1. Military Decision Making Process-Multinational (MDMP-M) Overview
Reference: MNF SOP Version 3.1
Military Decision Making
Process-Multinational
(MDMP-M) Overview
Introduction
Multinational Planning Augmentation Team
Mobile Training Team (MPAT MTT)
07 December 2017

2. Purpose
Provide an introduction and overview to the Military Decision Making Process – Multinational (MDMP-M)
What is the Purpose of the Process
The MDMP-M Process (greater depth in later briefs)
Reference
Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP)

3. Orderly, analytical, logical
What is MDMP-M?
MDMP-M is part of the Commander’s Decision Cycle
It focuses on interaction between the Commander, staff, and Commander’s staffs of higher / lower commands
Provides a process to
Analyze the mission
Develop, analyze and compare COAs
Select the best COA
Produce a plan/order
The Military Decision-Making Process in a Multinational context is intended to provide an orderly, analytical means to achieve mission analysis, to develop, analyze and compare Courses of Action, to select a Course of Action, and to produce plans or orders. It is expected to occur in an iterative fashion, including after execution.
The rationale behind this planning process is that Commanders and their staffs will learn from the outcomes of actions in the battle-space and adapt plans and orders based on that learning in order to remain focused on the end-state. Constant revision of design elements, understanding of the situation, and tools is expected based on a now historical approach to large-scale strategic and campaign planning.
This adaptive learning approach to planning requires communication among commanders and staffs at all levels, thus, interaction is built into the MDMP-M.
Orderly, analytical, logical

4. Key Steps Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design
Mission Analysis
COA Development
COA Analysis and Gaming
COA Comparison
COA Approval & Commander’s Estimate
Plan / Order Development
Execution, Assessment and Execution Planning
The major elements or steps of the MNF planning process follows a systematic and iterative path. The steps consist of:
1) The Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design where in the Commander and staff are oriented toward the problem and begin to visualize solutions;
2) Mission Analysis where the planning staff enumerates facts, assumptions, informational needs and Centers of Gravity along with identifying tasks and the mission statement;
3) COA Development, Analysis and Gaming which are three (3) distinct activities that develop, manipulate and assess the potential for any given course of action to achieve the operational military objectives;
4) COA Comparison sets developed COA against the Commander’s and HHQ’s mission success criteria and assesses risk;
5) COA Approval & the Commander’s Estimate take the COA recommended by the staff, incorporates the Commander’s identified necessary forces and resources and submits it to HHQ for review, comment and approval;
6) Plan or Order Development uses the approved COA as a basis to add detail to a Concept of Operations as well as identify means to act, synchronize and phase operations; and
7) Execution, Assessment and Execution Planning.
We will not deal with Execution in this forum. 4

5. Commander communications are critical
MDMP-M Planning
Staff
Planning Group Members & Reps:
Numbered Directorate Representatives
Public Affairs
Legal/Judge Advocate
Medical
MNF Components
Representatives from MNF coordination
centers (MNCC, CLCC, CMOC, etc.)
Liaisons from other boards/cells
Planning
Groups
The basic unit performing most of the planning activities is the Planning Group.
In accordance with Joint Pub 5-0, the planning group (sometimes referred to as a Coalition [or Combined] Planning Group or CPG) may also be known as the joint planning group (JPG), operational planning group (OPG), operational planning team (OPT) or crisis action team (CAT). Often, the overall primary planning team is referred to as a CPG with a small subset of planners known as the OPT. Thus, the CPG designation may include liaisons to other boards and cells as required even though the OPT is keeping track of Mission Analysis and COA development progress in a dedicated manner.
As with all cells and boards, planning groups should have broad cross-functional representation/skill sets. Planning is a dynamic, interactive process, requiring constant coordination and communication between all participants. Most often a member of the C5 Plans or the C3 Operations is the MNF’s director for the planning group/planning process and is supported by the remainder of the staff.
The planning groups provide a cross-functional staff environment that promotes and is conducive to developing concepts and sharing information ensuring an integrated MNF planning effort. Planning Groups provide a forum for interaction, and maintain the flow of information among group members. Members act as a conduit to provide information back to their respective staffs and components on the current planning effort as well as requirements for additional support or information. In addition, planning groups should institute a practice of periodic informal briefs to the commander and principle staff members, including LNO’s, on the status of the planning process.
Planning Groups provide a cross-functional environment to promote the development of concepts and information sharing to ensure an integrated MNF planning effort
Commander communications are critical 5

