1. MNF SOP Planning Options & Campaign Planning Process
Good (morning / afternoon / evening), my name is ____________. I am from ____________. I am here to provide an informational brief on the Crisis Action Planning Process (CAP) contained in the Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP).
Background & Key Foundations
27 March 2006
UNCLASSIFIED

2. To provide a broad overview of MNF SOP Detailed Planning Options
Purpose
To provide a broad overview of MNF SOP Detailed Planning Options
Provide information on the background, key foundations & overview of the newly developed Campaign Planning Process
The Bottomline Up Front of this brief is to provide information on recommended changes to the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process as contained in the Multinational Planning Augmentation Team’s (MPAT) Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP).
Of lesser interest to most multinational planners but of more interest to U.S. and several allied military planners, this brief will also relate the recommended improvements in the MNF SOP CAP process to the “effects-based” approach advocated by certain elements of the U.S. joint community and investigated in several multinational efforts, and conclude with possible improvements to the U.S. CAP process as contained in Joint Operational Planning & Execution Systems (JOPES).

3. MNF SOP Recognizes a Base Planning Model For all Planning Methods
Mission
Analysis
Brief to Cdr
CDR
Planning
Guidance
Base Multinational
CTF Planning Model
COA Decision
COA
Selection
Commander’s Est.
To Lead Nation
National Authority
Approval
Development
Comparison
Plan/Order
Warning Order
MNF SOP Recognizes a Base Planning Model For all Planning Methods
Five Basic Steps:
1 – Situation Review (common level of understanding)
2 – Define the Problem
3 – Analyze the Problem
4 – Explore Possible Solutions
5 – Select & Develop the Preferred Solution

4. Planning & Operational Levels
National Strategic Level
(Grand Strategy)
Head of Government
United Nations Security Council
Primary Government Agencies
Minister/Secretary of Defense
Defence Agencies
Joint/General Staff
National & Combatant HQs
JTF / CTF HQs
JTF / CTF Components
Subordinate Commands, Units & Field Operating Agencies
Strategic Military Level
(Total Military Picture)
Operational Level
(JTF / CTF)
Tactical Level
(Components)

5. Planning & Operations Responsibilities
Level
Strategic
Operational
Tactical
Responsibility
Strategic Objectives & Policy
Decisive Points & Supporting Effects
Activity (Tasks)
The Operational Level links Strategic Objectives
to Tactical Actions

6. Genesis For Change Emerging Planning Concepts (~2003):
Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP - Australia)
Campaign Planning Processes (Canada & United Kingdom)
Effects-Based Planning – new but not well understood or articulated, & not adapted to crisis action planning (deliberate planning focus)
MPAT TE-7, New Delhi (JUL – AUG 2004):
Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) – baseline MPAT procedures but…
Difficulty in Course of Action Development
No linkage back to Mission Analysis – step missing?
Some planners focused on Tasks – others on Decisive Points
Each planning process has good points
Planners tended to focus on Tactical Level activities (vice Operational Level)
MNF SOP Mini-Workshop, Honolulu (NOV 04):
Examined various national & effects-based planning processes
Conclusions:
Focus on End State, Conditions Required, Effects to be Achieved (not tasks)
New Planning Process Required
MNF SOP-7, Honolulu (AUG 05):
Validated need for current & a new Detailed Planning Process
MNF SOP-8, Kuala Lumpur (JAN 06):
Developed & refined the new “Campaign Planning Process”

7. Evolution of the Campaign Planning Process
Commander’s Scoping
Review of the Situation
Problem Identification & Analysis
Campaign Formulation
Linking Planning to Execution
Commander’s Estimate
Prepare OPLAN & OPORD
MULTINATIONAL FORCE
STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES
(MNF SOP)
Version 1.6
Feb 2006
Australia Operational
Planning
UK Campaign Planning

8. Comparison Option 1 – Military Option 2 – Campaign
Decision-Making Process
Option 2 – Campaign
Planning Process
National Strategic Level
(Grand Strategy)
Strategic Military Level
(Total Military Picture)
Operational Level
(JTF / CTF)
Tactical Level
(Components)

9. Comparison Option 1 – Military Option 2 – Campaign
Decision-Making Process
Option 2 – Campaign
Planning Process
National Strategic Level
(Grand Strategy)
Campaign Plan:
Courses of Action
Conditions
OPLAN / OPORD:
Courses of Action
Task-based
Strategic Military Level
(Total Military Picture)
System Center
of Gravity
Operational Level
(JTF / CTF)
Tactical Level
(Components)
Military Centers
of Gravity

