1. Campaign Planning Process Guide / Brief Template
CTF PACIFIC
Campaign Planning Process Guide / Brief Template
Date
UNCLASSIFIED

2. Note
This guide has been developed as a tool to guide CCTF PACIFIC, Staff and Component Planners in the conduct of Campaign Planning.
Refer to MNF SOP Part B, Chapter 2, Annex B, Appendix 4, Tab B.

3. Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping
Conduct scoping per the Step 1 Scoping Agenda
Essential Strategic Guidance:
(Fill in)

4. Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping
Knowledge Gaps (what do we NOT know):
(Fill In)

5. Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping
Time Appreciation (deliverables):
Major Milestones to plan:
Capture my guidance for “Commander’s Scoping” in a confirmation brief to be developed during the allotted Step 1 Scoping time
Finalize the Actor / Stakeholder Matrix & update the draft OIPE Analysis during Step 2
Complete the Mission Analysis Template (all 3 sections) filled out during Step 3A
Complete the S-COG Analysis Template & conduct a confirmation brief with major info contained in Warning Order 2 (filled out during Step 3B)

6. Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping
Time Appreciation (deliverables):
Major Milestones to plan:
Short brief explaining the Campaign Plan Schematic & the Decisive Point Paragraphs
Completed Decisive Point Matrix identifying SEs (with SEs & other elements completed)
Brief the following items contained in the Campaign Plan Directive:
Mission
CTF Intent & Operational End State
Narrative description of HOW the CTF & Components will conduct the Campaign Plan
Updated Command Relations

7. Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping
Time Appreciation (deliverables):
Major Milestones to plan:
Short confirmation planning session with CCTF for approval of prioritized SEs
Develop, analyze & compare COAs for a DRAFT Decision Brief no later than ______.

8. Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping
Operational / Battle Rhythm Guidance:
Fill In

9. Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping
Readiness Guidance:
Fill In

10. Step 1 – Commander’s Scoping
Planning Process Guidance:
CTF Components (CFLCC, CFMCC, CFACC, CSOTF & NCEs) fully integrate into CTF HQ Planning Effort
CTF C3 FOPS – conduct branch planning & back-brief the DCCTF & COS on your branch plans by ____.
CTF C5 PLANS – will be the main focus of my efforts, I desire a pre-brief on the COA Decision Brief by ____.
Schedule other back-briefs as required per the timeline appreciation.

11. Step 2 – Review of the Situation
Placeholder for Actor / Stakeholder Matrix

12. Step 2 – Review of the Situation
Placeholder for update of relevant data in the OIPE

13. Step 3A – Mission Analysis
Placeholder for Mission Analysis Template
Mission Analysis Template section
Summary of Mission Analysis section
Issues Register section

14. Step 3B – S-COG Analysis
Placeholder for S-COG Analysis Template

15. Step 3B – S-COG Analysis
Major items contained in Warning Order 2

16. Step 3C – Evaluation of Factors
Major RELEVANT known facts & conditions that influence the development of the Concept of Operations
Are there any limitations that bound the CCTF’s CONOPS?
Restraints – things the CTF cannot do
Constraints – things the CTF must do
Factors that impact ops (weather, ROE, infrastructure, forces available, etc.)

17. Step 4A – Develop the Campaign Plan Framework
Placeholder for the Campaign Schematic

18. Step 4A – Develop the Campaign Plan Framework
Narrative description of the Campaign Plan

19. Step 4A – Develop the Campaign Plan Framework
Placeholder for the DP Paragraph

20. Step 4B – DP Analysis & SE Identification
Filled out DP Matrix
SE OPT (Lead OPT) identifies all SEs from DPs
Subordinate OPTs analyze the SEs & identify the elements of the SE (see matrix)

21. Step 4C – Campaign Plan Evaluation
Validation conducted with CCTF (no brief required or specific product required)

22. Step 4D – Produce the Campaign Plan
Brief the following items contained in the Campaign Plan Directive:
Mission
CCTF Intent & Operational End State
Narrative description of HOW the CTF & Components will conduct the Campaign Plan
Updated Command Relations

23. Step 4E – Determine Prioritized SEs
Short confirmation planning session with CCTF for approval of prioritized SEs

24. Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution
Develop, analyze & compare COAs for a DRAFT Decision Brief Thursday PM.
See following slides for format

25. Course of Action Development, Analysis &
MPAT TEMPEST EXPRESS-11
CTF PACIFIC
Course of Action Development, Analysis &
Comparison Brief
Date

26. COA Development

27. Course of Action Development
The COA is a broad statement of possible ways the CTF can accomplish its mission
WHO will accomplish essential tasks
WHAT is the type of mission to be conducted
WHEN the operation must begin or must be completed
WHERE the assigned areas of operation (AOs) within the JOA are
WHY or the purpose of the operations
HOW or the method of conducting the operation using major available resources

