1. MDMP-M Step 1: Mission Analysis
Reference: MNF SOP Version 3.1
MDMP-M Step 1:
Mission Analysis
Introduction
Multinational Planning Augmentation Team
Mobile Training Team (MPAT MTT)
March 2017

2. Purpose
To describe how Mission Analysis fits into the Military Decision-Making Process in a multinational context
To model the key steps of Mission Analysis
To define the aims and products of the Mission Analysis stage
Reference
Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP) 2

3. MDMP-M Steps
Mission Analysis can be considered “Step 1” in the planning process. It begins with the issuance of Warning Order #1, indicating that the Commander has completed an initial assessment of the problem and developed an Operational Design. However, the Mission Analysis of the staff will also go a long way toward refining this Design given the flexibility of this framework at this point in the process.
Mission Analysis will focus on the mission, higher headquarters guidance, intent and other planning factors in order to recommend to the Commander a refined mission statement, Commander’s intent and end-state descriptions. 3

4. Mission Analysis Starting Conditions Ending Conditions
OIPE summary / brief published
Commander’s Design & Guidance available
Warning Order #1 issued
Ending Conditions
Mission understanding enhanced
Key factors for achieving military end-state identified
Warning Order #2 issued
By moving the planning process along from initial understandings and intents, Mission Analysis, most importantly, identifies tools, tasks and other factors critical for the successful conduct of the military portion of the international/national response to the challenge.
If the Commander’s Operational Design is thought of as a preliminary blueprint, the Mission Analysis provides the specifications, material and labor needs and engineering estimates for how a building/structure will come together. In addition, it identifies supporting commanders – like an architect would identify necessary utilities and licenses – that will also play a role. 4

5. Mission Analysis Key Steps
Analyze HHQ Mission and Intent
Determine Facts & Current Status
Develop Assumptions
Determine Operational Limitations
Determine COGs & Critical Factors
Task Analysis and Assignment
Initial Force Structure Analysis
Initial Risk Assessment
Determine End-state, Objectives & Effects
Develop Mission Statement
Identify Initial CCIRs, PIRs & FFI
Prepare Mission Analysis Brief
Review/Refine Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design
Publish Commander’s Planning Guidance & Intent - WARNORD #2
Each step in Mission Analysis can be thought of as a deliverable – a slide in the brief to the Commander – given its importance to informing the next planning step, COA Development. However, each of these steps must also work in concert rather than be a stand-alone element. Together they begin to put muscle on the skeleton that is the Operational Design, and they, thus, must provide a cohesive vision with clear logic and conclusions. 5

6. Step 1: Analyze HHQ Mission and Intent
The Commander and Staff are all involved in understanding the MNF’s role
Understand HHQ’s mission and intent
Military end-state, effects, tasks
Assigned area of operations, assets
Operational time line
Understand HHQ’s guidance for strategic communication
The first step in Mission Analysis is to analyze higher headquarters’ mission and intent in order to understand HHQ priorities. Understanding the political end state, higher headquarters mission and intent, and the strategic military end state, is critical to conducting a thorough mission analysis.
The planning group examines the initial warning order to determine these elements, and representatives of other directorates will gather facts from their own areas of concern/expertise. The overall goal is to fully elucidate guidance and instructions to ensure that all planners not only understand the various commanders’ missions and intents but also keep each of these elements in full view during analysis.
At this stage, planners should ensure that they understand the messages that strategic commanders are trying to send and, again, keep these messages in full view while working through the Mission Analysis in order to conform to Strategic Communications norms and needs.
Planners should not hesitate to seek clarification from higher headquarters as necessary.
Need clarification? Ask the HHQ’s staff! 6

