Visualizing the Navy Planning Process

Originally published in MOC Warfighter

IntroductionWelcome to this slidedoc, a combination of article and slide presentation.

This slidedoc contains material from an article originally published in MOC Warfighter, a US Naval War College publication.

PlanningThe military planning system provides a structured process through which contributions from the staff, as well as superiors and subordinate units, enable the Commander’s intent to unfold and become effective. Visual displays, in the form of diagrams explaining the steps in the process as well as serving as the resulting plans (often in the form of Power Point presentations) play an important role. As the Naval Warfare Publication 5-01 Navy Planning puts it, “Military planning, and by extension, Navy planning, is the process by which a

commander (CDR) visualizes an end state as well as the arrangement of potential actions in time and space that will allow the realization of that future.” Checklists, decision support matrixes, tables articulating risks and other tools visually displaying planning process elements are central to planning process execution. In addition, visual tools concerning the process itself can facilitate education, training and execution of the Navy Planning Process (NPP).

Military planning is both complicated, with many different parts, and complex, consisting of parts interacting in multivalent ways. However, these diagrams often portray the planning process as linear, which fails to communicate the complexity of the process. This linear bias appears not only in descriptions of the planning process itself, but in the plans that the process generates. For example, plans proceed along “Lines of operations” visually represented in Figure II-13 of JP 5-0 and “Lines of Effort” shown in Figure III-14 of JP 5-0. Some processes are represented as circular lines, (such as in Figure III-17 Phasing Model). As an alternative, the following NPP charts are examples of what Herbert Simon in his Science of the Artificial referred to as “external memory structures” to assist planners in producing effective plans dealing with complex, unstructured problems in highly dynamic environments. Planners are like the architects Simon describes as the prototypical designers “in a semantically rich task domain”. For architects, Simon explains, “The emerging design is itself incorporated in a set of external memory structures: sketches, floorplans, drawings of utility systems, and so on. At each

stage in the design process, the partial design reflected in these documents serves as a major stimulus for suggesting to the designer what he should attend to next. This direction to new subgoals permits in turn new information to be extracted from memory and reference sources and another step to be taken toward the development of the design.” Put in the language of the Navy Planning Process, the diagrams serve as planning process charts, on which the significance of the orders, decision matrixes, command and control diagrams, wargaming result templates, briefs and others products (external memory aids) are indicated as navigation aids guiding the planning group through the process. The process, unfolding along a spiral, in which inputs, outputs, planning team tasks and feedback continuously influence and are influenced by activities and products taking place above and below the level at which the team is currently focused is respected on the charts.

Complex and Complicated

Thangka as modelThe diagrams thus function like the thangka, ornate paintings of Buddhist iconography from Nepal and Tibet. Thangkas serve as references to guide contemplative experience. (See figure 1). Similarly, the NPP charts are concept maps of the planning process, reminding Operational Planning Team (OPT) members of the activities they must accomplish, the inputs and outputs associated with those activities, feedback required and the steps above and below each level of the process which they must inform and be informed by.

Two different functions

These charts function differently for different users. For those new to the planning process they can provide a synoptic vision of each step, informing detailed study of the NWP 5-01. Experienced planning team members can use the charts in two ways. One, they can use the charts to provide an initial bearing

accelerating the development of their individual mental models as they work together to help the commander unfold his or her understanding in a way that will enable the dispersed units to internalize the Commander’s intent.

Two, the charts can serve the planning team as an awareness and synchronization tool. The charts, placed on the walls in the planning space, enable quick checks on the step in the planning process that is the current focus of discussion, allow for indication of taskings to specific individuals, and chart annotations indicate, for

example, potential development of, completion of or the need to re-examine a specific activity. They also provide the commander a rapid insight into the status of the planning effort – with a glance the commander can see where the OPT is in the process and where his or her immediate input is required.

Summary vision of each step Synchronization tool

The Navy Planning Process as an exercise in sense making

Figure 2 portrays the Navy Planning Process as an exercise in sensemaking through cultivating understanding among the commander, the staff, and the superiors and subordinates of that staff in order to enable effective command in highly dynamic environments. The chart portrays the steps of the planning process (Mission Analysis, Course of Action Development, Course of Action Analysis

(wargaming), Course of Action Comparison and Decision, Plan or Order Development, and Transition) as ascending in a conical helix. Gains in understanding appear as increases in elevation and the expanding diameter of the spiral indicates a broader and broader grasp of the dynamic environment and actors within that environment.

