Campaign Planning Process Guide / Brief Template CTF PACIFIC Campaign Planning Process Guide / Brief Template Date UNCLASSIFIED

Note This guide has been developed as a tool to guide CCTF PACIFIC, Staff and Component Planners in the conduct of Campaign Planning. Refer to MNF SOP Part B, Chapter 2, Annex B, Appendix 4, Tab B.

Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping Conduct scoping per the Step 1 Scoping Agenda Essential Strategic Guidance: (Fill in)

Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping Knowledge Gaps (what do we NOT know): (Fill In)

Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping Time Appreciation (deliverables): Major Milestones to plan: Capture my guidance for “Commander’s Scoping” in a confirmation brief to be developed during the allotted Step 1 Scoping time Finalize the Actor / Stakeholder Matrix & update the draft OIPE Analysis during Step 2 Complete the Mission Analysis Template (all 3 sections) filled out during Step 3A Complete the S-COG Analysis Template & conduct a confirmation brief with major info contained in Warning Order 2 (filled out during Step 3B)

Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping Time Appreciation (deliverables): Major Milestones to plan: Short brief explaining the Campaign Plan Schematic & the Decisive Point Paragraphs Completed Decisive Point Matrix identifying SEs (with SEs & other elements completed) Brief the following items contained in the Campaign Plan Directive: Mission CTF Intent & Operational End State Narrative description of HOW the CTF & Components will conduct the Campaign Plan Updated Command Relations

Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping Time Appreciation (deliverables): Major Milestones to plan: Short confirmation planning session with CCTF for approval of prioritized SEs Develop, analyze & compare COAs for a DRAFT Decision Brief no later than ______.

Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping Operational / Battle Rhythm Guidance: Fill In

Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping Readiness Guidance: Fill In

Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping Planning Process Guidance: CTF Components (CFLCC, CFMCC, CFACC, CSOTF & NCEs) fully integrate into CTF HQ Planning Effort CTF C3 FOPS – conduct branch planning & back-brief the DCCTF & COS on your branch plans by ____. CTF C5 PLANS – will be the main focus of my efforts, I desire a pre-brief on the COA Decision Brief by ____. Schedule other back-briefs as required per the timeline appreciation.

Step 2 – Review of the Situation Placeholder for Actor / Stakeholder Matrix

Step 2 – Review of the Situation Placeholder for update of relevant data in the OIPE

Step 3A – Mission Analysis Placeholder for Mission Analysis Template Mission Analysis Template section Summary of Mission Analysis section Issues Register section

Step 3B – S-COG Analysis Placeholder for S-COG Analysis Template

Step 3B – S-COG Analysis Major items contained in Warning Order 2

Step 3C – Evaluation of Factors Major RELEVANT known facts & conditions that influence the development of the Concept of Operations Are there any limitations that bound the CCTF’s CONOPS? Restraints – things the CTF cannot do Constraints – things the CTF must do Factors that impact ops (weather, ROE, infrastructure, forces available, etc.)

Step 4A – Develop the Campaign Plan Framework Placeholder for the Campaign Schematic

Step 4A – Develop the Campaign Plan Framework Narrative description of the Campaign Plan

Step 4A – Develop the Campaign Plan Framework Placeholder for the DP Paragraph

Step 4B – DP Analysis & SE Identification Filled out DP Matrix SE OPT (Lead OPT) identifies all SEs from DPs Subordinate OPTs analyze the SEs & identify the elements of the SE (see matrix)

Step 4C – Campaign Plan Evaluation Validation conducted with CCTF (no brief required or specific product required)

Step 4D – Produce the Campaign Plan Brief the following items contained in the Campaign Plan Directive: Mission CCTF Intent & Operational End State Narrative description of HOW the CTF & Components will conduct the Campaign Plan Updated Command Relations

Step 4E – Determine Prioritized SEs Short confirmation planning session with CCTF for approval of prioritized SEs

Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution Develop, analyze & compare COAs for a DRAFT Decision Brief Thursday PM. See following slides for format

Course of Action Development, Analysis & MPAT TEMPEST EXPRESS-11 CTF PACIFIC Course of Action Development, Analysis & Comparison Brief Date

COA Development

Course of Action Development The COA is a broad statement of possible ways the CTF can accomplish its mission WHO will accomplish essential tasks WHAT is the type of mission to be conducted WHEN the operation must begin or must be completed WHERE the assigned areas of operation (AOs) within the JOA are WHY or the purpose of the operations HOW or the method of conducting the operation using major available resources

