicates that for the U.S. to better understand their current adversaries in the war on terrorism and to prevent complacency, red teaming must play a role.
Defense Science Board Task Force. (2003). The Role and Status of DoD Red Teaming Activities. Department of Defense. Retrieved from https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/redteam.pdf