1. Course of Action Development
JTF Training
Crisis Action
Planning
Course of Action Development
UNCLASSIFIED

2. Restated Mission Statement
O/O, CCDR CJTF will conduct Foreign Disaster
Humanitarian Assistance in support of the
Government of Cameroon to relieve the
suffering associated with Volcano OKU.
Re-stated mission statement is a product of the JPG.

3. Commander’s Intent
CCDR USAFRICOM CJTF will establish and deploy forces to forward operating bases to alleviate suffering in devastated areas. In coordination with the appropriate consular or AMEMBASSY personnel, US forces will provide mobility and logistics support capabilities to enhance HN efforts in response to the crisis. US forces will limit operations to essential life sustaining operations and where feasible will hand off FHA/DR function to other agencies as soon as practical. Close coordination with other USG agencies, NGO, and IGO will facilitate operations and eliminate duplication of efforts. When directed US forces redeploy to home station and reconstitute for future contingencies.
ENDSTATE. Success is defined as a minimized loss of life and human suffering of displaced persons, the scope of the crisis no longer exceeds the capacity of the host nations, and all US personnel are redeployed to home station.

4. COA Development Overview
Analyze information associated with a current situation
Components, techniques and procedures for conducting an operational-level mission analysis for a Joint Task Force (JTF)
Suggested input into planning process
Logistical shortfalls in planning process
Adequate, feasible and acceptable COAs
COA steps
Center of gravity, task priorities, and phasing sketch

5. STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES
Reference
JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint Operations
JP 4-0 Logistics
JP 5-0 Joint Operation Planning
JP JTF Planning Guidance & Procedures
CJCS A JTF HQ
Master Training Guide
MULTINATIONAL FORCE
STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES
(MNF SOP)
Version 1.6
February 2006
MNF SOP

6. Key Points Crisis Action Planning (CAP) Procedures: Three process
Key Documents
Warning & Alert Orders
Commander’s Estimate
Requires Concurrent & Collaborative Planning
Develop a Military Course of Action

7. CAP Functions
I Situational Awareness
II Planning
III Execution

8. CAP Process Features Rapid Exchange of Information
Analysis of situations affecting possible Courses of Action (COAs)
Developing valid COAs
Comparison COA
Recommended/Selecting the best COAs
Coordinating plans & order supporting execution
What CAP does for us….

9. Situational Awareness
Function II – Planning I
Situational Awareness II
Planning
III
Execution
National
Authorities
JTF Tasks:
Mission Analysis
Issue Planning Guidance
Issue Warning Order
Develop COAs
Develop Staff Estimates
Analyze COAs
Compare COAs
Recommend COA
Submit CDR’s Estimate
Warning
Order
CDR’s
Estimate
-Course of Action Development during function II of the crisis action planning process, begins when the National Command authorities issue a warning order to the supported strategic commander.
-The Strategic Commander in turn issues warning and activation orders to the Task Force Commander.
 -The CTF really begins to engage in the crisis action planning process during this function
 -The CTF Staff uses the supported Strategic Commander’s guidance included in the warning order to develop and evaluate possible courses of action that are realistic with the forces and support available.
 -The courses of action developed are used as the basis for the CCTF’s (CTF Commander’s) Estimate, which in turn is used as the basis for the Strategic Commander’s (CDRUSPACOM) Estimate ultimately submitted to the POTUS and SECDEF.
 -The Commander’s Estimate essentially reflects analysis of the various courses of action that may be used to accomplish the mission.
 -The Commander’s Estimate, as one of the key products of the crisis action planning process, deserves further discussion and will be covered over the next few slides. 
Supported
CCDR
CCDR’s
Warning
Order
CDR’s
Estimate
JFC
JTF PLANNING

10. Course of Action (COA) Development
The COA consist of the following information:
WHO will take the action
WHAT type of military action will occur
WHEN the action will begin
WHERE the action will occur
WHY the action is required (purpose)
HOW the action will occur (method of employment of forces)
Joint Pub 5-0
WHAT WILL THE COURSES OF ACTION CONTAIN?
SEE SLIDE DON’T CONFUSE WITH MISSION STATEMENT DEVELOPED DURING MISSION ANALYSIS - COA IS MORE DETAILED
END PRODUCT OF TASK IS A SET OF COAS, APPROVED BY THE CCTF, AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BY THE STAFF
COAS NEED NOT BE OVERLY DETAILED, BUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ANALYSIS (WARGAMING)