7. Step 2: Determine Facts & Current Status
Facts are everything known to be true
Status includes the Commander’s assessment and the current OIPE
These elements establish the factual framework
Includes timing devoted to planning
AND timing of the operation(s)
And can be derived from: higher orders, intel, other strategic guidance, etc.
Definitions:
Facts – statements of information known to be true (including verified locations of friendly and adversary forces)
Current Status/Conditions – current Commander’s assessment of the situation + current OIPE
This step in Mission Analysis establishes the factual framework for following steps. Not only does it incorporate the up-dated OIPE and Commander’s assessment & design but it also requires input from subject matter experts, other parties on the ground and white information as available and applicable in order to understand the pace and direction in which the operation and the problem itself are developing.
A time-line very often is laid down at this time, including operational expectations (C-Day, D-Day, etc.) that focus the staff not only on how adversary and friendly force facts and status might evolve but also on the planning process’ evolution, setting a number of milestones for the completion of Mission Analysis.
MNF Staff should provide any new facts as they emerge to planners 7

8. If an assumption is false, the plan could be invalid.
Step 3: Develop Assumptions
Assumptions replace missing or unknown facts
To be valid, an assumption must be logical, realistic, and essential (required) to support further planning
Coordinate assumptions with NCEs (National Command Elements) and civilian agencies, if assumptions involve those partners
Assumptions should be validated throughout planning
Note: It is a doctrinal requirement to treat HHQ assumptions as facts
The next step is to develop assumptions. An assumption is a supposition about the current situation or future course of events that planners assume to be true in the place of factual evidence. Planners must be cautious only to make these suppositions in cases where necessary facts are missing; creating unnecessary assumptions can allow biases and prejudices back into the planning process.
The Mission Analysis begins by collecting data and facts, things that are known, and this step reflects areas where there are gaps in facts that, nonetheless, are critical for planning. Assumptions, thus, are constantly revisited during the course of planning and the operation to ensure that they either remain valid/relevant or are replaced with facts as those facts emerge.
Although it seems straightforward, developing assumptions can become contentious. Not only is determining which assumptions are absolutely necessary difficult due to the multiplicity of unknowns, but planners may differ with each other on their importance and validity.
If an assumption is false, the plan could be invalid. 8

9. Step 3: Assumption Examples
Good:
Phase I will be declared at strategic warning
The MNF will operate under UN mandate
Coalition forces will operate under parallel C2 structure
Marginal:
Friendly forces will operate in a C4I limited environment
Expect no use of bases in Country X
Poor:
Demonstrated resolve and readiness are decisive factors in Red’s decision-making
Kinetic attacks may be proposed
The MNF will not allow third party countries to interfere with sea, air, or space lanes of communication to allies or warfighting commands
Good examples of assumptions are 1) worded as facts and 2) cannot be easily answered by staff or through RFIs.
Assumptions should be as specific as possible and not “conditional”.
A few examples: the 2nd example under “good” – if that is false, the plan could be invalid; 2nd example under “marginal” – if that statement is false, the plan may or may not be effected; 2nd example under “Poor” – if that statement is false, it really doesn’t make any sense. Assumptions must be properly worded. 9

10. Disseminate early and revise as often as required
Step 4: Identify Operational Limitations
Operational Limitations are things that limit the Commander’s ability to act
Constraint – Something that must be done
Dictates an action
i.e., must begin operations at a particular time
Restraint – Something that must not be done
Restricts freedom of action
i.e., must not operate in territorial air/sea space
Commander’s may include constraints and restraints in the initial assessment, but they are most often derived from higher authorities
The next step in Mission Analysis is developing operational limitations. These limitations may be required or prohibited elements that affect the commander’s freedom of action. Most often the limitations come directly from higher authorities (including treaties, diplomatic agreements, political/economic conditions, host nations, etc.). Most often a simple list is appropriate and will help the commander understand planning factors better.
There are two types of limitations to consider: constraints and restraints. Constraints are required actions, for example: deploy forces to the disaster-affected areas within a specified period of time. Restraints are actions the task force is prohibited from taking, for example: the task force cannot deny the local media access to the areas in which it is rendering humanitarian assistance.
Disseminate early and revise as often as required 10