28. Additional Considerations
Develop Initial COAs
Additional Considerations
Review mission analysis/CCTF guidance
Develop plans to integrate the joint environment
Focus on Centers of Gravity and Decisive Points
Identify sequencing and phasing for each COA
Identify main and supporting efforts
Identify component level missions/tasks
Develop IO/IW support items
Develop initial COA sketches and statements
Initial COAs: Ways the CTF can accomplish “essential tasks”

29. Purpose of Brief Present COAs in accordance with Comd guidance
Seek guidance on:
COAs to be fully developed
COA Modifications
COAs to be Wargamed
Threat COAs to be wargamed against
COA Comparison criteria

30. HHQ MISSION & INTENT Mission – Strategic End State –
Commander’s Intent
Purpose –
Method –
End State –

31. CTF MISSION & INTENT Restated Mission Statement –
Operational End State –
Commander’s Intent
Purpose –
Method –
End State –

32. ASSUMPTIONS

33. COA 1 Statement

34. COA 1 CONOPS
Narrative (systems approach)

35. COA 1 Task Organization

36. COA 1 Phase I
DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

37. COA 1 Phase I CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

38. COA 1 Phase II
DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

39. COA 1 Phase II CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

40. COA 1 Phase III DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

41. COA 1 Phase III CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

42. COA 1 Phase IV
DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

43. COA 1 Phase IV CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

44. COA 1 Phase V
DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

45. COA 1 Phase V CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

46. COA 1 Risks

47. COA 2 Statement

48. COA 2 CONOPS
Narrative (systems approach)

49. COA 2 Task Organization

50. COA 2 Phase I
DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

51. COA 2 Phase I CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

52. COA 2 Phase II
DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

53. COA 2 Phase II CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

54. COA 2 Phase III DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

55. COA 2 Phase III CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

56. COA 2 Phase IV
DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

57. COA 2 Phase IV CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

58. COA 2 Phase V
DPs influenced in this phase
SEs achieved in this phase

59. COA 2 Phase V CTF HQ: Component:
Phase begins with……. Purpose is to ………….. Main Effort is to ………….. Phase ends when …………….

60. COA 2 Risks

61. COA Analysis

62. Staff Recommendations
Threat COAs to be Wargamed Against:
COA 1 (Most Likely):
COA 2 (Most dangerous):

63. Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Example Action / Reaction / Counteraction
REACTION
/CONSEQUENCE
ACTION
COUNTERACTION
1. The “action-reaction/threat consequence-counteraction” technique is an excellent tool to force us to think through each action and enemy reaction/threat consequences, and how the COA may have to be modified. It notes advantages, weaknesses of, and necessary improvements to the course of action.
2. Normally, a C3 or C5 representative identifies the initial friendly action. The staff identifies the full range of operational actions that comprise the initial action.
3. A C2 rep helps identify the enemy reaction or for HA/DR the threat consequences.
4. The staff then determines the counteraction in all areas. The counteraction can begin the sequence again as a new action, or a separate new action can begin the sequence.

64. Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Example Simplified Synchronization Matrix
ACTOR
EVENT
COMMENT
EVENT
COMMENT
EVENT
COMMENT
EVENT
COMMENT
CTF
CARFOR
CNAVFOR
CAFFOR
1. Here is an example of a simplified synchronization matrix.
2. Events can be numbered or given short names. Comments can include the following:
-- Identification as critical event
-- Possible branch ideas
-- Key weaknesses
-- Additional requirements such as forces or logistics
3. The forces shown under the Actor column are only an example. The matrix that we actually use should include any components or organizations that help define the event.
CMARFOR
CSOTF
CPOTF

65. Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Example Synchronization Matrix
TIME CONTINUOUS OR SINGLE EVENT
PROBABLE THREAT
DECISION POINTS
CRITICAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
OPN MOVEMENT AND MANEUVER
OPN FIREPOWER
OPN PROTECTION
OPN INFORMATION
OPN INTEL
OPN SUPPORT
ARFOR/LAND COMPONENT/CFLCC
MARFOR/LAND COMPONENT/CFLCC
NAVFOR/MARITIME/CFMCC
AFFOR/AIR COMPONENT/CFACC
CSOTF
OTHERS
D-DAY/
H-HOUR
D + 1
D + 2 F U N C T I O A R E S
1. One tool to record the results of our wargamming and to synchronize the course of action over a number of different parameters is a synchronization matrix. The matrix depicts the time of the event and the probable threat against which the course of action is being wargamed. It reflects the contributions of the components and the functional areas. The synchronization matrix should be adapted to the situation. C O M P N E T S

66. Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Example Analysis Worksheet
CRITICAL EVENT:
SEQ-
UENCE
NUMBER
ACTION
REACTION/
THREAT
CONSE-
QUENCES
COUNTER-
ACTION
ASSETS
TIME
DECISION
POINT
CCIR
REMARKS
1. One way to record all pertinent data gained from the war game is the wargame worksheet. Each sheet identifies a critical event for the headquarters conducting the wargame.
2. Using the columns on the worksheet, identify and list in sequence the following:
- The tasks (actions)
- The assets (allocated forces) used
- The expected consequences
- The counteractions and the assets used
- The total assets required for the task
- And the estimated time required to accomplish the task.
3. You can also make remarks regarding the advantages and disadvantages based upon the results of the analysis.

