MDMP-M Step 2: Course of Action Development

MDMP-M Step 2: Course of Action Development
Reference: MNF SOP Version 3.1 MDMP-M Step 2: Course of Action Development Introduction. Multinational Planning Augmentation Team Mobile Training Team (MPAT MTT) 07 December 2017

Discuss what a Course of Action (COA) is
Purpose Discuss what a Course of Action (COA) is Provides a method to develop COAs Reference Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP) The purpose of this brief is to review the COA Development steps of the MDMP-M Process. This brief outlines an effective step by step process. 2

MDMP-M Steps Step 2 COA Development, follows Mission Analysis and the refining of the Operational Design, and informs the on-going process of the Commander’s appreciation of the problem and its possible solutions, as well as enabling COA Analysis and Gaming. 3

What is a COA? A COA is any force employment option that, if adopted, will result in the accomplishment of the MNF mission Tentative COAs are initial conceptualizations and broad descriptions of potential approaches to operations What a COA is not: Concept of Operations (CONOP): Developed after the COA has been chosen (detailed) Scheme of Maneuver (SOM): Operational forces maneuver plan to achieve specific objectives (not detailed) First, what is a COA? It describes the type of military action required or envisioned as well as the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW of the operation. A COA offers broad ideas of how operations are framed and the underlying assumptions and needs to accomplish the mission. They are mostly “potential approaches” that then provide foundations for more robust operational planning. Now draw your attention to what a COA is not. A common planning tendency in this step is to get overly-detailed when developing what at this time are tentative or broad COAs. COAs at this stage of the planning process are not CONOPs (too detailed) or simply Schemes of Maneuver (maneuver graphics that do not contain enough detail). 4

COA Development Concepts
COA should incorporate the following: Products that come from Mission Analysis Commander’s Planning, Guidance & Intent – WARNORD #2 Refined Operational Design Beyond these directives, a COA consists of: Military and non-military supportive action Reasons, actors, and timing of operations Phasing of operations to include intent During crisis action planning, the time available to plan and the level of detail are directly proportional Planners must begin this step with solid Commander’s Guidance received at the end of Mission Analysis. Given the elements published in Warning Order #2, planners now have a substantial set of facts, questions, and end-states to keep in mind. An important addition at this time is the framework of “phases” to describe an operation. Phasing is a means to divide the elements of the COA into logical time frames. COA elements include efforts and tasks in a geographical space to achieve the objective. Note the final bullet: the time available to plan is often extremely limited, and COAs must be developed which are broad in nature to describe actions that may accomplish the mission. 5

COA Development Conditions
Starting Conditions Commander’s Planning Guidance & Intent (WARNORD #2) is published and distributed Operational Design is further refined Ending Conditions COAs have been developed to identify possible ways to attain the military end-state Commander approves COAs for further planning The MNF-SOP lays out the inputs and outputs of this step, calling them starting and ending conditions. A thorough Mission Analysis provides the best starting conditions for COA Development; in turn, well-conceived COAs that adhere to the Mission Analysis and any additional information or resources available will provide a solid basis for the following planning steps.

COA Development Inputs & Outputs
Approved Commander’s Intent & Mission Statement Current Commander’s Planning Guidance Current OIPE Objectives, Effects and Tasks Initial Staff Estimates Outputs Approved Tentative COAs Revised Staff Estimates Without the products listed above, a COA runs the risk of not meeting the conditions set by the Commander or HHQ for operational success. Moreover, without constant reference to the Mission Analysis, any COA will require much more significant refining and reworking after approval. Thus, once a COA is developed, staff sections will assess it and comment, revising their own estimates and providing input to the Commander’s Estimate. These consist of staff evaluation of how factors in their fields of expertise will influence COAs under consideration by the Commander. 7