11. COA Development
To develop COAs, the staff must focus on key information to make decisions, using the data from mission analysis.
The Staff develops COAs to provide options to the commander.
Focus on Centers of Gravity and Decisive Points
All COAs selected must be valid

12. Center of Gravity (COG)
Develop Initial COAs
Center of Gravity (COG)
“The hub of all power and movement, on which everything
depends. That is the point against which all of our energies
should be directed.” Carl von Clausewitz
Military
Infrastructure
COG comes from JIPOE (Joint Intell Prep of the Operating Environment)…J2, but not solely a static process by the J-2 (JP 5-0, p. IV-9).
Economic
Social
Political
Information

13. Exists at each level of war
CENTER OF GRAVITY
Exists at each level of war
Mostly physical at operational level of war
Is a source of leverage
Allows or enhances freedom of action
May be where the enemy’s force is most densely populated
Can endanger one’s own COG
May be transitory in nature
Linked to the objective
Often intangible in limited contingency ops
Can shift over time or between phases
Often depends on factors of time and space
Contains many intangible elements at strategic level

14. Joint Operation Planning Process
Step 1:
Initiation
Step 2:
Mission Analysis
Step 3:
Course of Action Development
Step 4:
COA Analysis and Wargaming
Step 5:
COA Comparison
Step 6:
COA Approval
Step 7:
Plan or Order Development

15. Course of Action Characteristics
Initial Test for Validity
Course of Action Characteristics
Test for adequacy
Test for feasibility
Test for acceptability
Ensure COAs are distinguishable
Test for completeness
YOU WILL HEAR THESE TERMS FREQUENTLY DURING THE DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF COURSES OF ACTION
LET’S EXAMINE THE MEANING OF EACH IN A LITTLE GREATER DETAIL

16. Adequate Does it accomplish the mission?
Does it meet the Combatant Commander’s and CJTF’s intent?
Does it accomplish all the essential tasks?
Does it allow the CJTF to meet the conditions for the end state?
Does it take into consideration the enemy and friendly centers of gravity?
FIRST CHECK ON THE COA: DOES IT ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO?
DOES IT MEET THE CCTF’S INTENT? - DON’T LET HIM BE THE ONE TO TELL YOU
DOES IT ACCOMPLISH ALL THE ESSENTIAL TASKS?- REMEMBER MISSION ANALYSIS
DOES IT ALLOW THE CTF TO MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR THE END STATE? BLOWN UP DAMS OR POWER PLANTS DO NOT HELP WITH POST-HOSTITLITIES
DOES IT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENEMY AND FRIENDLY CENTERS OF GRAVITY?

17. Feasible
Can accomplish the mission within the established time, space, and resource limitations?
Will those resources be available in the JOA in time?
Forces/Capability
Transportation
Resupply
Facilities
- Can the COA be carried out within the
physical environment’s constraints?
DO WE HAVE THE FORCE STRUCTURE NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK AND CAN WE GET IT THERE?
THE COA IS FEASIBLE IF IT CAN BE CARRIED OUT WITH THE FORCES, SUPPORT AND TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE, WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, AND AGAINST EXPECTED ENEMY OPPOSITION
STORY ABOUT PLANNING FOR HA/DR
TAKING SUPPLIES OVERLAND WAS NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS, YET PLAN THEY DID
THIS IMPLIES SOME SORT OF TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS PRIOR TO THIS STEP
ALTHOUGH THIS PROCESS OCCURS AGAIN DURING COA ANALYSIS, AND THE TEST THIS TIME IS PRELIMINARY, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO DECLARE A COA INFEASIBLE
HOWEVER, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO FILL SHORTFALLS BY REQUESTING FILLS TO SHORTFALLS FROM THE CINC

18. Acceptable Must balance cost and risk with the advantage gained.
Does it contain unacceptable risks?
Does it take into account the limitations placed on the CTF?
Does it contribute to the higher commander’s strategic objectives?
Can it be accomplished within external constraints, particularly ROE?
DO WE WIN THE BATTLE BUT LOSE THE WAR?
DOES IT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LIMITATIONS PLACE ON THE CTF (POLITICAL/ROE) (CONSTRAINTS - MUST DO) (RESTRAINTS - MUST DO)
AGAIN, WE WILL CONDUCT THIS TEST DURING COA ANALYSIS
BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP A COA IF THE RISKS OR POTENTIAL LOSES ARE UNACCEPTABLE TO THE CCTF OR HIGHER AUTHORITY, UNLESS IT CAN BE MODIFIED TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF LOSS
EXAMPLE OF GENERAL SETTING OUT WHAT RISKS HE WAS WILLING TO TAKE TO GET HN TO CAMBODIA EARLY: “SUPPLIES BEFORE THE FORTRESS” AND “WE ARE SOLDIERS AND ARE PAID TO TAKE RISKS”