11. Step 5: Identify COGs Center of Gravity COGs may change over time
“The source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.”
Something to be protected (your own COG) and attacked or exploited (the threat’s COG)
Made up of Critical Factors (Critical Capabilities [CC], Requirements [CR], and Vulnerabilities [CV])
COGs may change over time
Center of Gravity (COG) analysis forms the basis for follow-on Course of Action (COAs) – what to strike and what to protect. At this phase in Mission Analysis, it helps the Commander and Staff understand the dominant threat factors within the AO.
Centers of gravity are any element that is the source of power for physical or moral strength, freedom of action, or will to act. They apply equally to friendly and adversary forces and to non-human elements like pandemics and natural disasters. The elements that underpin a COG are “Critical Factors” (discussed on the next slide) that include Critical Capabilities, Critical Requirements and Critical Vulnerabilities. As facts and the environment change during a campaign, the character of COGs may change, leading to selection of different COGs.
COGs will differ at the strategic, operational and tactical levels, and it is most common for each level’s planners to develop one or two COGs.
Most often the C2 will develop and analyze the threat COGs while C5/planners develop the friendly COGs. They are parallel, complementary processes that feed the final Mission Analysis.
COG Analysis looks at both friendly forces and the threat or adversary forces 11

12. Step 5: Critical Factors
Critical Capabilities (CCs)
Crucial enablers for a COG to function
Capabilities may be actions or properties essential to the adversary’s or threat’s end-state goal
Critical Requirements (CRs)
Conditions, resources, or means
Elements that operationalize a critical capability
Critical Vulnerabilities (CVs)
One or more of the COG’s critical requirements that, if deficient or eroded by direct or indirect attack, will undermine a critical capability
A critical vulnerability may become a decisive point
Centers of gravity can be broken into Critical Factors – Capabilities, Requirements, and Vulnerabilities.
A “critical capability” is something the COG does or has that makes it essential.
A “critical requirement” is something that the capability must have in order to function.
A “critical vulnerability” is a component of the critical requirement that is vulnerable to attack or other external influence.
Critical vulnerabilities lead directly into planning for action on a COG. These vulnerabilities are points that the MNF can attack to weaken or diminish them, influencing the adversary’s ability to operate. Thus they are “points of influence” or “decisive points.” A decisive point is a geographic place, a specific key event, a critical factor, or a function that, when acted upon, allows commanders to gain a marked advantage over an adversary or that contributes materially to achieving success. 12

13. Step 5: COG Tool
Once COGs and critical factors have been identified, the Commander and staff determine how to exploit/diminish adversary COGs and protect/improve friendly ones. These determinations are the “decisive points” we mentioned earlier. They are points in time or space that allow the MNF to influence (exploit or protect) COG.
The most important decisive points emerge from a very deep understanding of the relationship among an adversary’s (or friendly force) critical factors since an analysis of these factors will most often illuminate how either direct or indirect action can weaken the COG. The discovery of critical vulnerabilities that are decisive points will provide key knowledge and guidance later in planning. 13

14. Essential Tasks shall appear in the Mission Statement
Step 6: Identify Tasks
Tasks direct friendly action by individuals or organizations. They must be:
Clearly defined
Measurable
Specified = assigned by HHQ / Strategic Commander
Implied = tasks not clearly identified but required
Essential = mission critical (if not done, the mission will fail)
The next step in Mission Analysis is to identify operational level tasks. These may be specified, implied or essential. The simplest way to begin is by listing the tasks that appear in HHQ’s warning order, but they may also be oral directives or present in the Supported Strategic Commander’s orders; these are specified tasks.
Next, planners will consider “implied” tasks which emerge from the on-going Mission Analysis. They are tasks that an individual or organization must perform or prepare to perform to accomplish either a specified task or the mission as a whole. They are not to be found stated in any orders nor should they be restatements of tasks a subordinate/staff will do IAW with an SOP.
Finally, determine essential tasks. They will be those tasks from within the preceding two categories that are mission critical. These tasks are often incorporated into the Mission Statements that emerges at the end of Mission Analysis.
Essential Tasks shall appear in the Mission Statement 14