Course of Action Development
Organize the Planning Teams Review the Situation (OIPE, Problem Framework, Commander’s Planning Guidance & Intent, Commander’s Operational Design) Develop Potential Solutions & Required Capabilities Develop COA Statements Develop Command & Control (C2) Options Review / Establish MNF AO (Geographic ) Boundaries Develop a COA Sketch with Supporting Narrative Review COA for Validity (Suitable, Feasible, Acceptable) Review COA for Totality (Complete) Review / Update Risk Analysis Update Staff Estimates based on COAs Refine COA Sketch and Supporting Narrative COA Brief Agenda Publish Approved COAs Here is the step by step method for COA Development that we will discuss. It is recommended that these steps be followed sequentially as much as possible. 8

Teams need sufficient staff representation
Step 1: Organize the Planning Teams Plan for COA Development Team fully understands planning factors, including Commander’s Planning Guidance & Operational Design A determination if time allotted for COA development allows for one or more OPTs Team composition Assignment of Tasks By operational function (command & control (C2), movement, fires, protection, intelligence, sustainment, etc.) Or by component (CFLCC, CFMCC, CFACC, etc.) COA development must begin with a systematized exploitation of available personnel, expertise and resources. Staff numbers and time allotted for COA development will help determine whether multiple OPTs develop individual COAs or a single OPT develops multiple COAs – each of these paths has strengths and weaknesses related to time needed for completion and lack of distinctiveness among COAs from which the Commander is expected to select. Teams need sufficient staff representation 9

Step 2: Review the Situation
Review OIPE (situational factors), problem framework, Commander’s Planning Guidance & Intent, and Commander’s Operational Design Reviewing guidance and frameworks produced thus far will help ensure the shared understanding of the problem and the Commander’s desired intent for accomplishing operational end-states. The list of Operational Design elements should, at this stage, remind you of many of the elements produced in the Mission Analysis. 10

Remain focused on the operational level
Step 3: Develop Potential Solutions & Required Capabilities Focus on essential tasks first Develop and integrate joint and multinational aspects into COAs Focus on Center of Gravity (COG) and Critical Factors Identify sequencing and phasing Identify main and supporting efforts Identify component level missions / tasks Outline concepts of sustainment for COAs Tentative COAs should address each of these considerations at the Operational (military) Level. Very often they will require staff directorate representatives to acquire more robust estimates of the situation from their various areas of expertise in order to identify resources available for potential solutions. These considerations will help focus the planning effort. For example, focusing on assigning essential tasks first will ensure that COAs do not deviate from the mission as established by the approved mission statement. To capture all this information, the OPT can establish a matrix similar to that developed during Mission Analysis Task Identification, as in the next slide. Remain focused on the operational level 11

Step 3: Solutions (Example Matrix)
Ph 0: Shape Ph 1: Deter Ph 2: Seize Initiative Ph 3: Dominate Ph 4: Stabilize Ph 5: Enable Civil Authority Initiate IO Plan HA Coordination Establish FOB Conduct IO Air Superiority Maritime Superiority Forcible entry Saipan Forcible Entry Tinian Eliminate Ability to Project Power Seize Saipan/Tinian HA Saipan/Tinian Freedom of Navigation HA Turnover Turnover to HN Forces Redeploy CFLCC x CFMCC CFACC CSOTF CPOTF CMOTF CCTF Phase Main Effort / Task Supported Commander Task Supported Commander Task Supporting Commander Constructing a task matrix is one way to start developing a COA. Here the tasks from the task analysis step of Mission Analysis are assigned by Functional Component, by phase. The Main Effort of each phase is depicted in Red, and supporting and supported relationships are defined. For example, during Phase IV, Stabilize, the CMOTF is the Phase Main Effort and the Task Supported Commander for conducing humanitarian assistance operations on Saipan and Tinian. The CFLCC and CFMCC are supporting commanders for accomplishing this task.