6. OIPE – Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment
MDMP-M Planning
Within the MDMP-M Process, there is a cycle of analysis and development that constantly informs and is informed by the on-going Commander-centric development of an overall Operational Design. Once begun, planning is continuous.
In the initial stage of the process, the Commander receives guidance from higher authorities to begin planning, and based on this guidance as well as any limitations, the Commander gathers information on two major elements – the environment and the problem. One of the main vehicles for informing the Commander on the environment of the expected operation is the Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE).
While the OIPE in general focuses on facts and assumptions related to the environment and the adversary, the Commander is also responsible for gaining a full understanding of the problem between the adversary and friendly forces. This problem can include the difference between the actual and the desired states, any limitations, the input of other commanders and the potential range of actions available to achieve the desired end-state.
With the Commander armed with an “appreciation” of the facts of the situation, his/her focus then shifts to crafting a framework for planning to meet the challenge. The Commander will describe, visualize and communicate intent based on this conceptual framework which is, itself, an iterative analytical process – Operational Design. Operational Design is intended to flesh out the initial commander’s intent issued at receipt of the order to being planning. Most importantly, it provides the planning staff with a shared understanding of the environment, the problem and the desired end-state to guide COA development.
OIPE – Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment 6

7. MDMP-M Process: Commander’s Appreciation & Design
Commander’s Appreciation and Design is intended to orient the Commander and staff & craft a framework for planning
Commander’s Appreciation and Design provides a shared understanding of the environment, problem and desired end-states
In the initial stage of the process, after the Commander receives guidance from higher authorities to begin planning, the Commander gathers information on two major elements – (10 the environment and (2) the problem. One of the main vehicles for informing the Commander on the environment of the expected operation is the Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE).
The Commander is responsible for gaining a full understanding of the problem between the adversary and friendly forces.
In order to initiate the development of Operational Design, the Force Commander will have received either verbal guidance or a formal Warning Order from HHQ.
The goal of the initial round of Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design development will result in the MNF HQ having sufficient elements to begin to cultivate a shared understanding of the situation. The step is complete when the Commander’s Intent/Guidance is issued along with time constraints for the MDMP-M planning process that is to follow, beginning with Mission Analysis.
At this point, the C2 will publish the OIPE, C5 will publish the Commander’s Operational Design and comments, the MNF will review formal minutes, and Warning Order #1 is issued. 7 7 7

8. MDMP-M Process: Step 1 – Mission Analysis
Mission Analysis is intended to refine understanding of the problem and clarify the purpose of the operation
The process outlines the MNF commander’s accepted responsibilities and limitations
The analysis will include:
Facts
Assumptions
Limitations
Tasks
Force structure
End-states
Gaps in knowledge
Mission Analysis output is a restated mission statement and enumeration of military end-state conditions
When initiating authorities having issued guidance or a warning order to the Commander and the Commander having completed one iteration of the Appreciation/Design process, the Commander issues guidance to the staff that incorporates the present understanding of the problem in order to promote a shared comprehension of the intended direction of operations.
The staff undertakes Mission Analysis to refine understanding and recommend a mission statement, commander’s intent and desired military end-states. This Analysis incorporates the higher authority guidance, the OIPE and other elements leading to an understanding of the overall scope and needs of the operation.
In the context of MDMP-M, the Mission Analysis must take into consideration the intents and understandings of all friendly forces in hopes of presenting a united MNF mission statement and other statements of goals and capabilities. 8

