NATO’s Operational Planning Process The COPD Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive Lieutenant Colonel Mehmet Salar, TUR-A NATO School – Joint Operations Department 1

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO’s Operational Planning Process (OPP) and COPD

Agenda: • NATO Crisis Management Process and Planning Categories • Collaborative mindset • The Operations Planning Process in the Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive (COPD) • Take away and summary (incl. Q & A)

2

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO Crisis Management Process PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

Assessment

Response Options Development

Indications & Warning

PHASE 4

PHASE 5

PHASE 6

Planning

Execution

Transition

POLITICAL-MILITARY ESTIMATE PROCESS

HQ NATO

NIWS (NATO Intelligence and Warning System)

HQ NATO MC 133 (Operations Planning System) HQ NATO ACO

CEP (Civil Emergency Planning)

Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive Strategic Concept

Planning Categories … for FUTURE TASKS ADVANCE PLANNING

… for CURRENT TASKS CRISIS RESPONSE PLANNING

CONTINGENCY

STANDING

OPERATION

PLAN (COP)

DEFENCE PLAN (SDP)

PLAN (OPLAN)

-

Generic Possible risk Not executable Basis for OPLAN MC approved

-

Specific Executable COM Terms Of Reference NAC approved NATO UNCLASSIFIED

-

Response to crisis COP-based Specific Execution capable NAC approved

From GOP to COPD ACO GUIDELINES TO OPERATIONAL PLANNING 2005

NEW COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONS PLANNING DIRECTIVE 2010

STRATEGIC COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING

OPERATIONAL PLANNING

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Collaborative Planning

As part of the collaborative planning process documents submitted to the NAC will also be passed to subordinate Cdrs

The Evolution sequential

parallel

converging

• Collaboration ”A process where two or more people or organisations work together to realise shared goals”

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Philosophy & Intent • Horizontal and Vertical Collaboration − Knowledge Development − Planning − Execution

Transparency Concurrence

Commanders & Staffs Services and Functions Civil & Military Entities Full exploitation of the wide range of expertise iot ensure common understanding of what needs to be done (comprehensive approach) • Enhanced effect – sooner • • • •

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Requirements • • • •

Common doctrine, SOP & SOIs Co-location – embedded planning teams Integration of civil and military actors Connectivity − Personal − Technical (the collaborative information environment) − 3 level collaboration

STAGES OF THE PROCESS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Strategic PP SOPG

Product

Operational PP JOPG

Product

Tactical PP OPG

Product

The Collaborative Information Environment Synchronous Collaboration Tools:

TOPFAS JCHAT

TOPFAS

VTC

Asynchronous Collaboration Tools: • WEB portals/Wise • Document and management systems • E-mail

10

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Planning and Plans

“Planning is everything; plans are nothing.” “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” Field Marshal Helmuth Graf von Moltke

Guiding Documents • The Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive (Trial version - Feb 2010) (INTERIM V1.0 – Dec 2010) • MC 133 (Operational Planning System)

Letter of promulgation

12

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

COPD Planning Phases

Joint Operational Planning Group

STRATEGIC

OPERATIONAL

JOPG (JPB/”J5”)

TACTICAL

Phase 1 – Situation Awareness

Phase 1 – Situation Awareness

Purpose: − To develop and maintain a level of understanding to support operational assessments and the provision of operational level of advice and decision making to SACEUR during the planning for and conduct of operations.

Products: − Commander’s requests for information; − Key judgements about the situation in the area (risks and threats); − Conditions, trends and tendencies in the area; − Assessment of NATO indicators and warnings.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

New type of conflict D i In plo fo m rm at at ic io n

Non lethal

MPEC UGS

r Ai

y rt A

XXX

XXX

Nonlethal

M Ec ili on tar om y ic

Traditional Approach

Comprehensive Approach

UAV GH

PMESII

Agents Homeland

PW Corps XX

Marine Expeditionary X Force

JSTARS

ec IS isio R n

CIE / VIE MEU / OGAs

• Corps / MEF/ Fleet / NAF • M on M (Attrition-based) • Tactical • Independent • Symmetrical • Massed Forces • Massed Fires • Lethality • Combat 17

Allies

Pr

LIF / ODAs

• Joint Force Commander (JFC) • PMEC on PMESII (Effects-based) • Strategic / Operational • Interdependent / Nested • Asymmetrical • Massed Electrons • Precision Fires / ISR • Lethal and Nonlethal • Combat / PKO / HA / CMO NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Strategic Design

The four Instruments of Power (MPEC) •

Military. The military is NATO’s main instrument. It refers to the application of military power, including the threat or use of lethal and non-lethal force, to coerce, deter, contain or defeat an adversary, including the disruption and destruction of its critical military and non-military capabilities.

•

Political. The political instrument refers to the use of political power, in particular in the diplomatic arena cooperating with various actors, to influence an adversary or to create advantageous conditions.

•

Economic. The economic instrument generally refers to initiatives and sanctions designed to affect the flow of goods and services, as well as financial support to state and non-state actors involved in a crisis.