Step 4: Develop COA Statements
Initial COAs should address the “Big Six”: WHO will accomplish the tasks? WHAT must be performed? WHEN will the operation begin and end? WHERE will the tasks occur? WHY (for what purpose) conduct the operation? HOW will the operation be conducted? The Operational Planning Team (OPT) will establish a statement identifying supportive capabilities that describes the required elements for the COA. This is the first time “HOW” is addressed in this process 13

Develop Command & Control (C2) Options
Step 5: Develop Command & Control (C2) Options Determine Command Relationships Supported / Supporting Operational Control (OPCON) Tactical Control (TACON) Support (General, Mutual, Direct, Close) Other relationships (Administrative Control, Coordinating Authority, Direct Liaison) Force Organization Options Service components Functional components Subordinate MNFs Combination of the above Moving on to the fifth step, planners must now determine C2 structure for each COA under development. This is often one of the most difficult steps to complete, especially in MNF operations since Political considerations often come into play. Ensure that when developing C2 structures, the OPT defines each of the following relationships: supported/supporting; OPCOM, TACON, Support and others. Some definitions from the SOP: Supported: Commander who receives assistance from another commander’s forces or capabilities and who is responsible for ensuring that the supporting commander understands the assistance required. Supporting: Commander who provides forces or other assistance for the execution of an operation. OPCON: Inherent in COCOM, may be delegated, authority to organize, employ, assign tasks, designate objectives, and give authoritative direction to accomplish a mission. Does not include logistics, admin, discipline, internal organization, unit level training. TACON: Authority to give detailed direction and control movement within an OA as necessary to accomplish a mission or assigned task. Inherent in OPCON; may be delegated. General: Support given to a supported force as a whole and not to a particular subdivision. Mutual: Support that units give each other against an enemy because of assigned tasks, relative positions and inherent capabilities. Direct: Support requiring one unit to provide specific assistance to another and authorizing it to answer directly to the supported force’s request for assistance. Close: Action of the supporting force against targets or objectives which are close enough to the supported force as to require detailed integration or coordination. ADCON: Direction of authority over subordinate or other organizations in respect to administration and support, including organization of service forces, control of resources and equipment, personnel management, unit logistics, individual and unit training, readiness, mobilization, demobilization, discipline. DIRLAUTH: Authority to granted to a subordinate to directly consult or coordinate an action with a command or agency within or outside of the granting command. Normally applied to planning. DIRLAUTH is a coordinating relationship, not an authoritative one. Coordinating Authority: Commander assigned responsibility for coordinating specific functions or activities involving forces of two or more departments, services, etc. Authority to require consultation but not to compel agreement. Not command authority. Normally applied to planning activities. When organizing the force, gain component and partner nation (if any) input as to whether service componency, functional componency or a combination of both will best organize the force to accomplish the mission. With multiple C2 options to choose from, the following slide is just one example. C2 structures emerge from the type of sub-task force organizations that are necessary 14

Step 6: Review / Establish MNF AOR /AOINF /AOI Geographic Boundaries
Area of Responsibility (AOR) The geographical area in which a Supported Strategic Commander has authority to plan and conduct operations Area of Influence (AOINF) A geographical area wherein the Commander is directly capable of influencing operations by maneuver or fire support systems normally under the Commander's command or control Area of Interest (AOI) That area of concern to the Commander, including the area of influence, areas adjacent thereto, and extending into enemy territory, that is subject to the objectives of current or planned operations. This area also includes areas occupied by enemy forces who could jeopardize the accomplishment of the mission At this point, a deep review of the AOR is critical. Identification of areas of influence and interest are also important given the probability that other task forces or parties are working in those areas toward the HHQ/strategic end-state. Geographic boundaries are generally identified in HHQ guidance but may change under direction of strategic authorities. OPTs must ensure they have the latest adjustments in order to understand the scope and limitations of action. 15

Develop COA Sketch with Supporting Narrative
Step 7: Develop COA Sketch with Supporting Narrative Step 7 in COA Development is to create a COA sketch and accompanying narrative statement. This example would have a different graphic for each phase, and this is an example of Phase I. The tasks of the phase are assigned by Functional Component, while the graphic displays the components' positions within the CJOA. This statement covers the “Big Six” of the phase: who, what, why, when, where, and how. This product will be refined and finalized in a later step. The COA narrative to accompany the set of (Phased) sketches will relate tasks and effects to guidance, intent and design. COA narrative will incorporate phases and main effort 16