9. COAs must be suitable, feasible, acceptable, distinct and complete
MDMP-M Process: Step 2 –
COA Development
COA Development merges “art and science” of planning to:
Provide possible solutions
Focus planning
Allow for follow-on assessment
Each COA outlines:
Military actions
DIME (diplomatic, informational, military and economic) support requirements
Purpose of each action
Forces and resources
Deployment concept
Time required to achieve mission success or termination
Concept for a theater reserve
COAs must be suitable, feasible, acceptable, distinct and complete
With Mission Analysis completed and Warning Order #2 published, the staff moves on to COA Development. This process can be run by several OPTs each working on a COA or by a single OPT developing multiple COAs, depending on the time constraints for crisis action planning.
The goal is to provide the MNF Commander with multiple potential solutions to the problem in accordance with the Commander’s published understanding of the situation and Operational Design. There are many elements that appear in the COA as described and visualized by the OPT, but, some of the most critical components are: Command & Control relationships, a review of the AO, the reasons for action and who will take what actions when. It should include an initial concept of force flow and an analysis of the risks that taking action could create or mitigate. It is in this stage that planners can identify potential branches and sequels if/when contingencies arise during the operation.
An internal review of each COA should ensure that the COAs are suitable, feasible, acceptable, distinct (from one another) and complete in that they are designed to achieve the operational military end-state envisioned by the Commander and HHQ. 9

10. COA gaming involves an action-reaction-counteraction method
MDMP-M Process: Step 3 –
COA Analysis & Gaming
COAs Analysis and Gaming takes a step-by-step approach by analyzing each separate COA against not only the Force Commander’s intent and design but also the threat and the environment
It furthers shared understanding of the operational environment and potential impacts of actions upon this environment
COA gaming involves an action-reaction-counteraction method
Analysis should reveal:
Potential decision points
Task organization adjustment
Data for a synchronization matrix
Identification of high-value targets / objectives
A risk assessment
COA advantages and disadvantages
Recommended CCIRs (Commander’s Critical Information Requirements)
Possible COAs must undergo a systematic analysis and gaming process that is intended to reveal how the COA will hold up in the face of threat capabilities and elements of the environment. Gaming is a conscious effort to visualize the operation point by point and improve it as weaknesses or disadvantages come to light.
Based upon time available, each possible COA will be war-gamed against the most probable and the most dangerous adversary COAs, as represented by a red team that represents the threat/adversary point of view.
The Analysis stage first confirms lines of operations, decisive points and supporting effects for each decisive point. It identifies decision points and critical events as well as gaps still open in informational needs. It verbalizes the risk assessment of each COA in line with the Commander’s accepted risk and any undesired effects on the risk profile.
Then the staff moves to gaming. Each critical event should be wargamed using the action, reaction, counteraction method of friendly and/or opposition force interaction. The results of this gaming are recorded and analyzed to discover the advantages and disadvantages that each COA enjoys with regard to the most likely and most dangerous threat COAs.
This gaming and analysis provides the data that will be fed into comparative frameworks in the next step. 10

11. MDMP-M Process: Step 4 – COA Comparison
COAs are compared against a set of criteria established by the staff and Commander
Goal is to identify strengths and weaknesses so that a COA with the highest probability of success can be selected or developed
The selected COA should:
Mitigate risk to the force and mission
Provide maximum latitude for subordinates
Provide the most flexibility to meet unexpected threats and opportunities
Criteria for ranking will come from guidance, doctrine, and operational design
With the advantages and disadvantages of each COA revealed by gaming, the staff sets each COA against a set of criteria established by the staff and commander. This process is focused on identifying that proposed COA that has the highest probability of succeeding in accomplishing the mission.
The enumeration of criteria most often comes from the Force Commander’s analysis of the most relevant major aspects of the operational design. These criteria usually are related to Lines of Operations, Commander’s intent, governing factors or mission success criteria, principles of war and joint/multinational functions.
There are several different ways of comparing COAs to criteria, including descriptive, positive-neutral-negative and weighted or un-weighted scales. The selection depends on Commander’s Guidance, time available and staff expertise.
The COAs scores are then ranked, and the “highest” scoring COA should be recommended to the Commander for approval. 11

12. MDMP-M Process: Step 5 – COA Approval
The staff determines the best COA to recommend to the Commander
The staff briefs the commander on the COA comparison, the analysis, and gaming results
The Commander approves a COA or directs alternate COA be developed
The Commander’s Estimate is developed and forwarded to HHQ
With COAs analyzed, compared and ranked, the staff will brief the Commander on all of the COAs developed and recommend the one that “comparison” has shown has the best probability of achieving operational military end-state conditions. The Commander has three options: to approve the recommended COA and direct development of the Commander’s Estimate; to direct refinements of the recommended COA and development of the Commander’s Estimate; to send the OPT back to the drawing board to develop alternate COAs.
The Commander’s Estimate is a formal estimate of the various potential COAs, forces and resources to be used and broad time-lines for their arrival in the AO. It may incorporate recommendations on refinements of the strategic guidance and military end-state conditions. It should always include inputs, perspectives and insights from the partner MNF nations’ national command elements, the host nation or governmental agencies, as applicable.
This Estimate will become the formal foundation for maintaining unity of effort within the MNF and promotes a shared understanding of the problem and goal.
The Commander’s Estimate is forwarded to the Supported Strategic Commander and Supporting Strategic Commanders for review and approval / comment.
Approved COA should have best chance of accomplishing military end-state conditions 12

13. CONOPS becomes “centerpiece” of EXORD
MDMP-M Process: Step 6 –
Plan & Order Development
Staff develops a plan / order by expanding the approved COA
The first step is developing a CONOPS that includes:
Commander’s intent
Component and supporting organization actions
Friendly and threat COGs (Centers of Gravity)
OPTEMPO (Operational Tempo)
Links among objectives, lines of operations, decision points and supporting effects
Second, the plan/order is developed including annexes and appendices
ROC (Rehearsal of Concept) drill conducted
With the expectation that HHQ will approve the recommended COA, the staff will expand that COA into an OPLAN or OPORD. The urgency and time sensitivity of the pending operation will dictate, in part, what type of order or plan is written. This could include a Commander’s Estimate, a Basic Plan, a CONPLAN or an OPLAN or, if execution is imminent, an OPORD.
The OPORD is a directive issued by a commander to subordinate commanders for the purpose of effecting the coordinated execution of an operation. In the Coalition/Combined Task Force this document would be prepared by Operations Directorate (C3), Future Operations Division.
OPLAN is a complete and detailed plan containing a full description of the concept of operations and all required annexes with associated appendixes. It identifies the specific forces, functional support, deployment sequence and resources required to execute the plan and provide closure estimates for their movement into the area of operations. An OPLAN can be used as the basis of a campaign plan (if required) and then developed into an operation order. It is coordinated by the Plans and Policy Directorate (C5), Plans Division.
Regardless of the type of plan/order desired, the CPG will begin by developing a CONOPS, a concept of operations that clearly and concisely expresses what the commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using the available resources. It is descriptive, integrated, synchronized and phased to accomplish the mission, including potential branches and sequels.
With a CONOPS reach, full plan development commences. It includes all necessary annexes and appendices and breaks the operation down into situation, mission, execution, administration and logistics, and command and signal.
The Plan then goes through a Rehearsal of Concept (ROC) Drill that games the OPLAN or OPORD to refine it. The identifies risk and confirms lines of operations, decisive points, supporting effects, commander’s decision points and synchronizing actions. It may include a Red Team.
With the plan gamed, the Force Commander will forward it to the HHQ for review and approval.
CONOPS becomes “centerpiece” of EXORD 13

14. MDMP-M Process: Step 7 – Execution Planning
Planning does not end with the beginning of execution
Assessment links planning and execution
Learning during execution
Informs decision making
Supports intuition, experience, and judgment
Supports plan adjustment
CHECK “ASSESSMENT” DIAGRAM WORDING
MDMP-M planning does not end with the beginning of execution. Rather, execution allows for assessment, adaptation and refinement, feeding into new iterations of the planning process. The assessment of the Measures of Effectiveness and Performance that emerge in parts of the Mission Analysis and COA Development and Gaming allow the process to continue, helping the Commander continuously refine the Operational Design. 14

15. Review
Military operations are an art and the Commander is the artist. The Commander is supported by scientists (planning staff) to develop the operational design using design elements. The Commander’s Decision Cycle is the mechanism used to learn about the operational environment and refine his operational design. Planning is blended with and supports operation design. The problem is framed and possible solutions (COAs) are developed, studied, and then selected for execution. Once the operation begins, the commander and staff continue planning as informed by the assessment process. 15

16. Discussion