15. Step 6: Task Analysis & Assignment
Specified
(1) Conduct needs assessment
(2) Deploy forces
(3) Provide HA/DR support to host nation
Implied
(1) Coordinate with NGOs & IOs
(2) Provide force protection
Essential
(1) Deploy forces
(2) Provide HA/DR support to host nation
(3) Provide force protection
TASK
CFLCC
ARFOR
CFMCC
NAVFOR
CFACC
AFFOR
MARFOR
Coordinate w/ NGOs X
Port security
Provide security for camps
Provide temporary shelter
Provide ground transport
Distribute food & water
Provide air traffic control
At the MNF operational level, visualizing tasks and assigning them to components can be done as simply as using a series of grids as above.
Note that “Essential tasks” #1 & #2 also appear as “Specified tasks.” In addition, “Essential task #3” is “Implied task #2.” This is to show that overlap among task types is not unusual.
In addition, note the use of a grid to break down those tasks into Component-specific capabilities and responsibilities. 15

16. Step 7: Initial Force Structure Analysis
Review capabilities provided by HHQ for planning
Locations and availability
Reserves and timing
Transportation
Determine broad force structure
Tie forces to tasks
Command relationships
Required components
Component LNOs / planners provide vital insight
Identify capability shortfalls
The Force Structure Analysis phase of Mission Analysis is intended to influence COA development and selection based on force apportionment, availability and readiness. It essentially incorporates a review of forces apportioned to the force Commander (readiness status, time available, possible national restrictions) and a determination of the broad strokes of the multinational forces structure in comparison to the capabilities required to accomplish the mission. This will help identify shortfalls or mismatches, leading to shifts in COA development of communication with HHQ or other commanders.
Task organize
Adjacent HQ relationships
Subordinate CTF?
MNF considerations
Support relationships
Next, determine what broad force capabilities are necessary to accomplish the essential tasks. For example, does the multinational force need forcible entry capabilities, say for peace operations? If this is a HA/DR contingency, does it need major engineer or medical capabilities?
The MNF commander uses this capabilities assessment to determine what forces he requires for execution, and compares these requirements against forces the coalition nations have made available. Ultimately, the commander will need forces adequate to accomplish all specified and implied tasks the staff identified earlier.
 Shortfalls, if any, must be addressed to higher headquarters. 
A word of caution: This step is just an initial multinational force structure analysis. More specific requirements will be determined after the courses of action have been developed and analyzed!
More specific force requirements will be determined after COA Development & COA Analysis 16

17. Step 8: Initial Risk Assessment
Risk assessment involves a balance between protecting the force and achieving the mission
Takes into account potential adverse impacts & the probability of adverse impact to the mission
Identify potential mitigating or minimizing methods
Identify Commander’s (MNF and HHQ) tolerance for risk
Incorporate staff assessments of situation and environment
Understand the role of time versus risk
Mission Risk example:
Forward presence vs.
risk of provocation
The planning group and MNF staff must conduct an initial risk assessment as part of the Mission Analysis phase.
Risk is defined as the “probability and severity of loss linked to hazards.” Thus, there are two components to risk assessment: first, what is the adverse impact on our operation of a certain event or situation, and second, what is the probability, or likelihood, of such an event occurring. Furthermore, what measures can we take to mitigate against, or minimize, the risk. In risk assessment, the staff determines the initial broad risks associated with the mission.
The first part of risk assessment is identifying mission risks the Force Commander and Supported Commander are willing to take for mission success; the Commanders may openly state or simply imply acceptable risk. Next, staff sections will incorporate their own situational analysis of the environment and the threat and provide them to planners; these analyses will inform the planning group’s assessment of force protection risks (including threat level of the environment). Finally, time must be considered a risk element in that it is a limitation.
The planning group disseminates its initial assessment back to the staff along with potential risk mitigation methods.
An example of a risk assessment for a peace enforcement operation might include identifying a forward presence of large contingent of military forces as likely to provoke a negative response by certain elements of the local population. We determine that the negative response will be limited to a probable initiation of demonstrations targeted against the forces. We determine that the likelihood, or probability, of this event-demonstrations-is very high, but that the advantages to our forward presence far outweigh the potential adverse impacts. We also determine, that even if such an event occurs, the adverse impact to our mission is minimal. We can also take measures to safely mitigate against such actions,
Other potential risks to consider in our assessment may be the damage to civilian infrastructure, terrorist activities, the weather…or other aspects
Ask yourselves whether limitations, assigned tasks or assumptions create risk not yet identified or accepted 17