19. Risk Matrix Impact Likelihood HIGH Fall of No HNS Gov. C2 Early EOM
LOG C2
Distro Probls
Impact
LOW
HIGH
Likelihood

20. Distinguishable Are the COAs sufficiently different from each other
COAs can be different when considering...
Focus or direction of main effort
Scheme of maneuver (land, air, maritime, special ops)
Primary mechanism for mission accomplishment
Task Organization
Use of reserves
THE FIRST TWO BULLETS ARE GENERALLY MET, BUT THE LAST ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
ALTHOUGH NOT A NORMAL CHECK, VARIETY IN COAs IS NECESSARY. IF OUR COAs ARE ALIKE, THE CCTF, THE CoCommander, AND THE NCA HAVE NO DECISION TO MAKE
COMPLIANCE WITH COMBINED DOCTRINE HELPS ASSURE VARIETY.
WHAT MAKES COAs DIFFERENT?
1. FOCUS OR DIRECTION OF THE MAIN EFFORT
2. SCHEME OF MANEUVER (LAND, AIR, MARITIME, SPECIAL OPERATION)
3. PRIMARY MECHANISM FOR MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT
4. TASK ORGANIZATION
5. USE OF RESERVES
VARIETY MAY ALSO COME FROM AN INCREMENTAL APPLICATION OF FORCE AS DISCUSSED IN NESTED COAs EARLIER

21. COA Development What to Avoid Nested COAs COA 2 includes all of COA 1
NESTED COAs - START LIMITED AND GET PROGRESSIVELY BIGGER OR MORE INVOLVED
COA 1 - MILITARY FDO - SAIL CBG TO AOR
COA 2 - COA 1 PLUS LIMITED AIRSTRIKE
COA 3 - COAs 1 & 2 PLUS AMPHIB/AIRBORNE ASSAULT
OTHER EXAMPLE IS 7TH FLT AND STRAITS OF CHINA/TAIWAN MISSILE CRISIS IN 96. COA1 - SAIL CBG NEAR ACTION, COA 2 - PLACE CBG IN HARMS WAY, COA 3 - GET IN STRAITS AND ENGAGE MISSILES
TRANSITION
BEFORE WE FINISH, WE NEED TO DISCUSS MORE PROBLEMS THAT OFTEN OCCUR DURING THE COA DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
COA 2 includes all of COA 1
COA 3 includes all of COAs 1 & 2

22. COA Planning Enablers
Planning considerations in developing different COAs
-Joint Force Capabilities (operational fires and maneuver, deception)
-Joint Force Organizations
-Combinations of elements of operational design (phasing line of operations and so forth)
-Commander and staff risk assessment
-Intelligence updates
THESE CONCEPTS WILL ENHANCE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE Combatant Commander’s STRATEGIC INTENT
THIS SLIDE WAS TAKEN FROM JOINT PUB THE CONCEPTS LISTED ARE MEANT TO FACILITATE COORDINATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES DURING PLANNING ON THE THEATER LEVEL. YET, AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE CONCEPTS HAVE APPLICABILITY AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL OF WARFARE AS WELL.
FOCUSES ON EXPLOITING THE ENEMIES’ COG AND DEFENDING OUR OWN COG
PHASING OPERATIONS MAKES THE COA MORE UNDERSTANDABLE AND EASIER TO ANALYZE LATER DURING THE COMMANDER’S ESTIMATE PROCESS
PHASING THAT IS COMMON TO EACH COA WILL ALSO HELP- IN OTHER WORDS, ALL COAS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF PHASES LISTED BELOW
JP 3.0 LISTS TYPICAL PHASES: PRE-HOSTILITIES, LODGMENT, DECISIVE COMBAT AND STABILITY, FOLLOW-THROUGH, POST-HOSTILITIES AND REDEPLOYMENT PHASES.
Joint Pub 5-0

