1. MDMP-M Step 4: Course of Action Comparison
Reference: MNF SOP Version 3.1
MDMP-M Step 4:
Course of Action Comparison
Multinational Planning Augmentation Team
Mobile Training Team (MPAT MTT)
07 December 2017

2. Purpose To define Course of Action (COA) comparison
To describe COA comparison’s role in the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process
Discuss associated task steps
Identify products resulting from COA Comparison
References
Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP)
PURPOSE OF THIS BLOCK IS TO TEACH WAYS TO ANALYZE COURSES OF ACTION, OR COAs. A COA IS A BROAD STATEMENT OF POSSIBLE WAYS (OPERATIONS) AND MEANS (FORCES) BY WHICH THE CTF MIGHT ACHIEVE THE OPERATIONAL END STATE OF THE ASSIGNED MISSION.
I’LL DISCUSS WHERE COURSE OF ACTION ANALYSIS FALLS IN THE CRISIS ACTION PLANNING, OR CAP, PROCESS AND SOME KEY PLANNING CONCEPTS TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU ANALYZE COAS.
THE MAJORITY OF THIS BRIEF WILL COVER THE 8 TASK STEPS TO ANALYZING OPERATIONAL-LEVEL COAs.
COA ANALYSIS CAN ALSO BE REFERRED TO AS WARGAMING. 2

3. MDMP-M Steps
Now, we have moved into Step #4 COA Comparison. It follows the COA Analysis in which each COA was evaluated for effectiveness against each threat COA. As always, COA Comparison feeds off of and fuels the refinement of the Operational Design. 3

4. Objective process needing previous steps to provide governing factors
COA Comparison
Facilitated staff discussion
Compare friendly courses of action against a set of established criteria – not against each other
Identify and recommend the COA that has the highest probability of success against the threat COA that is of the most concern to the Commander
The COA Comparison considers each COA independently against the governing factors – set by the Commander and staff – to evaluate the COAs for probability of success against the threat COAs and toward the military end-state.
COAs are not compared directly to each other in this process but are, rather, individually evaluated against the criteria established by the staff.
It is this evaluation that will provide a framework for direct comparison and selection.
Generally, the Comparison is a facilitated staff discussion. It is normally led by the joint planning group representative, usually the C/J3 or C/J5, and includes the key staff principals. This discussion should also include multinational force component representatives, when they’re available.
Objective process needing previous steps to provide governing factors 4

5. Comparison still includes direct reference to Commander’s Intent
Why compare COAs?
To seek the COA that...
Gives Commander maximum flexibility
Limits enemy Commander’s freedom of action (limits effect of threat, suffering, etc. for HA/DR missions)
Has the highest probability of success within the constraints of operational factors
Comparison still includes direct reference to Commander’s Intent 5

6. COA Comparison Conditions
Starting Conditions
MNF Commander has a good idea of potential options for mission accomplishment
Advantages and disadvantages of each proposed COA have been identified
Commander has notified CPG of comparison criteria
Ending Conditions
COAs are ranked and compared to arrive at a recommended COA 6

7. COA Comparison Update governing factors Gather staff estimates
Review advantages and disadvantages
Compare each COA against criteria
Compare COA rankings against each other
COA Review with Commander
Recommend COA
As in all other steps of Crisis Action Planning, steps must be done sequentially to ensure that all of the required outputs emerge. 7

8. Steps 1-3: Comparison Criteria
Gather inputs from:
Operationally significant “governing” factors that emerge during COA analysis and war gaming
Advantages & disadvantages
Staff estimates
Commander’s intent / guidance
Fixed values for joint ops (principles of war, fundamentals of joint and coalition warfare, elements of operational art)
Critical factors identified during the analysis such as logistics support, political constraints, etc.
The first steps in COA Comparison are essentially information and framework gathering items. They bring together all of the significant measures against which a COA will have to stand. They include the governing factors that emerged from war-gaming, staff estimates the CPG requests in order to fill in out-standing information gaps, the advantages and disadvantages that emerged from war-gaming and any comparison criteria the Commander hands down that are relevant to Operational Design.
The Commander’s criteria most often are along the lines of: Lines of Operations, defining aspects, Commander’s Intent, mission success criteria, Principles of War/MOOTW, joint and multinational functions.
The staff should agree on the criteria to be used in COA comparison. Criteria are many and varied and no standard set applies in all situations. CDRs Guidance, restraints, constraints, political sensitivities, and time available may lend themselves in determining the criteria selected. Remember, each COA is to be compared to the same set of criteria (not to each other). 8