1. Mission Analysis

3. Course of Action Analysis (Wargaming)

6. Transition

4. Course of Action Comparison and Decision5. Plan or Order Development

2. Course of Action DevelopmentU

nder

stand

ing

N a v y P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s

03

21

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t s


+ Progress

+ T

ime

+ Products

+ Understanding Mission

Analysis

Design

Course of Action

Development

Course of Action

Comparison and Decision Wargaming

Plan or Order Development Transition

45 6

1. Mission Analysis

2. Course of Action Development

3. Course of Action Analysis

(Wargaming)4. Course of

Action Comparison and

Decision

5. Plan or Order

Development

6. Transition

The Hermeneutic SpiralFigure 3 is a simplification of Figure 2. The conical helix becomes an Archimedean spiral to better show the relationships between the inputs, tasks, outputs and feedback components of the process, and the production costs in time and attention as compared to the products and understanding the process yields. This view illustrates that, for example, the application of design pushes the understanding curve to the left, providing a jump start in understanding

at a low cost in time and attention. The charts also help make planners aware of the potential tradeoffs among time, attention, products and understanding by offering a visual way to think through alternatives that can generate the required outputs while compensating for an externally imposed reduction in, for example, the time available to produce the plans, as often happens in crisis action planning.

03

21

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t s


+ Progress

+ T

ime

+

Products

+ Understanding

Mission AnalysisDesign

Course of Action

Development

Course of Action

Comparison and Decision Wargaming

Plan or Order Development Transition

45 6

1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)

4. Course of Action Comparison and

Decision

5. Plan or Order Development

6. Transition

Reading the External Memory Structures

Figure 4 provides guidance on how to read the following charts. The charts are divided into four sectors and flow clockwise, starting from the upper left Inputs section, through the Tasks, to Outputs to Feedback. The Outputs are enriched by Feedback, from both the commander and staff elements like the Assessment cell, prior to become Inputs for the next higher phase of the planning cycle. Each chart sector is read from top to bottom. This entails that products at the lower left hand corner of the chart are the product of both the Output and Feedback processes.

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t s

Mission Analysis Briefing

WARNORD

Design products Environmental understanding

Wicked, complex problem definition Operational approach

Commander Initial Planning

Guidance Initial Commander’s

intent Design products

Understand Commander’s mind Review commander’s initial planning guidance

Analyze higher commander’s mission and intent Develop proposed updates to commander’s intent and

critical information requirements

Understand Self (own forces and partners) Identify command relationships

Analyze available forces and assets Determine friendly COG and decisive points

Conduct initial risk assessmentUnderstand Mission

Identify sources of mission Determine specified, implied, essential tasks

State operation purpose Identify facts and develop planning assumptions

Develop proposed mission statement

Commander’s comments on Mission Analysis Briefing

Mission statement Commander's intent

Commander’s planning guidance Updated initial staff estimates

M i s s i o n A n a l y s i s

+ Attention

Understand Environment Receive IPOE brief

Identify externally imposed limitations Determine critical factors and decisive points

Conduct initial risk assessment

+ T

ime

+

Products

+ Understanding

Staff Initial staff estimates

Higher Headquarters

Plans, orders and guidance

Intelligence products

Staff Estimates

Commander’s Critical Information Requirements

Subordinate’s and superior’s feedback on WARNORD

Assessment Team input on fit between WARNORD and environment

1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)


Decision


6. Transition

1. Mission Analysis

2. Course of Action

Development


(Wargaming)

4. Course of Action Comparison and Decision


6. Transition

Start HereRead Down

UroborosThe stylized uroboros (placed at an angle to show the gain in understanding elevation) in the upper right corner indicates the step of the planning process the chart portrays, and the uroboros in the lower left indicates the next step to which the planning team transitions after incorporating the feedback into that step’s products. These smaller diagrams within the chart serve as reminders that the planning process is a dynamical system step function, in which outputs become inputs for the next step, leading to an ascent of the conical planning process helix.

1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)



6. Transition

The ChartsThe following charts expand each of the six planning process steps in order to better display the relationship between the various planning team activities.

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t s

Mission Analysis Briefing

WARNORD

Design products Environmental understanding

Wicked, complex problem definition Operational approach

Commander Initial Planning

Guidance Initial Commander’s

intent Design products

Understand Commander’s mind Review commander’s initial planning guidance

Analyze higher commander’s mission and intent Develop proposed updates to commander’s intent and

critical information requirements

Understand Self (own forces and partners) Identify command relationships

Analyze available forces and assets Determine friendly COG and decisive points

Conduct initial risk assessmentUnderstand Mission

Identify sources of mission Determine specified, implied, essential tasks

State operation purpose Identify facts and develop planning assumptions

Develop proposed mission statement

Commander’s comments on Mission Analysis Briefing

Mission statement Commander's intent

Commander’s planning guidance Updated initial staff estimates

M i s s i o n A n a l y s i s

Understand Environment Receive IPOE brief

Identify externally imposed limitations Determine critical factors and decisive points

