Multinational Force Course of Action Comparison

MPAT SECRETARIAT

Multinational ForceCourse of Action Comparison

COALITION/COMBINED TASK FORCE TRAINING

Purpose

• Define Course of Action Comparison and its role in the crisis action planning process

• Discuss the associated task steps

• Provide lessons learned from previous exercises and operations

References

JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint OperationsJP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint Operations

JP 5-00.2 JTF Planning JP 5-00.2 JTF Planning Guidance & ProceduresGuidance & Procedures

MNF SOP First DraftMNF SOP First DraftMULTINATIONAL FORCE

STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES(MNF SOP)

FIRST DRAFT 1.2LAST UPDATE: 10 July 03

VCommander’s

Decision

Crisis Action Planning Process

CRISIS

ISituation

Development

IICrisis

Assessment

IVCourse of

ActionSelection

VExecutionPlanning

AND/OR

IIICourse of

ActionDevelopment

Commander’s Estimate Process

OPORD

Deployment Data Base

VIExecution

PlanningOrder

AlertOrder

WarningOrder

ExecuteOrder

IVComparison of OwnCourses of Action

IIIAnalysis of Opposing

Courses of Action

IICourse of Action

Development

IMission Analysis/Restated Mission

COA Comparison

• Purpose

– Objectively compare friendly courses of action against a set of established criteria

– Identify and recommend the course of action that has the highest probability of success against the threat or enemy course of action that is of the most concern to the commander

Why Compare COAs?

• To seek the COA that...

– Gives our commander the maximum flexibility

– Limits the enemy commander’s freedom of action (limits effect of threat, suffering, etc. for HA/DR missions)

– Determine which COA has the highest probability of success within the constraints of operational factors

• An Objective Process

– Facilitated discussion led by the chief of plans (C3 or C5)

– Participants include each of the key staff principles

COA Comparison

Task Steps

DetermineComparison Criteria

Construct the Comparison Method

Do the Comparisonand Record Data

Recommend a COAto the Commander

COA Comparison

Determine Comparison Criteria

• Those dominant or “governing”

factors that emerge during COA

analysis and wargaming that are

operationally significant





Determine Comparison Criteria

• Commander’s intent/guidance

• Fixed values for joint ops such as:

– Principles of war & MOOTW

– Fundamentals of joint and coalition warfare

– Elements of operational art

• Critical factors identified during the analysis such as logistics support, political constraints, etc.

May be ...

Comparison Criteria

• Commander’s Guidance

– Quick Deployment– Handover to Peacekeeping Operations (PKO)

force– Address Humanitarian Assistance (HA)

requirements

Comparison Criteria

• Principles of War– M ass– O bjective– O ffensive– S implicity– E conomy of Force– M aneuver– U nity of Command– S ecurity– S urprise– Unity of Effort– Restraint– Perseverance– Legitimacy

• Operational Art – Synergy– Simultaneity and Depth– Anticipation– Balance– Leverage– Tempo and Timing– Operational Reach– Forces and Functions– Arranging Operations– Centers of Gravity– Direct vs. Indirect– Decisive Points– Culmination– Termination

Comparison Criteria

• Rapid Delivery

• Critical Needs

• Integration

• Transition

• Simplicity

• Force Protection

• Flexibility

Notional Example

Comparison Criteria

• Carefully and meticulously define the criteria…

– all must agree (common understanding)

– reduce subjectivity

• Eliminate redundant criteria

• Weight each criterion (optional)

Before starting the actual comparison

… seeking well defined criteria …

Comparison Criteria

• Bad example:

– Rapid Delivery = get there fast

• Better example:

– Rapid Delivery = forces arrive at FSB

• Best example:

– Rapid Delivery = Combat forces RSO&I w/in 48 hours into JOA


• Descriptive Comparison

• Positive - Neutral - Negative Comparison

• Weighted Matrix Comparison

– Weighted Scale

– Weighted Criteria

Summarize key pointsAssist commander in making decisions





Descriptive Comparison

COA ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

COA 1

COA 2

COA 3

- Rapid delivery- Meets critical needs

- Rough integration of forces- Rough transition - Complex organization- Not flexible at all- Adequate force protection