23. Complete Are the COAs technically complete? Must incorporate:
Objectives, effects and tasks to be performed
Major forces required
Concepts for development, employment and sustainment
Time estimates for achieving objectives
Military end state and success criteria
AN OVERALL PRELIMINARY CHECK FOR COMPLETENESS INCORPORATES MAJOR OPERATIONS AND TASKS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED TO INCLUDE FORCES REQUIRED, LOGISTICS CONCEPT, EMPLOYMENT CONCEPT, TIME ESTIMATES FOR REACHING TERMINATION OBJECTIVES, RESERVE FORCE CONCEPT, AND END STATE

24. COA Planning Enablers Key Inputs Key Outputs Revised Staff Estimates
Joint Force
Commander’s (JFC)
Planning Guidance
JFC Initial Intent
Initial Staff Estimates
Joint Intelligence
Preparation of the
Operational
Environment
Key Outputs
Revised Staff Estimates
COA Alternatives including
-Tentative task organization
-Deployment concept
-Sustainment concept
COA
Development
HANG RESTATED MISSION & GUIDANCE IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON WALL
ALL PROBABLY EXCELLENT AT PLANNING FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF A SINGLE SERVICE - IT’S WHERE WE ARE COMFORTABLE
DEVELOP PLANS TO INTEGRATE THE JOINT ENVIRONMENTS OF LAND, MARITIME, AIR, SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND SPACE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE OPERATIONAL AREAS OF MANEUVER, FIREPOWER, PROTECTION, SUPPORT, AND COMMAND AND CONTROL
ADDRESS ENEMY AND FRIENDLY COGS
IDENTIFY THE MAIN AND SUPPORTING EFFORTS BY PHASE, THE PURPOSES OF THOSE EFFORTS, AND KEY SUPPORTING/SUPPORTED RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THAT PHASE
IDENTIFY THE COMPONENT LEVEL MISSION AND TASKS (WHO AND WHAT) THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE MAIN AND SUPPORTING EFFORTS - EXAMPLE OF NO TASKS LEADING TO AN INABILITY TO CONDUCT ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON (CAN’T DO ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON IF COMPONENTS AREN’T ASSIGNED MISSIONS AND TASKS
SINCE THE RESULTS OF DECEPTION OPERATIONS MAY INFLUENCE THE POSITIONING OF UNITS, PLANNERS SHOULD CONCEIVE MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE STORY BEFORE DEVELOPING ANY COAS.
BRIEFLY ANSWER WHO, WHAT WHEN WHERE HOW AND WHY. NO FANCY GRAPHICS

25. Prepare COA Develop COA sketch(s) Deployment/Sustainment Concept
Operational design
Phasing
Line of operations
THE COA STATEMENT ANSWERS SOME OF THE WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, AND WHY
SKETCH SHOULD BE GRAPHIC & EASY TO UNDERSTAND
I RECOMMEND THAT THE COAS BE DESCRIBED BY PHASE, AS MENTIONED WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE KEY PLANNING CONCEPTS SLIDE
DEVELOPMENT OF COAS BY PHASE MAY ALSO FACILITATE YOUR WARGAMING OR ANALYSIS EFFORTS
EXAMPLE: DEPLOYMENT, LODGMENT/BUILDUP DECISIVE ACTION, FOLLOW THROUGH REDEPLOYMENT
TASK ORGANIZATION IS LISTING OF FORCES AND HOW THEY ARE ORGANIZED

26. Country 1 -- to control flow of
COA 1
ALOC
HOME BASE US
C2 HUB
Country 1
ALOC
COA 1
Sail direct to Country 2
Deploy land forces to
Country 1 -- to control flow of
troops into Country 2
Unrep
Country 2
APOD
SPOD

27. Sail and deploy land forces
COA 2
HOME BASE
COA 2
Sail and deploy land forces
direct to Country 1
ALOC
Unrep
Country 1
APOD
SPOD

