OPP -LL, CAX FORUM 14 final

MSETT Ltd

MSETT Copyright Sep 2014 1

OPERATIONAL PLANNING &

LESSONS LEARNED OPTIMIZING

Panagiotis Kostopoulos

Col/Pilot (Rtd.)

Operational Planning & CAX Support Manager

NATO CAX Forum 2014

PART I

OPERATIONAL PLANNING

2

3

�Complex security environment

�Close cooperation and coordination among

international organizations

�Comprehensive approach

�More deliberate and inclusive planning

�NATO Crisis Management Process (NCMS)

Introduction

4

Planning philosophy

• Horizontal / vertical collaboration

• Commanders & staff interaction -Services & functions

• Civil & military entities

• Operational Planning ?

World = global villageTime = essential element

5

Operations Planning Principles

� 1. Strategic Coherence

� 2. Comprehensive Understanding of the Environment

� 3. Mutual Respect, Trust, Transparency and

Understanding

� 4. Consultation and Compatible Planning

� 5. Efficient Use of Resources

� 6. Flexibility and Adaptability

6

Collaborative Planning

•Strategic assessment

Strategic Concept

•Strategic Plan

PoliticalStrategicC

OLL

AB

OR

AT

ION

Operational

Tactical

COLLABORATION

7

Comprehensive Approach

Ensures a coordinated and coherent response to

crisis by all relevant actors.

Actor: A person or organization,

including state and non-state

entities, within the

international system that uses

its power to influence others in

pursuit of its interests and

objectives.

8

PMESII system domains

� Political: any grouping of primarily civil actors that exercises authority or rule

within a specific geographic boundary or organization through the application of

various forms of political power and influence.

� Military: the armed forces and supporting infrastructure, acquired, trained,

developed and sustained to accomplish and protect national or organizational

security objectives.

� Economic: composed of the sum total of production, distribution and consumption

of all goods and services for a country or organisation.

� Social: the interdependent network of social institutions that support, enable

individuals and provide participatory opportunities to achieve personal

expectations in either stable or unstable environments.

� Infrastructure: the basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the

functioning of a community, organisation, or society.

� Information Systems: the entire infrastructure, organization, personnel, and

components that collect, process, transmit, disseminate /act on info.

Entity Information

Social

Political

Military

Economic

Infrastructure

9

Planning purpose

‘The Plan’Unacceptable

Conditions

AcceptableConditions

Info

Pol

Social

Mil

EconInfra

10

Planning Categories

… for CURRENT TASKS… for FUTURE TASKS

ADVANCE PLANNING CRISIS RESPONSE PLANNING

STANDING

DEFENCE PLAN

CONTINGENCY

PLAN

• Possible risk• Generic• Not executable• Basis for OPLAN

• Specific• Executable

OPERATION

PLAN (OPLAN)

• Response to crisis• COP-based• Specific• Execution capable

11

OPP Overview

Phases (operational level)

� 1. Initial Situational awareness

� 2. Operational appreciation of the Strategic

environment

� 3. Operational estimate

� 4. Operational plan development

� 5. Execution

� 6. Transition

� SA is the human perception of all available elements of

information in relation to a specific situation that allows for a

more holistic and informed interpretation of reality.

� Levels of Situational Awareness :

�Perception

�Comprehension

�Projection

12

Situational Awareness (SA)

13

Understanding

�Perception and interpretation of a particular situation in order

to provide the context, insight and foresight required for

effective decision-making.

� Flows from developing a detailed perspective of an actor,

group, environment or situation.

�Multi-agency and multisource process, which requires drawing

on all available expertise.

�Built over time including horizon scanning, development of

initial SA throughout the Operations Planning Process.

� Knowledge is the meaning rendered from data and information, using the skills acquired through experience or education, that contributes to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

� KD process converts basic data to more usable info, information to awareness (what is happening) and awareness to understanding (why it is happening).

� The KD process covers the acquisition, integration, analysis, and sharing of information and knowledge from relevant military and non-military sources.

� It includes analysis of the relationships and interactions between systems and actors taking account of different PMESII and environmental factors.

� The KD process supports horizon scanning activities and the entire OPP, including the planning and execution of operations, as well as periodic operations assessment.

14

Knowledge Development (KD)

EconomyEconomy

JusticeJustice

InfrastructureInfrastructure

SocialSocial

SeaSea

InformationInformation

PoliticsPolitics

LandLand

AirAir

SpaceSpace

othersothers

Engagement space

15

Conclusions

� Operational Planning Process

� Different mindset – Comprehensive Approach (with other actors)

� Collaborative planning (Staff at all levels, Increased interaction)

� OPP Phases

� Phase 3 - Operational estimate (WHAT?, HOW?)

� Phase 4 - OPLAN development (write the plan)

� Situational Awareness

� Perception-Comprehension-Projection

� Common understanding (who, what, where, when, why)

� Knowledge development (acquisition, integration, analysis, and

sharing of information)

• Operational Planning Basic Training

• Operational Planning Advanced Training

• CAX support (OPLAN/SUPLAN development)

16

MSETT’s capabilities

PART II

LESSONS LEARNED

17

Burying your head

in the sand?

What do you do…

when you’re facing a problem?

Why a Lessons Learned process?

REDUCE

THE

RISK

OF

REPEATING

MISTAKES

IMPROVE

THE

CHANCE

THAT

SUCCESSES

ARE

REPEATED

• Lessons Learned describes activities relating to learning from experience to achieve improvements. In a military context, this means reduced operational risk, increased efficiency, and improved operational effectiveness.

� Lessons can be derived from any activity - daily events, exercises, training, etc.

� Learning, in any organization, involves three generic stages: identification, action, and institutionalization.