- Smooth integration- Smooth transition- Simplest organization- Adequate force protection- Best force protection

- Complex organization- Less flexible- Adequate force protection

- Less rapid delivery- Does not meet all critical needs

- Rapid delivery- Meets critical needs- Smooth Integration- Smooth Transition

Positive - Neutral - Negative Comparison

COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3

Rapid DeliveryCritical NeedsSmooth IntegrationSmooth TransitionSimplicityForce ProtectionFlexibility

Comparison Criteria

Totals

Remarks

00-

0-

-+

-2

0+

0

0

0

0

0

1

-

+

0

-

+

0

0

0

Weighted Comparison (Weighted Scale)

COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3


Governing Criteria

Totals

Remarks

332

21

22

33

2

3

2

3

2

2

3

3

2

3

3

3

1915 18

Weighted Comparison (Weighted Scale/Weighted Criteria)

COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3


WT. Governing Criteria

Totals

Remarks

3 93

22

21

2

6

64

21

2 2

3

15 26

3

26

63 3

3

33

22

42

3

3

3 322

9 6

3

2 2111

3 3

18 30

3 6

19 28

2

1 2

Comparison Method

• The matrix is merely a tool to help– Organize thoughts– Present data

• The process is more important than the product

• The matrix is not a substitute for honest assessment and detailed staff work

Key Points

Lessons Learned

• Define the governing factors after you start comparing, bending definitions to support the intended COA

• Add criteria as you compare to ensure the intended COA wins

• Have redundant criteria that measure the same thing and support the intended COA

• At the end, identify a criterion that supports the throw-away COA so it does not look one-sided

• Compare first and then weight the criterion that supports the intended COA by as much as you need to win in a close comparison

...or...“Ways to Cook the Books”

COA Comparison

• INPUT

– Wargamed COAs

– Agreed upon criteria & comparison method

• OUTPUT

– Information for paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Commander’s Estimate

• Comparison of friendly COAs• Recommended COA





Recommend a COA

• C3 or C5 reviews and records individual staff recommendations – Commander guidance on criteria

weighting reviewed and incorporated• Staff determines which COA to

recommend• In the event of indecision

– Staff determines if COA modification would permit decision

– C3/C5 consults Chief of Staff for guidance or resolution





Determine a recommended COA

Recommend a COA

• Prepare/Present COA Decision Briefing

• Sample Agenda– Purpose CoS– Agenda CPG– Enemy Situation C2– Friendly Situation CPG– Higher Mission/Intent CPG– CTF Mission/Intent CPG– Changes to Assumptions, Limitations, COGs

CPG– COA1, COA2, COA3 CPG– COA Summary CPG– COA Analysis (Wargame Results)

CPG– COA Comparisons CPG– COA Recommendation

CPG

• CCTF Approval or Modification





Brief the Commander





COA Comparison Summary

Task Steps

COA Comparison Summary

• Facilitates the commander’s decision making process

• Harnesses the collective wisdom of the experience resident on the staff

• Evaluates the key governing factors

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

Key Points

VCommander’s

Decision

Crisis Action Planning Process

CRISIS

ISituation

Development

IICrisis

Assessment

IVCourse of

ActionSelection

VExecutionPlanning

AND/OR

IIICourse of

ActionDevelopment

Commander’s Estimate Process

OPORD

Deployment Data Base

VIExecution

PlanningOrder

AlertOrder

WarningOrder

ExecuteOrder

IVComparison of OwnCourses of Action

IIIAnalysis of Opposing

Courses of Action

IICourse of Action

Development

IMission Analysis/Restated Mission

MPAT SECRETARIAT

Multinational ForceCourse of Action Comparison

COALITION/COMBINED TASK FORCE TRAINING

Multinational Force Course of Action Comparison

Documents