9. Keep number of criteria as small as possible
Steps 1-3: Comparison Criteria
Before starting the actual comparison:
Carefully define the criteria
Common understanding
Reduce subjectivity
Eliminate redundancy
Weight each criterion
Limit amount of governing factors
Set scale criteria (is high or low better?)
Before starting the actual comparison, define each of the criterion. In some cases the commander may not only personally determine the criteria, but may also define them as well.
Criteria must be defined in precise terms to reduce subjectivity and ensure that the understanding of each criterion during the comparison process remains constant for each course of action. The common understanding of how each criterion is defined may be more challenging in joint or multinational operations, where headquarters staff officers may not share a common perspective or may not have the same level of language comprehension.
As an option, if the staff considers certain criteria to be more important than others, a weighting scheme can be applied for each criterion. This weighting should be carefully applied before beginning the comparison process.
Keep number of criteria as small as possible 9

10. Clarity and brevity reduce miscommunication
Steps 1-3:
Comparison Criteria Examples
Force protection:
MNF forces have required assets to protect deployed forces from enemy attacks
Controls escalation:
MNF actions do not cause enemy force to increase in escalation
Postures forces for follow on operations:
Speed of response to the enemy action (faster is better)
Defeats enemy action:
Overwhelming combat power favors MNF
Deters enemy:
Enemy perception of MNF combat power forward (more is better)
Regional opinion:
Long-term impacts of COA on U.S. regional influence
These are some examples to demonstrate how criteria can be worded with regards to requirements in Intent, Design and estimates.
Clarity and brevity reduce miscommunication 10

11. Summarize key points to assist Commander’s decision-making
Step 4:
Compare COA Against Criteria
Options for Comparison
Positive-neutral-negative comparison
Un-weighted matrix comparison
Weighted matrix comparison
Descriptive comparison
With comparison criteria identified and written, the staff proceeds to the comparison itself. Remember that this comparison is still COA against criteria, not COA to COA.
Each COA is ranked against the criteria and an overall ranking is established based on the fit of the COA to the criteria. The following slides will show possible matrices for the comparison.
The comparison method used by headquarters staff is typically directed in CDR’s Planning Guidance.
The method selected also depends on the planning time available and staff expertise. The bottom line is that these distinct methods are simply different ways to organize staff thoughts, reduce subjectivity, and help prepare a coherent presentation of the staff’s course of action analysis.
Summarize key points to assist Commander’s decision-making 11

12. Step 4: Positive-Neutral-Negative
In the positive-neutral-negative comparison method, the staff determines whether or not each COA does or does not meet the criteria. It does not take into account the relative weights or importance of each individual criteria but simply determines which COA meets MOST of the requirements. Any justification for the values assigned must be recorded separately. 12

13. Step 4: Unweighted Comparison
In an un-weighted comparison, the staff assesses each COA with regard to each criterion on a scale of 1-3 or 1-5 or even 1-10, wherein the higher number indicates greater fulfillment of the criterion.
Values reflect strengths and weaknesses of each course of action relative to each of the criterion.
It must be recalled that an un-weighted scale technique, as with a positive-neutral-negative comparison, does not account for the relative importance of individual criterion. In addition, the justification for the values assigned must be recorded separately. 13

14. Step 4: Weighted Comparison
In a weighted technique for course of action comparison, the CPG prioritizes the criteria by assigning a “weight” or value to each based on the commander’s guidance or staff discussion.
The weighting occurs before the initial comparison to avoid “gaming” or compromising the results.
Weighting of the governing factors can have a significant direct impact on the results of the comparison process. Here, the commander has decided that “rapid delivery” is the most important factor in this operation, followed by “critical needs” and “smooth integration.” Applying weights to the criteria, course of action number 2 has the highest score, versus course of action number 3 having the highest un-weighted score.
The advantage of this technique is that the relative value of each criterion is reflected in the results due to weighting them. Coupled with the weighted scale, this technique provides for great discrimination in assigning values to each COA.
One disadvantage to this technique is it tends to be time consuming. Not only does the staff need to discuss the scale to be used, but it must also reach agreement on the relative weights to be assigned to each criterion, unless these have already been directed by the commander. Another disadvantage is that the justification for the weights assigned must be recorded separately. 14

15. Step 4: Descriptive Comparison
Finally, a CPG may use a descriptive method of comparison. The staff simply plugs into the matrix the advantages and disadvantages that emerged in gaming. The course of action with most advantages and fewest disadvantages should be the one the staff recommends to the commander for adoption.
The strength of the descriptive comparison matrix is that the results correlate well with the Commander’s Estimate format (Part F, Chapter 3, Annex C) wherein the commander justifies his recommendation to the Supported Strategic Commander. It also may be the preferred method when all of the criteria are considered to be of equal importance.
In cases where the criteria are not of equal importance, the disadvantage of using this method is that the relative importance of each criterion is not recorded on the matrix and is not self-evident. 15