10. Military Decision-Making Process
Option 1
Military Decision-Making Process
(MDMP)
Option 2
Campaign Plan Process
1. Commander’s Scoping
2. Review of the Situation
3. Problem Identification and Analysis.
– Mission Analysis
– System Center of Gravity Analysis
– Evaluation of Factors
4. Campaign Formulation
– Develop the Campaign Framework
– Decisive Point (DP) Analysis
– Campaign Evaluation
– Produce Campaign Plan Directive
– Determine Prioritized Supporting
Effects
5. Linking Planning to Execution
- Components Analyze SEs / develop
COAs
- Components present COAs to CCTF
- CCTF/Components Analyze COAs
- CCTF Selects COA
6. Cdr Estimate to Higher HQs
7. Prepare OPLAN and OPORD - Assess
1. Conduct Operational Msn Analysis
- Msn Analysis
- Cdr Briefing
2. Issue Planning Guidance
3. Issue Warning Order(s)
4. Develop COAs/Cdr Brief
- Develop / Refine COA
- Cdr COA Brief for Guidance
- Cdr Guidance for COA actions
5. Develop Staff Estimates
6. Analyze COA
- Assessment / Wargame
7. Compare COA
8. Select/Modify COA
- Cdr COA Decision Brief
- Cdr Estimate to Higher HQs
for review/approval/guidance
9. Prepare OPLAN / OPORDs
Task Focused
Conditions Focused

11. Comparison Factor Option 1 – MDMP
Option 2 – Campaign Plan (Effects Supported)
Primary Focus
Tasks
Conditions
Mission Analysis
Enemy / Threat Approach (IPB)
Systems Approach (OIPE)
Planning Products
OPORDs / OPLANs
Campaign Planning Directive
(w/ OPORDs & OPLANs)
Planning Focus
Mission & Intent
(Purpose, Method, End State)
Objectives & Conditions
(System End State)
Center of Gravity (COG)
Adversarial-based
(Attack Threat & Defend Friendly)
System-COG
(derived from End State)
CCTF – COS – Staff
Process
Staff Developed - COS Managed - CCTF Reviewed & Approved
Requires more Commander Involvement throughout the Process
CTF Components Role
Parallel Planning with Liaison Officers
Integrated with CTF HQ
(for OPORD Development)
Summary
CTF generally tells Components “HOW” to Fight
CTF empowers Components to determine “HOW” to Fight

12. Systems Approach to Crisis Response
Key Foundations
Systems Approach to Crisis Response
The Bottomline Up Front of this brief is to proviDP information on recommenDPd changes to the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process as contained in the Multinational Planning Augmentation Team’s (MPAT) Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP).
Of lesser interest to most multinational planners but of more interest to U.S. and several allied military planners, this brief will also relate the recommenDPd improvements in the MNF SOP CAP process to the “effects-based” approach advocated by certain elements of the U.S. joint community and investigated in several multinational efforts, and concluDP with possible improvements to the U.S. CAP process as contained in Joint Operational Planning & Execution Systems (JOPES).

13. Planning Contributions for Each Level
National Strategic
Broad National guidance - Policy
Strategic Objectives
Strategic End State
Justification, Legitimacy, Coalition-building for Operations
Strategic Military
Broad National Military Guidance
Strategic Military Objectives & Mission
Strategic System Center of Gravity (S-COG)
Coordinated Essential Strategic Guidance
JTF / CTF Operational Level
Operational End States
Identification of What Conditions Need to be Influenced
Operational Military Objectives & Mission
Operational S-COG
JTF / CTF Components – Subordinate Units
Tactical Concept of Operations
Identification of Tasks to be Accomplished
Tactical Military Objectives & Mission
Tactical Center(s) of Gravity

14. Systems Approach Strategic Perspective
Crisis
Possible
End-States
Failed State
Extremist Government
This is a graphic depiction of a situation in a given
state or region
DESIRED
STRATEGIC
END STATE
(Stability)
CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY
Current
Situation

15. Systems Approach Strategic Perspective
Crisis
Possible
End-States
Failed State
Extremist Government
COORDINATED
STRATEGIC
END STATE
(Stability)
CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY
Current
Situation
Multinational
Force
This is a graphic depiction of a situation in a given
state or region

16. Systems Approach Military Operational Level
Failed State
Operational Levels
CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY
Multinational
CTF Operations
Follow-on Military
Activities
COORDINATED
STRATEGIC
END STATE
(Stability)
Campaign
Operational End States
Extremist Government
Current
Situation
Possible
End-States
Operational Activities are
bounded within the Strategic System

17. Systems Approach Multiple Actors & Stakeholders
IOs & NGOs:
support prior to &
after a crisis
Failed State
CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY
International & Nongovernmental Organizations
Multinational
CTF Operations
COORDINATED
STRATEGIC
END STATE
(Stability)
Follow-on Military
Activities
United Nations
(Civil & Military)
Threat Forces and Factions
(internal & external)
Extremist Government
Current
Situation
Possible
End-States