Step 8: Review COA for Validity
Suitable (Adequate) Can accomplish mission within Commander’s guidance Feasible Can accomplish mission within established time, space, and resource limitations Acceptable Balances cost and risk with advantage gained Distinct Is sufficiently different from other COAs Complete Incorporates objectives and tasks, requirements for major capabilities (e.g., deployment, employment, and sustainment time-lines), military end-state conditions, and mission success criteria The OPT will need to apply tests to its COA, as defined by the MDMP-M, to ensure validity before proceeding. The qualities of suitability, feasibility, acceptability, distinctness and completeness relate closely to the elements found in the Commander’s Guidance & Intent and Operational Design. In addition, they will adhere closely to the tasks and limitations as well as mission success criteria (measures of performance and effectiveness) that emerged in the Mission Analysis phase. In the following slides, we will unpack each of these qualities further.

Does the COA allow end-states to be met?
Step 8: Suitable (Adequate) Does it meet the Commander’s intent and intended effects? Does it accomplish all the essential tasks? Does it allow the MNF to meet the conditions for the end state? Does it take into consideration enemy and friendly COGs? The Suitability test addresses all the main elements of planning developed during Mission Analysis: mission, intent, essential tasks, conditions/effects and COGs. If the answer is “yes” for each of these five questions, the COA adequately addresses the problem. Does the COA allow end-states to be met? 18

Step 8: Feasible Will the MNF have the required resources to carry out the COA and accomplish the mission? Will those resources be available in the Operations Area in time? Forces Transportation Sustainment Facilities Can the COA be carried out within environmental constraints? Time, geographic space, and resources The feasibility test is on the surface a resources check, but it goes beyond just looking at whether the MNF has enough personnel and equipment to accomplish the mission. It also addresses the consideration of distance and time. This required a close look at assets/personnel available, movement to the OA, and time of arrival. This test can produce Request for Forces (RFFs), as shortfalls become more apparent through analysis. It also helps planners develop the Concept of Sustainment, which is a key piece of COA development. Does the COA take constraints and restraints into account? 19

Step 8: Acceptable Does the COA contain prohibitive risks?
Does it take into account the limitations placed on the MNF? Does it contribute to HHQ strategic objectives? Can it be accomplished under external constraints, particularly Rules of Engagement (ROE)? Can it be accomplished against each enemy capability? “Acceptability” refers in part back to the risk assessment of Mission Analysis and, for another part, to the level of acceptable risk in the Commander’s Guidance. With risk attributed and assessed, the OPT must review the limitations (constraints and restraints), the HHQ strategic objectives, the Rules of Engagement (ROEs) and the enemy capabilities and ensure that the COA addresses each in an appropriate manner. This test is to ensure that the COA does not “Win the battle but lose the war”. Does the COA fit within HHQ’s strategic objectives? 20

Step 8: Distinct Is each COA significantly different from the others?
Are COAs different from each other with respect to: Main effort? Scheme of Maneuver? Task organization? Use of operational reserves? Timing & phasing? Primary defeat mechanism / method for mission accomplishment? This test is crucial for ensuring that the Commander and Higher HQ have options for accomplishing the mission. The tentative COAs should differ from each other in at least one of the following six categories: main effort, scheme of maneuver, task organization, use of operational reserves, timing/phasing, and primary defeat mechanism (method for mission accomplishment). As an example, one COA’s main effort might be the CFACC in which a prolonged air campaign is used to attain the objectives, whereas an alternate COA might involve the CFLCC as the overall main effort, with initial air strikes quickly followed by a ground operation. At this point, we define “main effort” as that which the commander has determined has the most important task and purpose and whose success will make the most difference in the accomplishment of the overall mission. Supporting efforts should be identified to coordinate operations. The identification of a main effort focuses staff and subordinate commanders’ actions. The main effort may change over the course of an operation, particularly in moving from one phase to the next. HHQ will support the main effort by coordinating supporting efforts at that level. Separate COAs should offer the Commander a choice 21