18. Step 9: Determine End-State, Objectives & Effects
A review and description of operational end-states helps promote a shared understanding of the problem, the mission, and the planning requirements among staffs
End-state = conditions that signal mission termination
Objective = clear goal of operation
Effect = the result, consequence or outcome of an action
Steps:
Review conditions that will signal that the MNF is no longer needed
Identify military objectives that support attainment of these conditions
Identify and quantify effects that support attainment of objectives
Determining the desired military end state, operational military objectives and supporting effects is an integral part of Mission Analysis. A systematic review of the initial end-state and objectives given by the HHQ or supported commander is critical and helps the MNF staff derive the supporting military objectives required for the HHQ’s end-states. Combined with the MNF Commander’s appreciation of the problem and the operation, this review helps ensure that planners are addressing the “problem” as it is conceived in the Operational Design.
End-States, objectives and effects operate in a hierarchical fashion. The end-state (strategic or military) is the desired set of conditions that will signal that intervention is no longer necessary. When objectives are met, the end-state is achieved. Objectives are clear, distinct goals for each operation; they are measured by the “effects” or “conditions” that result from actions taken.
It is important understand the difference between preliminary end state conditions, often described as a military end state, and a broader set of end state conditions, when military force is no longer the principal means to attain the strategic ends. The broader end state typically involves returning to a state of peace and stability and may include a variety of diplomatic, economic, informational and military conditions. Keeping this broader, strategic end-state in mind can help MNF planners in that it means they keep in view the concurrent operations of other commanders/staff who are supporting the same HHQ. Thus, communication among agencies or staffs who are all supporting the same strategic commander can help clarify end-states, objectives and effects.
Which objectives define success?
Which effects achieve these objectives? 18

19. Step 9: Objectives and Effects
Objectives required to achieve the End State
Objective 1
US nationals, facilities and interests in Country Red are protected
Objective 2
Stable and secure environment established
Objective 3
Pre-crisis living conditions in AOR restored
Objective 4
Pre-crisis AOR infrastructure restored
Objective 5
Red ties with state sponsors of terrorism severed
Supporting Effects (to achieve Objectives)
Objectives
Government of Red (GOR) essential functions and services are restored
1,2,3,4
Government of Red (GOR) does not employ Weapons of Mass Destruction
1,5
Government of Red (GOR) restores law and order in its Southern Province
1,2,3,4,5
Regional countries provide law enforcement assistance in Country Red
1,2,5
United Nations provides peacekeeping forces in Country Red
This chart is an example of how planners can organize end-states, objective and effects in order to analyze them.
In this example, let’s look at Objective #2: “Stable and secure environment restored”
The military plays a part in that, but many other organizations may be involved.
The effects by which that objective is measured are Effects #1, 3, 4, & 5.
Let’s look at Effect #1: “Essential functions and services restored”
Actions must be take to change that effect or condition. 19 19

20. Who, What, Where, When and Why
Step 10: Develop Mission Statement
Example of a “Restated Mission”
On order, MNF Blue conducts humanitarian assistance and stabilization operations in Country X in order to reestablish peace and security and minimize human suffering.
Toward the end of Mission Analysis, the planning group reviews the Mission Statements and develops the Commander’s Intent. Alongside the Initial Mission Success Criteria, the Mission Statement and Commander’s Intent will support MNF assessment and will be published within planning guidance, planning directive, staff estimates, commander’s estimates, CONOPS and the completed plan.
The Mission statement should be a short sentence or paragraph and provide a clear statement of the action to be taken and the reason for its being taken. It incorporates a statement of the MNF’s essential task(s) and the “Who, What, When, Where, and Why” regarding the task(s). These elements are all part and parcel of what has been done as part of Mission Analysis thus far. Therefore, it simply states in a clear and concise way the conclusions that the planning group has come to at this stage in the process.
Some guidelines are that “What” should be the essential tasks. “Why” should be the end-state. At this stage, at the operational level, the mission statement does not include a “HOW” because it is a basis for planning the how.
Who, What, Where, When and Why 20