28. Example Sketch C+31 to C+60 PHASE THREE: Decisive Action City T City G
MARFOR:
O/O conduct offensive
operations to secure
northern approaches
to City T
ARFOR:
Deploy ACR to forward
AA. O/O conduct
offensive operations to
clear central and southern
approaches. Air Aslt/Abn
Bde est. opnl reserve and
rear area defense.
AFFOR:
Maintain air superiority.
Conduct AI and strat atk
operations.
NAVFOR:
No change
JSOTF: XX
City T X
City G
HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT YOU CAN USE.
OF COURSE YOUR PLANNING SOP ADJUSTED TO MEE T THE OPERATIONAL AND COMBINED ENVIRONMENT PROBABLY CONVEYS TO YOUR COMMANDER WHAT HE NEEDS TO KNOW.
NO MATER HOW IT’S PRESENTED......
THE COA STATEMENT ANSWERS SOME OF THE WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, AND WHY - IT TELLS WHAT THE FORCE AS A WHOLE IS DOING - WE RECOMMEND DOING THIS FOR EACH PHASE
IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY WHAT ENDS ONE PHASE AND WHAT BEGINS ANOTHER
THE SKETCH IS A GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF THE WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY AND HOW
C+31 to C+60
This phase completes the introduction of combat forces (Phase II) and begins offensive operations to evict all aggressors from the sovereign territory of Blueland. Operations will be conducted along two axes. Phase is complete upon restoration of territorial integrity of Blueland.

29. Example Phasing/Task Distribution
DEPLOYMENT
SHAPING
DECISIVE OPS
TRANSITION
Halt, Protect & Defend
Eject & Eliminate
Initiate IO Campaign
HA Coord
BPT NEO
Establish FOB
AIR Superiority
MARITIME Superiority
BPT CM
Protect/Defend Guppie/Nessie/SLOCs
IDP MGMT
EPW MGMT
BPT MIO
Seize Saipan
Seize Tinian
HA - Saipan/Tin
Eliminate Piranha Ability to Proj Pwr
Freedom of Navigation
HA Turnover
Turn over to HN Forces
Redeploy
CFLCC X
CFMCC
CFACC
CSOTF
CPOTF
CMOTF
CCTF
- Phase Main Effort/Task Supported Commander
- Task Supported Commander
- Task Supporting Commander
THIS SLIDE IS AN EXAMPLE OF TASK DISTRIBUTION BY PHASE OF AN OPERATION.
THE TASKS DERIVED FROM MISSION ANALYSIS, FELL INTO A PRETTY STANDARD OPERATIONAL PHASING TIMELINE.
THOSE TASKS WERE THEN GIVEN TO ELEMENTS OF THE TASK ORGANIZATION.
COMMAND AND CONTROL/SUPPORTED AND SUPPORTING RELATIONSHIPS WERE THEN DECIDED.
AFTER THIS PHASING AND DISTRIBUTION WAS DECIDED UPON, THE SKETCH WAS EASILY CONSTRUCTED TO DEPICT THE ACTION.

30. (Example) Log Effects Matrix
PHASE 1
Pre-Deployment
PHASE 2
Deploy/ RSOI/ Coalition Force Integration
PHASE 3
Move
PHASE 4
Prevention &
Stabilisation
PHASE 5
Offensive Ops/ Assistance/ Stabilisation/ Deterrence
PHASE 6
Handover
RECOVER
LOG build-up
LOG INTEGRATION
RSOI
SUPPORT LOG C2 OF UN/IO/NGO AGENCIES
SUSTAIN

31. Joint Operation Planning Process
Step 1:
Initiation
Step 2:
Mission Analysis
Step 3:
Course of Action Development
Step 4:
COA Analysis and Wargaming
Step 5:
COA Comparison
Step 6:
COA Approval
Step 7:
Plan or Order Development

32. COA Wargaming The Commander and Staff will Analyze each tentative COA
separately and identify advantages and disadvantages of each
Proposed COA.
The analysis of COAs should reveal the following factors:
Potential decision points
Task organization adjustments
Data for use in a synchronization matrix or other decision making tools
Identification of plan branches and sequels
Identification of high-value targets
A risk assessment.
COA advantages and disadvantages
Recommended CCIR’s
BRIEFING INCLUDES KEY ELEMENTS OF EACH COA AND THE PRIMARY MEANS BY WHICH IT WILL ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION
EXAMPLES
“MISSION WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DEGRADATION OF ENEMY FORCES BY MEANS OF MASSED ARMOR AND AIR ATTACKS’ OR
“MISSION WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DESTRUCTION OF C2 BY SUSTAINED STRATEGIC STRIKES AND INTERDICTION OPERATIONS, FOLLOWED BY PENETRATION OF GROUND DEFENSES AT OBJECTIVES A AND B.”
“MISSION WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PROVIDING SECURE AREAS INTO WHICH REFUGEES CAN COME TO RECEIVE SERVICES.”
“MISSION WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED PRIMARILY THROUGH REPAIR TO APODS, SPODS, AND OTHER HOST NATION INFRASTRUCTURE”