16. COA Comparison & Review
Steps 5 & 6:
COA Comparison & Review
COA scores are compared
Small-group COA review with Commander will allow comments before formal recommendation
Subordinate/component commanders or MNF partners may have insight or perspective to add that should be considered before formal recommendation
The CPG should give the Force Commander, NCEs of contributing nations and MNF component commanders an opportunity to comment, insert thoughts or give perspective.
In a small group review – which is at the Commander’s discretion based on time and other factors – the Commander will note the CPG’s recommendations and take comments from subordinate commanders ahead of any formal recommendation.
The CPG members involved in this small group review will report the Commander’s wishes and insight to the larger CPG in preparation for a formal COA recommendation brief.
Such considerations of the Commander and subordinates supports a comprehensive, whole team planning effort.
Pre-recommendation brief review allows for whole team to give buy in or perspective 16

17. Step 7: Recommend a COA Determine a recommended COA
C3 or C5 reviews and records individual staff recommendations
In the event of indecision, the staff can consider COA modification
Decision does not need to be solely based on math
Brief the Commander
Sample Agenda
Purpose, Agenda, Enemy Situation, Friendly Situation, Higher Mission, CTF Mission, Changes to Assumptions (etc.), COA1, COA2, COA3, COA Summary, COA Analysis, COA Comparisons, COA Recommendation
Commander Approval or Modification
The final step in COA Comparison is the staff’s course of action recommendation to the Coalition Task Force commander.
The staff compares the courses of action using the criteria and the comparison method they have selected. The staff then determines which course of action best satisfies the criteria, and prepares a decision brief for the commander. This brief recommends a course of action, explains the group’s rationale for picking that particular course of action, and requests the commander’s decision or further planning guidance.
The director of the planning effort, generally the C/J5 or C/J3, reviews and records the recommendations of individual functional planners, for example, personnel, logistics, communications, civil affairs, and so on. The functional estimates may not all agree with the consolidated course of action recommendation that is given to the commander.
There may be an instance where the staff is unable to recommend a specific course of action because analysis and comparison do not favor one COA over another. If this happens, the staff would then consider modifications to or combinations of existing courses of action, and solicit further guidance from the chief of staff. 17

18. COA Comparison Update governing factors Gather staff estimates
Review advantages and disadvantages
Compare each COA against criteria
Compare COA rankings against each other
COA Review with Commander
Recommend COA
Course of action comparison is an objective process whereby COAs are considered independently of each other and evaluated and compared against a set of criteria. Consequently, courses of action are not compared to each other, but rather they are individually evaluated against the criteria that are established by the commander.
Generally, facilitated staff discussion is used to identify the particular course of action the staff will recommend to the commander. This discussion is normally led by the joint planning group representative, usually the C3 or C5, and should include the key staff principles. Each staff section and component should rate the courses of action using the established criteria and brief the reasons for their rating. 18

19. The Commander Selects the Course of Action
COA Comparison Summary
Key Points
Facilitates the Commander’s decision making process
Harnesses the collective wisdom of the experience resident on the staff
Evaluates the key governing factor.
If the senior planner knows which COA will be chosen before you begin comparing, you have not done your job in presenting options to the commander
The Commander Selects the Course of Action
Finally, here are some key points to remember: if conducted properly, course of action comparison will:
Facilitate the commander’s decision making process by balancing the ends, means, ways, and risks of each course of action
Harness the collective wisdom of the most experienced war fighters and planners on the staff
Include a thorough evaluation of the key governing factors
Please note: this is very important- the commander should be making the decision, not the senior person on the staff. The commander may not select the staff’s recommended course of action. He makes his decision based upon experience, his own analysis, judgment, discussion with component commanders and the commanders at higher headquarters, as well as his staff’s recommendation. The commander makes the final decision check for the multinational force. 19

20. MDMP-M Steps
Now, we have moved from Step #4 COA Comparison. As always, COA Comparison feeds off of and fuels the refinement of the Operational Design. COA Approval and Commander’s Estimate is the next step in the MDMP-M Process. 20

21. Discussion

22. Guidance for COA Comparison
Use the following governing factors / criteria for comparison:
Speed – in taking supporting actions which enable delivery of relief goods and services (appropriate disaster relief ; through appropriate agencies / organizations)
Economy of force – maximize the benefit with the most efficient use of force capabilities which supports the delivery of disaster relief 22

23. Guidance for COA Comparison
Conduct “positive – neutral – negative” comparison
Also provide a Descriptive Comparison 23