• Lesson Learned (LL) is an improved capability or increased performance confirmed by validation when necessary, resulting from the implementation of one or more remedial actions for an LI.

Introduction

PROCESS

TOOLS

STRUCTURE

MINDSET

LEADERSHIP

Critical success factors

NATO LL Capability

INFORMATION SHARING

Bi-SCD 080-006, 10 July 2013

NATO LL Process

Commander’s

Guidance

OBS

Command:

• Endorses Remedial Actions

• Commits resources

• Tasks an Action body

ENDORSEMENT

& TASKING VALIDATION

Verify

results

L E S SON

I DENT I F I ED

Understand root causes

Propose:

• Remedial Actions to resolve the problem

• Action Body to implement the Remedial Action.

ANALYSIS

Observe and document:

• Problem

• Procedure

• Good practice

OBSERVATION

LLLIAnalysis Phase Remedial Action Phase

Improved

capability

L E S SON -L E ARNE D

DISSEMINATION

• Post

• Publish

• Promote

DISSEMINATE

AB: prepares Action Plan, implements RA, reports progress

Tasking authority: monitors progress

IMPLEMENTATION

& MONITORING

SHARE SHARELL DATABASE

6. Validation

1. Process Initiation

2. Analysis Phase

3. Lessons identified

4. Endorsement &

Tasking

7. Lessons Learned

Event � Submitting observation (Obs)

Analysis of Obs � Root causes

� Remedial Action (RA) � Action Body (AB)

RA determined & AB identified = Obs � LI

AB completes the RA

LLSO monitors the implementation

Verify RA :

corrected the problem / ensures BP is repeated

All LI resulting in improved performance

or increased capacity become a LL

5. Implementation &

Monitoring

Authority approval (RA implementation)

Identified AB tasked

NATO LL Process

Submitting an Observation

WHAT?

ALL PERSONNEL ALL

RANKSWHO?

PROBLEM

SHORTFALL

BEST PRACTICE

Content of an Observation

… HAPPENED?WHAT… HOW …

WHEN …

What was supposed to happen?

What actually happened?

What should be done?

Observation Report (ODCR) DTG

Rank & Last name

Operation / Exercise:

Originator:

Division Head:

Rank & Last name

Division/Area

Title:

Title of Observation which sums up the issue

Observation:

Limit the Observation to a single problem or issue. What happened?

Discussion:

Why did it happen?

Conclusion:

What can we learn from this?

Recommendation(s):

What can we do about this?

Action Body (AB):

Who should make the corrective action?

WHAT?

WHERE? WHEN?

WHY? HOW?

What was supposed to happen?

What actually happened?

What should be done?

27

How to optimize?

� Shrink the process

� MSETT’s TA evaluation process

� Appropriate questionnaires to everybody

(TA, Observers)

� Observers/Trainers reports

MSETT’s LL optimisation process

CAX/REAL LIFE

Observe and

document:

• Problem

• Procedure

• Practice

OBSERVATION

Understand

root causes

Propose

Remedial

Actions

ANALYSIS

LES

SO

N ID

EN

TIF

IED

• Tasks an Action

Body

• Implement

Remedial Actions

TASKING &

IMPLEMENTATION

• Monitor

progress

• Verify Results

MONITORING &

VALIDATION

• Post

• Publish

• Promote

DISSEMINATION

OBS LIANALYSIS PHASE

LES

SO

N LE

AR

NE

D

LLREMEDIAL ACTION PHASE

29

MSETT’s TA evaluation process

• EXCON and Operational Planners Vs TA

• Fully structured evaluation process

• Complete methodology based on the use of Game Theory and especially Signal and Voting Games.

• Negative training can be eliminated

• Method’s fundamentals are related to specific char. of a CAX:

– CAX analysis level & CAX purpose (military, civil, etc.)

– Exercise and Training Objectives

– TA’s quality criteria

– Simulation models’ realization level

– Scenario’s rationality – irrationality level

– CAX Support tools and real C2 systems reliability

Q. Collection Process

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

QUESTIONNAIRE

SET UP BY LLDpt

QUESTIONNAIRE

TO THE TA

QUESTIONNAIRE

BACK TO LLDpt

QUESTIONNAIRE CHECK,

DRAFT OF FINDINGS TO

THE DIRECTOR MANAGER

APPROVED FINDINGS

IN THE DATABASE

FINDINGS SHARED

WITH OTHER

ORGANIZATIONS

APPROVED FINDINGS

USED FOR NEXT EX

IMPLEMENTATION

Presentation deadline: From:

EXERCISE …….………TIME: ……..DATE: .........

BRANCH :CELL :

1) TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTS PROCESSED / SENT: ........ / .........

2) AVERAGE ELAPSED TIME FROM BEGINNING TO END OF PR OCESS:

�SHORT TIME: …… RIGHT TIME: ……. LONG TIME: …….

3) TOTAL OUTCOME FROM INJECTS:

RELATED TO INJECTS WITH SUCCESFULL OUTCOME ACHIEVED�WELL PROCESSED: ……….�INCORRECT NATO STANDARDS: ………… �DELIBERATE NO PROCESSED: ………….

RELATED TO INJECTS WITH WRONG OUTCOME ACHIEVED�BADLY PROCESSED: ………………….�WRONG NATO STANDARDS: …………………..�DELIBERATE NO PROCESSED: ………………..

Observation /Remarks: ………………………………………..

LL observer/trainer report

• Encourage the perception that LLSOs are facilitators

not Action Bodies

• The LL process is personality-driven

• Share early, often and widely

• Quality observations fuel the LL process

• Learning from others is the optimal solution

• Every level can add value

32

Key Points

33

Questions ?

The End …

34