Additional Considerations Develop Initial COAs Additional Considerations Review mission analysis/CCTF guidance Develop plans to integrate the joint environment Focus on Centers of Gravity and Decisive Points Identify sequencing and phasing for each COA Identify main and supporting efforts Identify component level missions/tasks Develop IO/IW support items Develop initial COA sketches and statements Initial COAs: Ways the CTF can accomplish “essential tasks”

Purpose of Brief Present COAs in accordance with Comd guidance Seek guidance on: COAs to be fully developed COA Modifications COAs to be Wargamed Threat COAs to be wargamed against COA Comparison criteria

HHQ MISSION & INTENT Mission – Strategic End State – Commander’s Intent Purpose – Method – End State –

CTF MISSION & INTENT Restated Mission Statement – Operational End State – Commander’s Intent Purpose – Method – End State –

ASSUMPTIONS

COA 1 Statement  

COA 1 CONOPS Narrative (systems approach)  

COA 1 Task Organization  

COA 1 Phase I DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase

COA 1 Phase I CTF HQ: Component: Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 1 Phase II DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase  

COA 1 Phase II CTF HQ: Component:   Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 1 Phase III DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase

COA 1 Phase III CTF HQ: Component: Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 1 Phase IV DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase  

COA 1 Phase IV CTF HQ: Component:   Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 1 Phase V DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase  

COA 1 Phase V CTF HQ: Component:   Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 1 Risks  

COA 2 Statement

COA 2 CONOPS Narrative (systems approach)  

COA 2 Task Organization

COA 2 Phase I DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase

COA 2 Phase I CTF HQ: Component: Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 2 Phase II DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase  

COA 2 Phase II CTF HQ: Component:   Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 2 Phase III DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase

COA 2 Phase III CTF HQ: Component: Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 2 Phase IV DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase  

COA 2 Phase IV CTF HQ: Component:   Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 2 Phase V DPs influenced in this phase SEs achieved in this phase  

COA 2 Phase V CTF HQ: Component:   Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

COA 2 Risks  

COA Analysis

Staff Recommendations Threat COAs to be Wargamed Against: COA 1 (Most Likely): COA 2 (Most dangerous):

Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis Example Action / Reaction / Counteraction REACTION /CONSEQUENCE ACTION COUNTERACTION 1. The “action-reaction/threat consequence-counteraction” technique is an excellent tool to force us to think through each action and enemy reaction/threat consequences, and how the COA may have to be modified. It notes advantages, weaknesses of, and necessary improvements to the course of action. 2. Normally, a C3 or C5 representative identifies the initial friendly action. The staff identifies the full range of operational actions that comprise the initial action. 3. A C2 rep helps identify the enemy reaction or for HA/DR the threat consequences. 4. The staff then determines the counteraction in all areas. The counteraction can begin the sequence again as a new action, or a separate new action can begin the sequence.

Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis Example Simplified Synchronization Matrix ACTOR EVENT COMMENT EVENT COMMENT EVENT COMMENT EVENT COMMENT CTF CARFOR CNAVFOR CAFFOR 1. Here is an example of a simplified synchronization matrix. 2. Events can be numbered or given short names. Comments can include the following: -- Identification as critical event -- Possible branch ideas -- Key weaknesses -- Additional requirements such as forces or logistics 3. The forces shown under the Actor column are only an example. The matrix that we actually use should include any components or organizations that help define the event. CMARFOR CSOTF CPOTF

Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis Example Synchronization Matrix TIME CONTINUOUS OR SINGLE EVENT PROBABLE THREAT DECISION POINTS CRITICAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS OPN MOVEMENT AND MANEUVER OPN FIREPOWER OPN PROTECTION OPN INFORMATION OPN INTEL OPN SUPPORT ARFOR/LAND COMPONENT/CFLCC MARFOR/LAND COMPONENT/CFLCC NAVFOR/MARITIME/CFMCC AFFOR/AIR COMPONENT/CFACC CSOTF OTHERS D-DAY/ H-HOUR D + 1 D + 2 F U N C T I O A R E S 1. One tool to record the results of our wargamming and to synchronize the course of action over a number of different parameters is a synchronization matrix. The matrix depicts the time of the event and the probable threat against which the course of action is being wargamed. It reflects the contributions of the components and the functional areas. The synchronization matrix should be adapted to the situation. C O M P N E T S

Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis Example Analysis Worksheet CRITICAL EVENT: SEQ- UENCE NUMBER ACTION REACTION/ THREAT CONSE- QUENCES COUNTER- ACTION ASSETS TIME DECISION POINT CCIR REMARKS 1. One way to record all pertinent data gained from the war game is the wargame worksheet. Each sheet identifies a critical event for the headquarters conducting the wargame. 2. Using the columns on the worksheet, identify and list in sequence the following: - The tasks (actions) - The assets (allocated forces) used - The expected consequences - The counteractions and the assets used - The total assets required for the task - And the estimated time required to accomplish the task. 3. You can also make remarks regarding the advantages and disadvantages based upon the results of the analysis.