21. Step 10: Commander’s Intent & Success Criteria
Commander’s Intent is a narrative of purpose, method and end-state
It reflects the MNF Commander’s personal style of communication
Reiterates OIPE, problem framework, and Operational Design and incorporates preceding mission analysis steps
Initial Mission Success Criteria are broad and directly linked to achievement of military objectives
These criteria for the military end-state are “measures of performance” (MOPs) and “measures of effectiveness” (MOEs)
Alongside the Mission Statement, the Commander’s Intent helps the staff complete a narrative lay-down of the Initial Mission Success Criteria.
The restatement of mission goals and methods in the Commander’s Intent is intended to focus the staff as well as guide supporting commanders without issuing further orders. The Intent is founded on the framework of the OIPE, commander’s appreciation of the problem, and operational design. It then incorporates the findings of the preceding steps of Mission Analysis, including, in particular, the assumption of risk.
In general, the Intent statement is broken down into “purpose,” “method,” and “end-state” but follows no set format and often indicates the Commander’s personal preferences in communicating with the staff and supporting commanders.
With the Mission Statement (restated mission) and Commander’s Intent in hand, the planning group describe how the MNF knows it is succeeding or has succeeded; these are the Mission Success Criteria. Initially, they are major elements, but once broken down, they are linked to objectives and effects, thereby offering a means to assess progress toward the military end-state.
MNF mission success criteria are stated as “Measures of Performance” and “Measures of Effectiveness.” The provide a framework for assessing achievement of tasks and of effects as part of the mission within the MNF assessment process.
Restated Mission and Commander’s Intent permit planners to determine mission success criteria 21

22. Step 11: Determine Initial CCIRs, PIRs & FFI
CCIRs (Commander’s Critical Information Requirements)
“Information requirements identified by the Commander as being critical to timely information management and the decision-making process that affect successful mission accomplishment.”
PIRs (Priority Intelligence Requirements)
Threat/adversary intelligence
Includes white/environmental information
Drive intelligence collection
FFI (Friendly Force Information)
Reported/requested via RFIs
Based on the Mission Analysis thus far and on the Commander’s Intent, informational requirements will emerge. Known as the Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIRs), these are pieces of information that have implications for information management, decision-making and, therefore, mission success. Falling somewhere between “nice-to-know” and “wake-up,” CCIR’s are informational items that guide planning and tasking; for example, information verifying or refuting a planning assumption is often a CCIR.
CCIRs are split into PIRs and FFIRs. PIRs concern the threat or enemy situations that drive decision-making. For example, “Enemy division has crossed Phase Line X, therefore, launch counterattack.” These include environmental informational needs and, on the whole, they drive intelligence collection and production.
FFIs concern information about the friendly situation. For example, “3rd Division is ready to commence movement, therefore, attack enemy position.” FFIs are intended to drive reporting and RFIs.
They are designed to facilitate success.
CCIRs, PIRs, & FFI are not static 22

23. Step 12: Prepare Mission Analysis Brief
At this stage in Mission Analysis, the CPG must be ready to secure the Commander’s approval of the Analysis outputs and obtain guidance for follow-on COA development. The vehicle for this approval and guidance is the Mission Analysis Brief. It is coordinated, ultimately, by the MNF Chief of Staff who ensures coordination with National Command Elements (NCEs) from participating nations and from MNF component commanders. However, the CPG is completely responsible for the elements within the brief and for gaining support for it from the staff.
The briefing is intended to be an orderly presentation of the results of the Mission Analysis, leading up to presentation of the Mission Statement and Commander’s Intent for approval. As you see in this slide and the following one, a template for the Mission Analysis Brief includes a slide for each of the steps discussed in this presentation. Thus, each step in the process can be viewed as having a product for this brief. 23

