campaign planning process step 5 – linking planning to execution
Post on 17-Jan-2018
224 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related