Step 8: Complete Are the COAs technically complete? Do they adequately answer the “Big Six” and accomplish the mission? WHO will accomplish the tasks? Major forces WHAT must be performed? Objectives, effects, and tasks WHEN will the operation begin and end? Phasing criteria WHERE will the tasks occur? Review the Operations Area WHY (for what purpose) conduct the operation? Military end-state and mission’s success criteria HOW will the operation be conducted? Concepts for deployment, employment, and sustainment The final part of the validity review examined the “Big Six” questions, which should be asked throughout the COA development process. They are used to ensure the tentative COAs include all the technical information needed to move on to the next step of the planning process. 22 22

Step 9: Test for Totality
COAs are reviewed for their totality: Do they provide a solution for the identified problem and address the degree which they will achieve the operational military objectives? Step back to review the total solution Recognize there will be no “one right solution” for complex problems Focus COA development on capability requirements vice force requirements. Once the validity review is complete, the OPT will move on to Test the COA for Totality, answering the question of whether or not it achieves the MNF’s operational objectives. A lot of the work for this step should have already been accomplished. However, a complete review of the COA must occur to assess the issue at hand. The OPT should reconsider the entire process of their proposed solution in the understanding that the solution will have advantages and disadvantages. For the MNF at this point it is better to have a solution that plans for capabilities useful against adversary COGs than to have a solution that plans for specific forces. In general, it will be this planning for use of capabilities that sets individual COAs apart from each other. The advantage of this capabilities focus is that it allows the Commander more flexibility at this stage. Are operational end-state requirements met? 23

Step 10: Risk Analysis A risk analysis is done on each COA, using:
Commander’s intent and risk tolerance Expected cause and effect of solution’s impact on the operational environment Risk analysis and mission success criteria from the Mission Analysis phase are applied Consider both Risk to force Risk to mission A risk analysis of a COA will set the COA next to the Commander’s intent in order to assess the expected causes/effects of the proposed solution on the operational environment. This assessment is to include even 2nd and 3rd order effects, unintended consequences and undesirable effects. Using the COA Development risk analysis and mission success criteria from COA Development Sub-Step 10, the OPT will analyze both the risk to forces and the risk to mission. What risks will the solution create that were not present in the original environment? 24

Timelines and phasing are critical concepts
Step 11: Update Staff Estimates Staff functional planners will introduce their estimate of the concepts of supportability and sustainability Estimate identifies and addresses known or anticipated factors that may influence the feasibility of providing required logistic support This support will affect the timing, intensity, and duration of the tentative COAs Time / Phasing within plan to position support personnel to receive and integrate required forces and move sustainment capabilities Once the COA has been analyzed for validity and totality and risks considered for appropriate levels, the OPT will take into consideration updated Staff Estimates of the proposed COA. This estimate takes into consideration the concepts of support and sustainability and introduces them into each proposed COA. Updated Staff Estimates will identify factors that will influence or may reasonably be expected to influence the MNF/CTF’s ability to conduct operations due to timing, intensity, and duration of movement and sustainment in the COA. This is the area where timelines and phasing will provide critical frameworks, allowing staff planners to assess the reality of a plan. Timelines and phasing are critical concepts 25

Refinements are based on results of steps 8-10
Refine COA Sketch and Supporting Narrative Each COA should address the following: Broad concept of how the MNF will achieve the military end-state conditions Major strategic, operational, and tactical tasks to be accomplished Capabilities required (force structure concept and force reserve concept) Task organization and related communications systems support concept Broad deployment concept Broad sustainment concept Phasing criteria Identification of potential branches and sequels The COA Narrative (and sketch) should present the broad concept of how MNF command and components will achieve the operational end-state. It will also include a comprehensive approach to support of cooperation with other elements (DIME of partners and host nation) and stakeholders in the AO. Tasks, capabilities, communications, deployment, sustainment, Strategic Communications support plans, time estimations and maintaining the MNF reserve will all be critical components of the narrative. Finally, in refining the narrative, branches and sequels will become apparent. These types of plans are defined on the next slide. Things to be certain of when constructing the sketch are to address the “Big Six,” show friendly and enemy actions in the graphic depiction, and display tasks, phasing and task organization. Refinements are based on results of steps 8-10 26