33. COA Wargaming Steps 2. Conduct Wargaming and assess
1. Prepare for Wargaming
-Gather tools
-List and review Friendly forces
-List and review enemy forces
-List known critical events
-Determine participates
-Determine enemy COA
-Select wargaming method
-Select a method to record &
display results (Syn Matrix)
2. Conduct Wargaming and assess
-Purpose of wargaming (identify gaps)
-Basic methodology
-Records results
3. Output of wargaming:
-Results of wargame brief
Potential decision points
Governing factors
Potential branches and sequels
Revised staff estimates
Refined COAs
Feedback through the COA decision brief

34. COA reflects refueling of timeline and distance
COA (MARITIME)
HOME BASE US
Country 2
Refuel Operations
Refueling Operations
COA reflects refueling
shortfall in support
of timeline and distance
Country 1
APOD
USNS COMFORT
SPOD

35. Joint Operation Planning Process
Step 1:
Initiation
Step 2:
Mission Analysis
Step 3:
Course of Action Development
Step 4:
COA Analysis and Wargaming
Step 5:
COA Comparison
Step 6:
COA Approval
Step 7:
Plan or Order Development

36. COA Comparison Key Outputs Key Inputs Evaluated COAs Recommended COA
Advantages &
Disadvantages
Wargaming Results
Governing Factors
Revised staff estimates
Evaluated COAs
Recommended COA
COA Selection Rational
Revised Staff Estimates
COA
Comparison
COA comparison is an objective process whereby COAs are
considered independently (based on a set criteria)
The goal is to identify strengths and weakness of each
proposed COA with the highest probability of success.
The commander and staff develop and evaluate a list of important criteria or governing factors (identify actions to
over come shortfalls—test feasibility, acceptability and weight)
The staff evaluates COAs using governing factors:
- Mitigate risk to the force and mission acceptable level.
- Place the force in the best posture for future operations.
- Provide maximum latitude for initiative by subordinates.

37. Example COA Comparison Total 84 96 Weighting COA 1 COA 2 Simplicity 2
Efficiency 16
Cooperation 12
Agility 3 9
Flexibility
Force Protection 5
Robustness C2 10 15
Political 6
Logistics Footprint
Total 84 96

38. Joint Operation Planning Process
Step 1:
Initiation
Step 2:
Mission Analysis
Step 3:
Course of Action Development
Step 4:
COA Analysis and Wargaming
Step 5:
COA Comparison
Step 6:
COA Approval
Step 7:
Plan or Order Development

39. COA Approval The staff determines the best COA to the commander.
The staff briefs the commanders on the COA comparison
(approval inputs and outputs)
The staff briefs the comparison and analysis and
wargaming results.
The commander selects a COA or forms an alternate COA.
- Direct revisions to COAs
- Combinations of COAs
- Additional COAs

40. Joint Operation Planning Process
Step 1:
Initiation
Step 2:
Mission Analysis
Step 3:
Course of Action Development
Step 4:
COA Analysis and Wargaming
Step 5:
COA Comparison
Step 6:
COA Approval
Step 7:
Plan or Order Development

41. Products JTF Plan
Basic Plan/OPORD - Paragraph 4, Administration and Logistics
Annex D - Logistics
Annex L – Environmental Considerations
Annex P – Host-Nation Support
Annex Q – Medical Services
Others as appropriate (Contracting, etc.)
Back now to doctrinal logistics. Here are most of the places where the logistician’s staffwork shows up in writing. In the basic plan or operations order, there will be a paragraph 4 on Administration and Logistics. This will include a subparagraph on the Concept of Support, which provides a general understanding of the requirements for logistic support, personnel policies, and administrative plans, and it will also contain broad guidance on how such support will be furnished. Also in paragraph 4 will be a subparagraph on Logistics, which should address sustainment priorities and resources; base development and other civil engineering requirements; host-nation support; and inter-Service responsibilities, among other items. See JOPES Volume II for details on the format for plans and orders.
The major portion of logistics guidance for an operation is normally promulgated in plans and orders through a series of detailed annexes and appendices. The major annexes that typically require some input from logisticians are listed here.

42. Questions?