COA Comparison

Test the Validity of Each COA Test for suitability Test for feasibility Test for acceptability Ensure COAs are distinct (variety) Test for completeness

Test the Validity of Each COA Validity Criteria COA 1 Name COA 2 Suitable Y/N Feasible Acceptable Distinct Complete

SEs Met by each COA SEs Met COA 1 Name COA 2 SE Y / N / ?

COA Advantages & Disadvantages COA Advantages Disadvantages COA 1

Staff Recommendations Recommended COA Comparison Criteria:

Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison Positive / Neutral / Negative Comparison Comparison Criteria COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3 Remarks Rapid Delivery - + -2 + 1 - + Critical Needs Smooth Integration Smooth Transition Example Simplicity 1. Shown here is an example of a positive-neutral-negative matrix. This type of matrix provides general assessments that reflect the degree to which a particular course of action reflects selected criteria. 2. When a course of action just meets the criteria or governing factor definition, it is assigned a value of zero. If it exceeds the criteria requirements, it receives a plus. If it falls short of meeting the criteria, then it is given a minus. 3. The advantage of this method is its mathematical simplicity. However, similar to the descriptive comparison method, the results of the comparison do not reflect relative weighting of criteria. Thus, this method is best employed when all of the criteria are of equal importance. 4. The other disadvantage of this method is that the justification of the values assigned must be recorded separately in order for the staff to use the matrix as the basis for its recommendation to the commander, and to draft that section of the Commander’s Estimate where the comparison is presented. Force Protection Flexibility Totals

Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison Unweighted Scale COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3 Remarks Governing Criteria Rapid Delivery 3 2 1 3 2 3 19 Critical Needs 3 Smooth Integration 3 Smooth Transition 3 Example Simplicity 2 Force Protection 1. In the weighted comparison method, the staff assigns a numerical value to each factor. The course of action with the highest numerical score is considered the best. We will discuss two techniques under this method. 2. In the weighted scale technique, shown here, each criterion is assigned a number from a scale. You can use scales of, for example, 1 to 5 or 1 to 10. The higher the number, the greater the value. Values reflect strengths and weaknesses of each course of action relative to each of the criterion. For example, the Task Force BAYANIHAN staff used a simple 1-3 scale. One of its criteria, the rapid delivery of relief goods, was assigned a value of three for course of actions 1 and 2, and a value of two for COA 3. This means, that COAs 1 and 2 are superior to COA 3 regarding this first criterion. 3. The advantage of this technique of weighted comparison is that greater discrimination can be made in assigning values to each COA for each criterion than in the descriptive and “positive-neutral-negative comparison methods, especially if the scales have a wide range, like 1 to 10. However, similar to the descriptive and “positive-neutral-negative” comparison methods, the weighted scale technique does not account for the relative importance of individual criterion. 4. The disadvantage of this technique is that, like the positive-neutral-negative method, the justification for the values assigned must be recorded separately.   2 Flexibility 2 Totals 15 18

Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison Weighted Criteria & Scale Governing Criteria WT. COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3 Remarks Rapid Delivery 3 3 9 3 9 2 6 Critical Needs 2 3 6 3 6 2 4 Smooth Integration 2 2 4 3 6 3 6 Smooth Transition 1 Example 2 3 3 3 3 Simplicity 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 Force Protection 1. The second weighted technique for course of action comparison prioritizes the criteria by assigning a “weight” or value to each based on the commander’s guidance or staff discussion. 2. Weight the criteria before the initial comparison to avoid “gaming” or compromising the results. 3. Weighting of the governing factors can have a significant direct impact on the results of the comparison process. Here, the commander has decided that rapid delivery of relief goods and services is his most important factor in this operation, followed by meeting the critical needs of the population and smooth integration of the multinational forces. Applying weights to the criteria, course of action number 2 has the highest score, 4. versus course of action number 3 having the highest unweighted score. 5. The advantage of this technique is that the relative value of each criterion is reflected in the results due to weighting them. Coupled with the weighted scale, this technique provides for great discrimination in assigning values to each COA. 6. One disadvantage to this technique is it tends to be time consuming. Not only does the staff need to discuss the scale to be used, but it must also reach agreement on the relative weights to be assigned to each criterion, unless these have already been directed by the commander. Another disadvantage is that the justification for the weights assigned must be recorded separately. 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 Flexibility 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 Totals 15 26 18 30 19 28

CTF Commander’s Guidance COA _ approved

Discussion

Enhancing Multinational Operations Backup Slides Enhancing Multinational Operations