Step 12: Branches & Sequels
Branch – a contingency option built into the basic plan. Used for changing mission, orientation, or direction of movement of a force in order to aid operational success based on anticipated events, opportunities, or disruptions caused by threat actions/reaction. Answers the “What if…?” questions, is usually located within a particular phase, and is immediate in nature (C3) Sequel – a major operation that follows current operation. Plans are based on possible outcomes (success, stalemate or defeat) associated with current operation. Normally planned for the “next” phase of operations and is long-term in nature (C5) 27

Step 13: COA Brief Outline
Intelligence Overview (C2) Updated OIPE Enemy COAs: most likely, most dangerous COA Presentations (Planning Groups) Updated facts and assumptions Review HHQ Mission and Intent Review approved CTF Mission and Intent COA statements and sketches Command and control recommendations Summary of each COA Rationale for each COA Risks associated with each COA Summarize / emphasize distinction among COAs Recommended COAs in priority for war-gaming Additional Information (other brief attendees) Feedback, updated facts and assumptions, if available Build the brief. The tested and refined COA is ready for the Commander. This brief is intended to seek the Commander’s approval for and guidance on follow-on planning. Prior to the briefing, the OPT should coordinate with National Command Elements of participating nations within MNF command and the component commanders in search of full support for the possible COA. Not only will this strengthen staff and component agreement in follow-on work but it will also facilitate component parallel planning and identify areas of concern and allow for adaptation at this early stage. This is the recommended agenda for the COA Development Brief to the Commander according to the CTF Master Training Guide. 28

Receive Commander’s Guidance
Step 13: Receive Commander’s Guidance Commander’s options: Approve COAs for further analysis Direct revisions to COAs Direct development of additional COAs Direct which threat COA (most likely &/or most dangerous) has priority for war-gaming These are some of the types of guidance a Commander will normally provide at the end of the COA development brief. At a minimum he should approve COAs for further analysis, signaling that it is time to move on to the next step in the planning process (COA Analysis). 29

Step 14: Publish Approved COAs
CTF Planning Staff CTF Components Publish approved COAs to enable components to conduct concurrent planning. Warning Order #1 Mission Analysis Warning Order #2 COA Development Mission Analysis Planning Guidance COA Development COA Analysis The Staff will continue to revise the Staff Estimates first developed during Mission Analysis, now focused according to the COAs under development. While this is listed as a sequential step, it is actually an action taking place concurrently to the other steps. COA Analysis COA Comparison COA Comparison Warning Order #3 COA Selection Plan / Order Development Plan / Order Development 30

Review Organize the CPG/COA Teams
Review the Situation (OIPE, Problem Framework, Commander’s Planning Guidance & Intent, Commander’s Operational Design) Develop Potential Solutions & Required Capabilities Develop COA Statements Review Command & Control (C2) Options Review/Establish MNF AOR /AOINF /AOI Geographic Boundaries Develop a COA Sketch with Supporting Narrative Review COA for Validity Review COA for Totality Risk Analysis Logistics Staff Estimate Refine COA Sketch and Supporting Narrative COA Brief Agenda Publish Approved COAs Here is a step by step method for COA Development. While the steps of Mission Analysis do not necessarily have to be completed in the presented order, it is recommended that these steps be followed sequentially as much as possible. 31

Review Next step. 32

Discussion

MDMP-M Step 2: Course of Action Development

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "MDMP-M Step 2: Course of Action Development"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

MDMP-M Step 2: Course of Action Development

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "MDMP-M Step 2: Course of Action Development"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback