Campaign Planning Process Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution
29 March 2006 UNCLASSIFIED Learning Objectives This module will cover Step 5 of the Campaign Planning Process. Aim of Step: The focus of planning shifts from the development of identifying WHAT conditions need be influenced to identifying HOW to influence the conditions.In other words: the focus shifts to identifying the actions (tasks) to be executed by the CTF and Components. Starting Conditions: Warning Order 3 has been published. CTF Components have completed their detailed mission analysis. Learning Objectives Basic Process:
During this step, the following major actions will occur: CTF Components analyze SEs & determine tactical COAs to achieve prioritized SEs. CTF Components present Component COAs to CCTF. CCTF & CTF Components develop, analyze, & compare possible CTF COAs. CCTF selects the preferred CTF COA. Learning Objectives Ending Conditions: End Product of the Step: None
The CCTF and Components identify the preferred CTF COA. End Product of the Step:None Preliminary Notes Planning (WHAT) is fundamentally linked to Execution (HOW) in this Step. DPs & SEs (Campaign Plan Directive) are the framework for initially identifying CTF & Component activities (tasks) that will be outlined in COA Development, Analysis, & Comparison, and ultimately recommended to higher headquarters in the following planning step. Preliminary Notes Planning (WHAT) is fundamentally linked to Execution (HOW) in this Step. Using a systems-based approach to the crisis, with a clear identification of DPs in the enduring Campaign Plan Directive & identification of subsequent prioritized SEs, affords the CTF & Components with the FLEXIBILITY to adjust activities according to changes in the environment (via reprioritization of SEs). Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Main Actions
CTF Components analyze SEs & determine tactical COAs to influence the prioritized SEs: Components conduct their own mission analysis and planning, based on the prioritized list of SEs articulated in Warning Order 3. Components assess what activity they can perform to assist in the partial or total attainment of the prioritized SEs. Some SEs will require very limited or no component activity; however, the CTF may have to take action to coordinate with respective actor / stakeholders for accomplishment of some non-military supported SEs that are vital to helping achieve the Operational End State. Several Component COAs will be developed for possible application against the prioritized SEs. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Main Actions
CTF Components present tactical COAs to CCTF. CCTF and CTF Components develop, analyze & compare CTF COAs. The steps leading to CTF COA selection, follow the traditional COA Development, Analysis & Comparison process.These actions will include participation by the CCTF, CPG, Components, NCEs, and other actors / stakeholders, as required. This step is accomplished quickly due to the extensive prior planning involvement of the CCTF & Components.This process consists of: CTF COA Development using CTF component recommendations. CTF COA Analysis using gaming procedures as normally done in the traditional Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) but now based on the Campaign Plan Directive & prioritized SEs. CTF COA Comparison as traditionally done in MDMP. CCTF selects the CTF COA. COA Development UNCLASSIFIED Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
COA Development Steps: Organize CPG / COA Groups Develop of COA Statement & Sketch Command & Control Options CTF AO Geographic Parameters Test for Validity Refine COA Statements & Sketch CCTF & Component backbrief for approval & guidance Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
COA Statements address ways the CTF & Components can accomplish the 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) WHY or the purpose of the operations HOW or the method of conducting the operation using major available resources WHAT WILL THE COURSES OF ACTION CONTAIN? SEE SLIDE DONT CONFUSE WITH MISSION STATEMENT DEVELOPED DURING MISSION ANALYSIS - COA IS MORE DETAILED END PRODUCT OF TASK IS A SET OF COAS, APPROVED BY THE CCTF, AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BY THE STAFF COAS NEED NOT BE OVERLY DETAILED, BUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ANALYSIS (WARGAMING) Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
CTF HQ (Main Effort): Commence Information Operations (IO); support Strategic Communications plan; establish liaison with major actor stakeholders in AO; assess campaign plan progress. This phase includes the achievement of DPs 1 4. CFMCC: Secure key SLOCs. Commence maritime security operations (MSO). Secure SPODs. CFACC: Establish effective air support for CTF forces. Lift early entry forces into APODs. Support CTF Force Deployment. CFLCC: Secure APODs. Secure MSRs & Key Infrastructure. Secure CTF Operating Bases. CSOTF: Conduct ISR enabling early entry forces. Establish in-extremis Quick Reaction Force (QRF). 1. From the list of essential tasks we develop a carefully crafted mission statement containing the who, what, when, where, and why for the operation 2. Remember, we are at the operational level and need to keep our re-stated mission at this level. 3. Here is an example mission statement for Task Force BAYANIHAN.It provides the five Ws- who, what, when, where, why. 4. After we have written the restated mission, it is time to present the staffs mission analysis to the commander. Phase begins with Execution Orders from HHQ. Phase ends when initial prioritized Supporting Effects (SEs) for deployment & lodgment have been accomplished. Purpose is to rapidly that establish CTF INTERFARC in the AO as a credible force for restoring stability. Main Effort is to project CTF forces rapidly into the AO, ensure force protection, conduct & assess initial actions to achieve initial prioritized supporting effects that support attainment of the Operational End State. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
Each COA is tested for Validity: Test for suitability will it work? Test for feasibility is it possible? Test for acceptability is it (politically) acceptable? Test for distinctness are all the COAs different? Test for completeness do the COAs accomplish the mission? WHAT WILL THE COURSES OF ACTION CONTAIN? SEE SLIDE DONT CONFUSE WITH MISSION STATEMENT DEVELOPED DURING MISSION ANALYSIS - COA IS MORE DETAILED END PRODUCT OF TASK IS A SET OF COAS, APPROVED BY THE CCTF, AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BY THE STAFF COAS NEED NOT BE OVERLY DETAILED, BUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ANALYSIS (WARGAMING) Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
Test for suitability will it work? Does it accomplish the mission? Does it meet the Strategic Commanders & CCTFs intent? Does it allow the CTF to meet the conditions for the end state? Does it accomplish all the essential tasks? WHAT WILL THE COURSES OF ACTION CONTAIN? SEE SLIDE DONT CONFUSE WITH MISSION STATEMENT DEVELOPED DURING MISSION ANALYSIS - COA IS MORE DETAILED END PRODUCT OF TASK IS A SET OF COAS, APPROVED BY THE CCTF, AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BY THE STAFF COAS NEED NOT BE OVERLY DETAILED, BUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ANALYSIS (WARGAMING) Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
Test for feasibility is it possible? Does the CTF have the required resources to carry out the COA & accomplish the mission? Will those resources be available in the CTF AO in time? Forces / Capability Transportation Re-supply Facilities Can the COA be carried out within the physical environments constraints? WHAT WILL THE COURSES OF ACTION CONTAIN? SEE SLIDE DONT CONFUSE WITH MISSION STATEMENT DEVELOPED DURING MISSION ANALYSIS - COA IS MORE DETAILED END PRODUCT OF TASK IS A SET OF COAS, APPROVED BY THE CCTF, AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BY THE STAFF COAS NEED NOT BE OVERLY DETAILED, BUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ANALYSIS (WARGAMING) Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
Test for acceptability is it (politically) acceptable? Does it contain unacceptable risks? Does it take into account the limitations placed on the CTF? Does it contribute to the higher commanders strategic objectives? Can it be accomplished within external constraints, particularly ROE? Can it be accomplished against each enemy capability? WHAT WILL THE COURSES OF ACTION CONTAIN? SEE SLIDE DONT CONFUSE WITH MISSION STATEMENT DEVELOPED DURING MISSION ANALYSIS - COA IS MORE DETAILED END PRODUCT OF TASK IS A SET OF COAS, APPROVED BY THE CCTF, AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BY THE STAFF COAS NEED NOT BE OVERLY DETAILED, BUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ANALYSIS (WARGAMING) Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
Test for distinctness (variety) are all the COAs different? Are the COAs significantly different? From CCTFs perspective? From the Supported Strategic Commanders perspective? From the National Authorities perspective? COAs can be different when considering... Focus or direction of main effort Scheme of maneuver (land, air, maritime, special ops) Primary mechanism for mission accomplishment Task Organization Use of reserves WHAT WILL THE COURSES OF ACTION CONTAIN? SEE SLIDE DONT CONFUSE WITH MISSION STATEMENT DEVELOPED DURING MISSION ANALYSIS - COA IS MORE DETAILED END PRODUCT OF TASK IS A SET OF COAS, APPROVED BY THE CCTF, AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BY THE STAFF COAS NEED NOT BE OVERLY DETAILED, BUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ANALYSIS (WARGAMING) Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution Course of Action Development
Test for completeness do the COAs accomplish the mission? Are the COAs technically complete? Do the COAs adequately answer... WHO will execute it? WHAT type of action is contemplated? WHEN will it begin? WHERE will it take place? WHY key actions are required? HOW will it be accomplished? WHAT WILL THE COURSES OF ACTION CONTAIN? SEE SLIDE DONT CONFUSE WITH MISSION STATEMENT DEVELOPED DURING MISSION ANALYSIS - COA IS MORE DETAILED END PRODUCT OF TASK IS A SET OF COAS, APPROVED BY THE CCTF, AND AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BY THE STAFF COAS NEED NOT BE OVERLY DETAILED, BUT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN ENOUGH DETAIL TO ALLOW FOR PROPER ANALYSIS (WARGAMING) COA Analysis UNCLASSIFIED Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Purpose of COA Analysis: Evaluate each CTF COA as though executed against the MOST LIKELY and MOST DANGEROUS crisis / adversary COAs. This analysis takes into consideration what the CCTF considers the most significant & most influential actions. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
COA Analysis Steps: Organize CPG / COA Groups Determine the Gaming Assessment Method Determine how to Record / Display Gaming Results Conduct COA Analysis Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Gaming Checklist: Identify role players, recorders, and facilitators CPG Leader (assisted by CTF Staff & Components) represents CTF COA with: OIPE Mission, S-COG, & Staff Factor Analyses DP Analysis Matrix Prioritized SEs Matrix Actor / Stakeholder Matrix Campaign Plan Directive with Campaign Schematic Potential CTF Forces / Capabilities Red Cell represents crisis / threat reactions All Gaming Participants must Review & be familiar with the above CTF Planning Elements Here is a helpful checklist as you analyze or wargame each COA.Some of the items do not apply to humanitarian assistance or disaster response, or HA/DR operations, but may apply to peace operations. Identify role players, recorders, and facilitators. This is important so that the analysis is conducted properly and results are recorded. Review the assumptions, restated mission, and phases of the operation with all participants. This will help ensure that everyone has the same information before starting. The threat cell, usually played by a member of the J2 staff, paints, or lays down, the threat. The senior joint planning group leader, usually the C3 or his deputy, plays the role of the friendly forces. Review the command and control structure. Review the task force structure, by component and function, and what their actions are. If firepower is relevant, as perhaps in peace enforcement, make sure targets are prioritized, and who is providing the fires. Cover required intelligence action. Cover each of the support functions, and their actions for each COA. Interagency actions are critical, especially with HA/DR operations. For HA/DR, threat reactions might be the consequences if we fail to conduct a timely relief effort. For example, if one of our COAs involves the late delivery of building material for destroyed residences, and we are entering the monsoon season, the threat might be increased illness due to exposure to weather. For each phase, or movement of forces, record the decision points and other information as shown. This step is critical for our final analysis of each COA. Finally, look at possible threat reactions to our actions, and wargame what our counteraction will be.The action/reaction/counteraction worksheet, which will be discussed in a subsequent slide, is a tool to help us with this step. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Determine the Gaming Assessment Method: Depends on the time & resources available, staff expertise, & degree of desired resolution. Multiple or parallel assessments can be made & results will be compared. Gaming Methods: Deliberate Timeline Analysis Operational Phasing Framework Critical Event Analysis Combination of the Above Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Determine how to Record / Display Gaming Results: This provides a database from which to buildor modify CONOPS, Task Organization, Synchronize Activities, Refine COAS & assist in the preparation of follow-on OPLANs / OPORDs. Options include: Narrative Technique (Sentence / Paragraph Format). Sketch / Note Technique (with summarized notes concerning critical SEs, tasks, etc.). Gaming Worksheets (constructed to identify pertinent data for given time period, phase or critical event). Synchronization Matrix (allows the CPG to record results of gaming & synchronize the COA over a number of different parameters). Record gaming results, advantages / disadvantages, etc. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Conduct the COA Analysis: Conduct it in a deliberate fashion. Consider the actions of subordinates & major actors / stakeholders two echelons below. Process involves an action / reaction / counter-action sequence Goal: Capture the realities of the projected interplays of situational, environmental, or system factors within the COA to provide a view of the crisis situation for assessment of the COAs. For each phase or movement of forces, record the decision points, critical information requirements, branches, sequels, risks, & other key issues Revalidate Assumptions Revalidate Validity of COAs Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
Example Action / Reaction / Counteraction REACTION /CONSEQUENCE ACTION COUNTERACTION 1ST Priority is Provide Medical Support Large Population W/O Shelter increases sickness Modify TPFDD to allow CTF to provide shelter and prioritize medical care 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. 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 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 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. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Analysis
COA Advantages / Disadvantages COA 1 Advantages Disadvantages - Rapid delivery - Meets critical needs Modifications1.Assign national forces by sector 2.Lead nation provides comms w/robust LNOs - Rough integration of forces - Rough transition - Complex organization - Not flexible at all - Adequate force protection 1. One of the critical results of this wargaming process is the listing of advantages and disadvantages of the course of action.This information will be used later in the process to compare COAs. 2. Dont compare COAs against each other.Remember, the comparison should be against the probable threats. 3. As we look at these advantages and disadvantages we need to make modifications to the COA to minimize the disadvantages.Keep these modifications in mind as we might be able to apply these modifications to other courses of action. 4.Be careful on modifications. We do not want to modify the COAs so they all start to look alike. COA Comparison UNCLASSIFIED Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Purpose: Objectively compare friendly courses of action against a set of established criteria. Do NOT compare the COAs against each other! Identify & recommend the course of action that has the highest probability of success against the crisis / adversarial course of action. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
COA Comparison Steps: CTF Staff & Components update Factor Analysis. Each CTF Section & Components conduct their own COA Comparisons against (their own) established criteria prior to COA Comparison by the CPG. Select Comparison Criteria. Determine the Comparison Method. Conduct the Comparison. Record & brief results to CCTF. CCTF selects CTF COA. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Select the Comparison Criteria: Comparison Criteria must be relevant to the major aspects of the Campaign Plan. Examples: Related to themes of the Lines of Operation. Related to either major combat, crisis response contingencies / stability operations, or non-combat missions. Support CCTFs Intent. Related to the critical factors identified during Staff & Component's Factor Analysis. Principles of War / MOOTW. Elements of Operational Art. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Select the Comparison Criteria: Carefully & meticulously define the criteria. all must agree (common understanding). Reduce subjectivity. Eliminate redundant criteria. Weight each criterion (optional). Allow the CCTF the opportunity to approve the criteria prior to COA Comparison. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Determine the Comparison Method: The method is just a tool to organize thoughts & present data. Comparison matrices are not a substitute for honest assessment & detailed staff work. Examples: Description / Comparison. Positive Neutral Negative Comparison. Unweighted Scale. Weighted Criteria / Weighted Scale. Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Descriptive / Comparison COA ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES - Rapid delivery - Meets critical needs - Rough integration of forces - Rough transition - Complex organization - Not flexible at all - Adequate force protection COA1 - Rapid delivery - Meets critical needs - Smooth Integration - Smooth Transition - Complex organization - Less flexible - Adequate force protection COA2 1.Shown here is an example of the descriptive comparison matrix, using the criteria selected by a CTF staff: speed of delivery of assistance; satisfaction of critical needs; integration and organization of the force, and force protection. 2.With this method, describe each course of action, using the criteria, listing advantages and disadvantages, or strengths or weaknesses, in narrative or bullet format.The course of action with most advantages that and fewest disadvantages should be the one the staff recommends to the commander for adoption. 3. The advantage of using the descriptive comparison matrix is that the results correlate well with the format of paragraph 4 in the Commanders Estimate wherein the commander justifies his recommendation to the national command authorities.It also may be the preferred method when all of the criteria are considered to be of equal importance. 4. 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. - Smooth integration - Smooth transition - Simplest organization - Adequate force protection - Bestforce protection - Less rapid delivery - Does not meet all critical needs COA3 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 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 Commanders Estimate where the comparison is presented. Force Protection Flexibility Totals 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 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 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 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 thecriteria by assigning a weight or value to each based on the commanders 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 Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution COA Comparison
Record & brief results to CCTF. CCTF Selects the COA. CTF Staff Command Group CTF Components
Strategic Military Direction (HHQ Warning Order to JTF / CTF) 30% 50% 20% Steps 1 to 3 Steps 4 & 5 Steps 6 & 7 CTF Staff Command Group CTF Components 1 Commanders Scoping WARNO 1 2 Situation Review OIPE 3C Factor Analysis 3A Mission Analysis CTF Component Analysis Msn Analysis 3B S-COG Analysis WARNO 2 4A Develop the Campaign Framework 4B Decisive Point (DP) Analysis & Supporting Effect (SE) Development 4C Decisive Point (DP) Evaluation 4D Produce Campaign Plan Directive (C5) & FID (Staff) Campaign Plan 4E Determine Prioritized Supporting Effects (SEs) WARNO 3 5 Linking Planning to Execution Summary This step Links Planning to Execution.
It links the WHAT needs to be done (outlined in the Campaign Plan Directive) to the HOW it needs to be done (component tasks / activity). The CCTF selected COA must: Be in accordance with the Campaign Plan Directive Support CCTF guidance & intent Incorporate selected Component-developed tasks that accomplish the prioritized SEs Be suitable, feasible, & acceptable And help achieve the Operational End State This is a Component driven process with the CCTF acting as the integrator of efforts within the CTF command and within the IA community (civil governmental & UN / IOs / NGOs) Quiz Discussion UNCLASSIFIED Enhancing Multinational Operations
Backup Slides Enhancing Multinational Operations