Conduct initial risk assessment

Staff Initial staff estimates

Higher Headquarters

Plans, orders and guidance

Intelligence products

Staff Estimates

Commander’s Critical Information Requirements

Subordinate’s and superior’s feedback on WARNORD

Assessment Team input on fit between WARNORD and environment

1. Mission Analysis

2. Course of Action

Development


(Wargaming)


Decision


6. Transition

1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)


Decision


6. Transition

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t sCOA Briefing

Update IPOE

Staff Estimates

Commander Mission statement and commander’s intent

Commander’s planning guidance and

governing factors

Compare self and other Analyze relative combat power

Recommend Command and Control Relationships

COA analysis and evaluation

criteria (to inform

wargaming)COA Sketches and

Statements

Commander’s approval of COAs or direction to revise

C o u r s e o f A c t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t

Create Options for Commander Formulate COA options

Staff Adversary COAs

Higher Headquarters

WARNORD OPORD

Initial Operational Assessment

Commander’s IntentStaff Estimates

Risk Assessment

Re f i n e

RFF/FRCsSupplemental

ROE

1. Mission Analysis

2. Course of Action

Development


(Wargaming)


Decision

5. Plan or Order

Development

6. Transition

1. Mission Analysis

2. Course of Action

Development


(Wargaming)


Decision


6. Transition

Test

for V

alidi

ty

COA 1

COA 2

COA 3

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t sWargame refined COAs

Commander Refined commander’s intent

Wargaming guidance Approved COAs

Refined Adversary COAs Evaluation criteria and

critical events Update IPOE Staff

Estimates

Wargame Preparation Organize for wargame List all friendly forces Review assumptions

List known critical events Select wargame method

Select method to record and display results

Initial Decision Support Template/Decision

Support Matrix

Conduct Wargame

C o u r s e o f A c t i o n A n a l y s i s ( Wa r g a m i n g )

Wargame records

(draft synch matrix)Assess results

Conduct risk assessment and mitigation

Re f i n e

1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)



6. Transition

Critical events and decision

pointsBranches and

sequels for development

Evaluation Criteria

Wargame Staff Estimates

1. Mission Analysis

2. Course of Action

Development


(Wargaming)


Decision


6. Transition

Most Dangerous

Most Likely

COA 1

COA 2

COA 3

COA 1COA 2

COA 3

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t sWARNORD

CONOPS

Update IPOE Staff

Estimates

Present Staff estimates, risk, assessments

Final validity test

COA Decision

Course of Action Comparison and Decision

COA Review

1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)



6. Transition

DST/DSMSynch matrix

Staff COA Wargame

worksheet COA sketch and

narrative Decision Support Matrix

Evaluation Criteria -Governing Factors

-Weighting criteria Proposed risk

controls

Perform COA Comparison

Summarize Advantages & Disadvantages

1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)



6. Transition

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t sIssued Plan or Order

Prepare Plan or Order

Planning Support Tools

Commander Approves Order

Plan or Order Development

Updated OPGENs, OPTASKs,

Supplements

1. Mission Analysis 2. Course of Action

Development

3. Course of Action

Analysis (Wargaming)

4. Course of Action

Comparison and Decision

5. Plan or Order

Development

6. Transition

Operational Assessment

Guidance

Staff Task organization

CONOPS Staff Estimates

Synchronization matrix Operational Assessment

OPGENs OPTASKs

supplements

Reconcile Plan or Order

Crosswalk and Update supporting operational directives

(OPGENs, OPTASKs, and supplements)

Commander Mission

Statement Commander’s

Intent

Crosswalk Plan or Order

Re f i n eIPOE

Staff Estimates

1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)



6. Transition

Fe

ed

ba

ck

In

pu

ts

Ta

sk

s

O u t p u t s

Prepare Transition Briefing Transition Drills

Confirmation briefing

Subordinate commanders and staff prepared to:

Execute the order and possible branches

Plan sequels

Confirmation Briefing

T r a n s i t i o n1. Mission Analysis



(Wargaming)


Decision


6. Transition

Running estimates developed

Staff Refined IPOE

Outline FRAGORDs for branches Information for future missions/sequels

Staff Estimates Assessment Framework

OPGENs, OPTASKs, supplements CONOPS

Synchronization matrix Decision Support Matrix

Decision Support Template

Commander Approved

OPORD/OPLAN

Re f i n eOperational Assessment

Guidance

Transition Briefing

Shared Understanding

”Naval Planning NWP 5-01." edited by Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Norfolk, VA: Navy Warfare Development Command, 2013.

Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the Artificial. Third ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.

Staff, The Joint. Joint Publication (JP) 5-0 Joint Operation Planning. Washington DC, 2011.

References

Michael Hallett

Website Email

For more information about applications of the Navy Planning Process to military or business issues, please contact me.

Thank you

http://aquinicumpress.com/

mailto:[email protected]