24. Step 12: Prepare Mission Analysis Brief
Although this is a recommended template, the CPG must be prepared for requirements from the commander or other elements to include or exclude one or more products. 24

25. Step 13: Review/Refine Commander’s Appreciation & Operational Design
Step One: Review Mission Analysis in light of original Commander’s Appreciation
Reword or refine Commander’s Appreciation as necessary
Step Two: Develop Operational Design further
Incorporate new design elements
Consider interaction with non-MNF forces/agencies
Following the Mission Analysis Brief, the planning group will prepare to publish the Commander’s guidance and Warning Order #2. Ahead of that final step, the planners conduct a review of the Commander’s Appreciation (including the OIPE and Problem Framework) as well as the Operational Design. At the end of this step, the planning groups will have prepared an up-dated Commander’s narrative & Visualization of the Operational Design.
In essence, these are two separate steps. One: review steps 1-11 of the Mission Analysis with regard to their fit with the initial Commander’s Appreciation, restated mission and military end-state conditions. The expectation is that this review will suggest refinements in concept, wording or requirements.
Two: develop and refine the Operational Design beyond its initial stages. This refinement will support COA development by incorporating new design elements and considering the possible interactions with the DIME (Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic) elements of the host nation, international community, government agencies and any other actors.
Remember: Operational Design is the conception and construction of the framework that underpins a campaign or major operation plan and its subsequent execution 25

26. Step 14: Publish Commander’s Planning Guidance and Intent – WARNORD #2
Warning Order #2 will include:
Commander’s Planning Guidance
Initial Intent
Planning guidance provides additional direction for COA development
Role of government agencies
Potential transition planning
IO campaign plans
Commander’s risk tolerance
The final step in the Mission Analysis phase is to publish the commander’s planning guidance and initial intent – Warning Order #2.
The point of this step is to provide direction for planners who are developing Courses of Action (COAs)
Planning guidance incorporates known and expected roles of government agencies, guidelines for interacting with international NGOs, and expected transition needs, including those elements that involve the host nation, other MNFs or the UN. It will also include the development of any IO plans, specific requirements for COAs, risk tolerances and other items the Commander finds necessary.
Why are we doing this? How are we doing it? What are we trying to accomplish?
Reiterate: “What we are trying to accomplish is…” 26

27. Review Analyze HHQ Mission and Intent Determine Facts & Current Status
Develop Assumptions
Determine Operational Limitations
Determine COGs & Critical Factors
Task Analysis and Assignment
Initial Force Structure Analysis
Initial Risk Assessment
Determine End-state, Objectives & Effects
Develop Mission Statement
Identify Initial CCIRs, PIRs & FFI
Prepare Mission Analysis Brief
Review/Refine Commander’s Appreciation & Operational Design
Publish Commander’s Planning Guidance & Intent - WARNORD #2
Again the steps we have just examined. Each step in Mission Analysis can be thought of as a deliverable – a slide in the brief to the Commander – given its importance to informing the next planning step, COA Development.
Each of these steps must work in concert rather than be a stand-alone element. Together they begin to put muscle on the skeleton that is the Operational Design, and they, thus, must provide a cohesive vision with clear logic and conclusions. 27

28. Review
Next, we will discuss COA Development 28

29. Discussion

30. Why Mission Analysis?
Create a common understanding of the problem and indicate the reasons for taking action
Allows subordinate and supporting commanders and their staffs to begin their own planning processes by clearly stating mission, tasks and desired end-states
A step-by-step approach
Incorporates guidance
Analyzes information and gaps in information
Results in guidance for development of Courses of Action
Mission Analysis can be considered the first step in getting to a solution for the problem identified by the authorities that initiated the crisis action response.
It is designed to divide complex problems and environments into manageable and definable elements and to examine the intent of national authorities and the MNF commander, and to determine the sets of tasks required to meet the initial desired end-states.
Most importantly, Mission Analysis is designed to break down biases among a staff and promote a common understanding of the problem. This more clear and shared understanding is expected to feed back into the Commander’s Operational Design evolution, informing the creative process of conducting a strategic campaign. 30