What is the Optimal Battlefield Network Size?

This post is also available in: עברית (Hebrew)

The size of a team may be the determining factor in the potential success of a complex mission that depends on collective problem solving. New rules of engagement on the battlefield will require a deep understanding of networks and how they operate.

A new US Army research confirms a theory that networks of no more than 150 are optimal for efficient information exchange.

Researchers at the Army Research Office (ARO) and the University of North Texas tested a theory proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar in the 1990s, which suggested that 150 was the largest group that humans can maintain stable social relations. In the vicinity of this size the social group becomes unstable and splinters into smaller groups.

“To increase the utility of the Army’s evolving network structures in terms of robustness, resilience, adaptability and efficiency, requires a deeper understanding of how networks actually function, both ours and those of our adversary’” said Dr. Bruce West, senior scientist, Army Research Office, according to phys.org.

In their study, they prove Dunbar’s conjecture, demonstrating that certain sized network has better information transport properties than others, and that networks of no more than 150 are optimal for internally sharing information.

The researchers propose that the number 150 arises as a consequence of internal dynamics of a complex network self-organizing within a social system.

Based on that theory, the researchers also indicated that a peaceful demonstration can be turned into a mob by just a few agitators, with the size of 150 being the most vulnerable to such disruption.

Understanding how information flows within, is analyzed by, and is accepted or rejected from groups of various sizes is crucial in the training of teams. 

The research findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.