18. Systems Approach Complex Environment
Failed State
Operational Levels
CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY
Multinational
Operations
Follow-on Military
Activities
COORDINATED
STRATEGIC
END STATE
(Stability)
Diplomatic Activities
Economic Activities
Informational
Activities
Recovery / Development
Activities
Extremist Government
Current
Situation
Possible
End-States
Note: Above can be different mixes of functions;
this is only one example of such a mixture

19. Systems Approach Bottom Line:
A Systems Approach to multinational planning
acknowledges the complex nature of
Crisis Response Contingencies in the 21st Century
and underscores the requirement for
an approach to crises with a coordinated
“civil-military” perspective & effort
from the start, recognizing all actors and
stakeholders within the crisis.
MNF SOP Version 1.6
Military solutions to complex situations do not meet requirements to accomplish an overall end state.

20. Campaign Planning Process
Overview
Campaign Planning Process
The Bottomline Up Front of this brief is to proviDP information on recommenDPd changes to the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process as contained in the Multinational Planning Augmentation Team’s (MPAT) Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP).
Of lesser interest to most multinational planners but of more interest to U.S. and several allied military planners, this brief will also relate the recommenDPd improvements in the MNF SOP CAP process to the “effects-based” approach advocated by certain elements of the U.S. joint community and investigated in several multinational efforts, and concluDP with possible improvements to the U.S. CAP process as contained in Joint Operational Planning & Execution Systems (JOPES).

21. MPAT “Words to Live By”
Be patient - don’t try to solve the problem from the initial stages of the crisis.
Trust & know the planning process.
Start out with the big picture and understand the foundations of the crisis before attempting to solve the problem.
What do I know? Who else needs to know?
Find out WHAT needs to be done before concentrating on HOW to do it.
“Sometimes, in order to go fast, it is better to go slow at first.”
- BGen Tan Huck Gim
Singapore Armed Forces
“Plans are nothing. Planning is everything.”
- MajGen (Ret) Frank van Kappen

22. Campaign Planning Process Steps
1. Commander’s Scoping
2. Review of the Situation
3. Problem Identification and Analysis.
– Mission Analysis
– System Center of Gravity Analysis
– Evaluation of Factors
4. Campaign Formulation
– Develop the Campaign Framework
– Decisive Point (DP) Analysis
– Campaign Evaluation
– Produce Campaign Plan Directive
– Determine Prioritized Supporting
Effects
5. Linking Planning to Execution
- Components Analyze SEs / Develop COAs
- Components present COAs to CCTF
- CCTF/Components Analyze COAs
- CCTF Selects COA
6. Cdr Estimate to Higher HQs
7. Prepare OPLAN and OPORD - Assess

23. Campaign Planning Process Products
Planning Document 1 - Warning Order 1
Planning Document 2 - Situation Review Summary (Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment-OIPE)
Planning Document 3 - Mission Analysis Template
Planning Document 4 - Warning Order 2
Planning Document 5 - Campaign Plan
Planning Document 6 - Warning Order 3
Planning Document 7 – Commander’s Estimate
Planning Document 8 - OPLAN
Planning Document 9 - OPORD

24. Campaign Planning Process Step 1
Commander’s Scoping:
Description: CCTF receives situation update & strategic guidance; identifies any major information/knowledge gaps; conducts time appreciation review; issues guidance on battle/operational rhythm establishment, broad readiness guidance for staff & units & assigns broad responsibilities & orientation guidance to:
Special Staff
C5 Plans, C3 Future Ops (FOPS) & C3 Current Ops (COPS)
Components
Aim:
Sets the conditions with CTF HQ & Command for a disciplined & effective planning environment.
Initiates preparatory readiness actions for staff & units
Product: Warning Order 1 (summarizes key elements of Step 1)

25. Campaign Planning Process Step 2
Review of the Situation:
Description: CCTF, Staff, NCEs, Components, & interagency (IA) representatives (as applicable) gain shared knowledge on the short & long term foundations of the situation. This step is centered around the Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE) brief developed by the C2 (supported by the C5, C7 and Political Advisor). OIPE focuses on the whole environment (not just the threat). It should include joint, multinational force, and IA (civil governmental & UN / IO’s / NGO’s perspectives).
Aim: Gain an initial understanding of the background to the crisis & the current situation in the prospective operational environment.
Product: C2 Intel Plans publishes the OIPE brief & a summary for distribution to CTF HQ & Components (NLT 2 hours after completing the Review of the Situation step).

26. Campaign Planning Process Step 3
Problem Identification & Analysis:
Description:
The CCTF leads select staff in a Mission Analysis & also identifies the System Center of Gravity (S-COG) that must be influenced to achieve the operational end state, while the staff (+) conducts parallel factor analyses (functional estimates) to identify “limitations” (constraints / restraints).
It has 3 sub-steps (Mission Analysis; S-COG Analysis & Factor Analysis).
Aim: Sets the conditions for the development of a common vision between the various elements of the CTF Command for the conceptual & physical principles affecting the crisis.
Products:
Complete Mission Analysis (using the template).
Warning Order 2 (outlining the CCTF’s intent, operational end state & the operational S-COG).

