visualizing the navy planning process
TRANSCRIPT
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
N a v y P l a n n i n g P r o c e s 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
N a v y P l a n n i n g P r o c e s 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
3. Course of Action Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action Comparison and
Decision
5. Plan or Order Development
6. Transition
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
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
3. Course of Action Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action Comparison and
Decision
5. Plan or Order
Development
6. Transition
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
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
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
Critical events and decision
pointsBranches and
sequels for development
Evaluation Criteria
Wargame Staff Estimates
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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