67. COA Comparison

68. Test the Validity of Each COA
Test for suitability
Test for feasibility
Test for acceptability
Ensure COAs are distinct (variety)
Test for completeness

69. Test the Validity of Each COA
Validity Criteria
COA 1
Name
COA 2
Suitable
Y/N
Feasible
Acceptable
Distinct
Complete

70. SEs Met by each COA
SEs Met
COA 1
Name
COA 2 SE
Y / N / ?

71. COA Advantages & Disadvantages COA Advantages Disadvantages COA 1

72. Staff Recommendations
Recommended COA Comparison Criteria:

73. Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Positive / Neutral / Negative Comparison
Comparison Criteria
COA # 1
COA # 2
COA # 3
Remarks
Rapid Delivery - + -2 + 1 - +
Critical Needs
Smooth Integration
Smooth Transition
Example
Simplicity
1. Shown here is an example of a positive-neutral-negative matrix. This type of matrix provides general assessments that reflect the degree to which a particular course of action reflects selected criteria.
2. When a course of action just meets the criteria or governing factor definition, it is assigned a value of zero. If it exceeds the criteria requirements, it receives a plus. If it falls short of meeting the criteria, then it is given a minus.
3. The advantage of this method is its mathematical simplicity. However, similar to the descriptive comparison method, the results of the comparison do not reflect relative weighting of criteria. Thus, this method is best employed when all of the criteria are of equal importance.
4. The other disadvantage of this method is that the justification of the values assigned must be recorded separately in order for the staff to use the matrix as the basis for its recommendation to the commander, and to draft that section of the Commander’s Estimate where the comparison is presented.
Force Protection
Flexibility
Totals

74. Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Unweighted Scale
COA # 1
COA # 2
COA # 3
Remarks
Governing Criteria
Rapid Delivery 3 2 1 3 2 3 19
Critical Needs 3
Smooth Integration 3
Smooth Transition 3
Example
Simplicity 2
Force Protection
1. In the weighted comparison method, the staff assigns a numerical value to each factor. The course of action with the highest numerical score is considered the best. We will discuss two techniques under this method.
2. In the weighted scale technique, shown here, each criterion is assigned a number from a scale. You can use scales of, for example, 1 to 5 or 1 to 10. The higher the number, the greater the value. Values reflect strengths and weaknesses of each course of action relative to each of the criterion. For example, the Task Force BAYANIHAN staff used a simple 1-3 scale. One of its criteria, the rapid delivery of relief goods, was assigned a value of three for course of actions 1 and 2, and a value of two for COA 3. This means, that COAs 1 and 2 are superior to COA 3 regarding this first criterion.
3. The advantage of this technique of weighted comparison is that greater discrimination can be made in assigning values to each COA for each criterion than in the descriptive and “positive-neutral-negative comparison methods, especially if the scales have a wide range, like 1 to However, similar to the descriptive and “positive-neutral-negative” comparison methods, the weighted scale technique does not account for the relative importance of individual criterion.
4. The disadvantage of this technique is that, like the positive-neutral-negative method, the justification for the values assigned must be recorded separately. 2
Flexibility 2
Totals 15 18

75. Step 5 – Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Weighted Criteria & Scale
Governing Criteria
WT.
COA # 1
COA # 2
COA # 3
Remarks
Rapid Delivery 3 3 9 3 9 2 6
Critical Needs 2 3 6 3 6 2 4
Smooth Integration 2 2 4 3 6 3 6
Smooth Transition 1
Example 2 3 3 3 3
Simplicity 1 2 2 2 2 3 3
Force Protection
1. The second weighted technique for course of action comparison prioritizes the criteria by assigning a “weight” or value to each based on the commander’s guidance or staff discussion.
2. Weight the criteria before the initial comparison to avoid “gaming” or compromising the results.
3. 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 of relief goods and services is his most important factor in this operation, followed by meeting the critical needs of the population and smooth integration of the multinational forces. Applying weights to the criteria, course of action number 2 has the highest score,
4. versus course of action number 3 having the highest unweighted score.
5. 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.
6. 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. 1 2 2 2 2 3 3
Flexibility 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 6
Totals 15 26 18 30 19 28

76. CTF Commander’s Guidance
COA _ approved

77. Discussion

78. Enhancing Multinational Operations
Backup Slides
Enhancing Multinational Operations