27. Campaign Planning Process Step 4
Campaign Formulation:
Description:
C5 PLANS analyzes S-COG vulnerabilities & end-state to identify DPs (conditions) linked by relationship, time, space, &/or purpose to formulate a Campaign Framework (requires back brief to CCTF);
Staff & components develop the framework & DPs further to identify Supporting Effects (SEs);
The framework is assessed for feasibility, suitability & acceptability;
The Campaign Plan Directive is published & SEs are prioritized.
Aim: Formulate the concept for the campaign, with description of “conditions” that need to be established, to achieve the end state.
Products:
Campaign Schematic – visual depiction of the Campaign Framework
Campaign Plan Directive – articulates the overarching campaign design & includes a copy of the Decisive Point (DP) Analysis & the Campaign Schematic.
Warning Order 3 (Prioritized Supporting Effects [SEs] for the Campaign Plan Directive DPs [described within a Concept of Operations]).

28. Campaign Planning Process Step 4
Campaign Formulation
4A - Develop the Campaign Framework
4B - DP Analysis
4C - DP Evaluation
4D -Produce Campaign Plan Directive
4E - Determine Prioritized SEs
Purpose
Identify DPs, linked conceptually in relationships, along Lines of Operation, which contribute to achieving the End State (in a Campaign Schematic)
SEs developed from DPs
Check validity of DPs against CCTF’s intent
Articulates the Campaign Framework with info on how DPs & SEs influence the S-COG, & in-turn support attainment of the End State
SEs are ordered to identify initial effects (not tasks) to be achieved

29. Campaign Planning Process Step 5
Linking Planning to Execution:
Description: Planning is linked to execution by linking DPs & SEs to component activity. CCTF, Staff, & Components formulate Courses of Action (COAs), based on integrated CTF Component Tasks.
Aim: By linking DPs & SEs to component activity, COAs are identified that plan to achieve SEs & DPs yielding clear options for execution & achievement of the Operational End State, while supporting achievement of the overall End State.
Product: Identification of Component COAs by which prioritized SEs are influenced and the preferred CTF COA is selected.

30. Campaign Planning Process Step 5
Linking Planning to Execution
5A –Components Analyze SEs, & develop Component COAs to achieve SEs
5B – CTF Components present COAs to CCTF
5C – CCTF & CTF Components analyze CTF COAs
5D – CCTF selects CTF COA
Purpose
Components conduct mission analysis based on prioritized SEs (from WARNO 3) to identify tasks they can perform to attain SEs.
Components present COAs to initially deconflict activity, and raise awareness of overall planning effort.
CCTF & Components develop Component COAs into CTF COA(s) to synchronize, deconflict, coordinate & cooperate component activities in time & space, for execution in an integrated fashion.
The best COA to achieve prioritized SEs is selected based on analysis (and, with a Commander’s Estimate), is recommended to HHQ.

31. Campaign Planning Process Step 6
Commander’s Estimate:
Description: A completed Commander’s Estimate is forwarded through the Strategic Military Commander to National Authorities for review and approval / comment.
Developed by C5 PLANS, the Commander’s Estimate is based on the Campaign Plan Directive and the CCTF’s recommended COA.
The Lead Nation national authorities in multinational operations coordinate the multinational effort at the national policy level through appropriate strategic consultations with international bodies and participating nations responding to the crisis.
Aim: To formally recommend what the CTF effort should focus on to accomplish at the Operational and Tactical Levels to support achievement of the overall End State.
Product: Commander’s Estimate.

32. Campaign Planning Process Step 7
Prepare OPLAN & OPORD:
Description: C5 PLANS develops the OPLAN 1 (assigning prioritized SEs within a Concept of Operations) and C3 FOPS & Components prepare OPORD 1 (assigning prioritized tasks within a Concept of Operations); these plans are issued by the CCTF to subordinate CTF Component Commanders for execution of an operational mission.
Aim: Synthesize the information produced to date with an OPLAN approved by HHQ and used to develop an OPORD issued to CTF Components for execution of operations.
Products:
Operational Plan 1 (OPLAN 1)
Operational Order 1 (OPORD 1)

33. Summary MNF SOP provides two Planning Processes
Option 1 – Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP)
Option 2 – Campaign Planning Process
Both options are flexible for the Lead Nation & Multinational Force Commander
Campaign Planning Process
Adapted to today’s complex planning environment
Focus on the Conditions required to meet the End State
Supports “whole of government” approach to crisis action planning
Greater integration of CTF HQ and Component HQs

34. Questions?
UNCLASSIFIED