•

Civil. The civil instrument refers to the use of powers contained within such areas as judiciary, constabulary, education, public information and civilian administration and support infrastructure, which can lead to access to medical care, food, power and water. It also includes the administrative capacities of international, governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGO). The civil instrument is controlled and exercised by sovereign nations, IOs and NGOs. NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Transition to System of Systems Analysis Today’s adversary is a dynamic, adaptive foe who operates within a complex, interconnected operational environment Military focused on time-force-space

K

PMESII Environment Systems Understanding Vulnerabilities

K Links

Information Political

Military

Infrastructure

Social Strengths

Key Nodes

Economic

Weaknesses

The Challenge

Multi-dimensional

Bi/Tri-dimensional

20

Relationships

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Understand the environment and your adversaries

Phase 2 – Assessment and Operational Appreciation

Phase 2 – Assessment and Operational Appreciation Purpose: − to understand the strategic situation and the nature of the problem; − to understand NATO’s desired end state and objectives; − to contribute operational advice to SACEUR; − to assess the operational viability of strategic response options .

Product: − Commander’s operational advice. NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Phase 2 – Assessment and Operational Appreciation

Operational Advice Briefing

Phase 3 – Response Options/Orientation

Phase 3 – Response Options/Orientation Purpose: − to determine the operational problem that must be solved; − to determine specific operational conditions that must be achieved; − to identify the key operational factors − to identify any limitations on the commander’s freedom of action. Product: − Comprehensive Preparation of the Operational Environment (CPOE). − The operational design. − Commander's planning guidance. NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Phase 3 – Response Options/Orientation Initiate Operational Orientation Operational Orientation Review Strategic

SACEUR’s Strategic Assessment

Strategic Planning Directive

Other strategic analysis, assessments

Understand the Operational Environment and Main Actors

Operational Factors Time/Space/Forces/ Actors Information Required Civil-Military Interaction Complimentary action, mutual support, deconfliction

The purpose of mission analysis is to establish precisely the operational results to be achieved and to identify critical operational requirements, limitations on freedom of action, and inherent risks. It is driven by the strategic assessments, direction and guidance and further influenced by operational estimates, CPOE as well as advice from subordinate commands and cooperating organisations.

Assumptions Likely actor behavior Probable future events

Commander’s Estimate Operational Requirements Critical capabilities Preconditions for success Critical Information Crisis Response Measures

Staff Functional Estimates

Analyze the Mission Limits on Freedom of Action Constraints, Restraints

Operational Risks Time/Space/Force Mitigation

COG Analysis What can be exploited? What must be protected?

Advice from cooperating IO/GO/ NGOs

Operational Design Objectives, LOO, effects, actions, DPs Force Capability/ C2 Initial Force capability, and C2 Requirements

Mission Analysis Brief

CPOE Operational Planning Directive

Requests to SACEUR (CRMs, ROE,...) Guidance for COA development

Advice from Subordinates

Operational Factors

Strategic Context

Operational Context Level JFC

Strategic Design

Key Collaborative Output Phase 3 The Operational Design

Action:The process of engaging any Alliance instrument at each level in the engagement space in order to create (a) specific effect(s) in support of an objective.

Objective: A clearly defined and attainable goal to be achieved in order to establish conditions required to achieve a higher objective and/or the desired endstate.

Effect: A change in the behavioural or physical state of a system (or system elements), that results from one or more actions, or other causes.

From Strategic Design Action

Effect

DP

Unacceptable Condition

Current Situation

Unacceptable Condition

Military Objective

End-State: The NAC approved set of required conditions within the engagement space that define an acceptable concluding situation to be attained at the end of a strategic engagement.

Strategic Objective

Acceptable Condition

Effect Acti o n

Action

Effect

Unacceptable Condition

Military Objective

DP

Effect

DP

Action

Military Objective

Centre of Gravity Strategic Objective

Acceptable Condition

Desired End State (Future Situation)

Acceptable Condition

Effect

System: A functionally, physically, or behaviourally related group of regularly interacting or inter-dependent elements forming a unified whole.

29

Decisive Point A point from which a hostile or friendly centre of gravity can be threatened. This point may exist in time, space or the information environment.

Lines of Operation. In a campaign or operation, a logical line (s) linking effects and decisive conditions in time and purpose to an objective.

To Operational design

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Centre of Gravity. Characteristics, capabilities or localities from which a nation , an alliance, a military force or other grouping derives its freedom of action, physical strength or will to fight.

Operational Design Action:The process of engaging any Alliance instrument at each level in the engagement space in order to create (a) specific effect(s) in support of an objective.

Actio

n

Effect

DP

Action

End State

Military Objective

Strategic Objective

Acceptable Condition

Effect Ac ti o n

Unacceptable Unacceptable Condition Conditions

Unacceptable Condition

End-State: The NAC approved set of required conditions within the engagement space that define an acceptable concluding situation to be attained at the end of a strategic engagement.

Objective

Unacceptable Condition

Current Situation

Objective: A clearly defined and attainable goal to be achieved in order to establish conditions required to achieve a higher objective and/or the desired endstate.

Effect: A change in the behavioural or physical state of a system (or system elements), that results from one or more actions, or other causes.

Actio n

n Actio

Effect

System: A functionally, physically , or behaviourally related group of regularly interacting or inter-dependent elements forming a unified whole.

Condition DP

Effect

Effect

DP

Military Objective

Military Objective

Centre of Gravity Strategic Objective

Acceptable Acceptable Condition Conditions

Desired End State (Future Situation)

Acceptable Condition

Effect

Decisive Point A point from which a hostile or friendly centre of gravity can be threatened. This point may exist in time, space or the information environment.

Lines of Operation. In a campaign or operation, a logical line (s) linking effects and decisive conditions in time and purpose to an objective.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Centre of Gravity. Characteristics, capabilities or localities from which a nation , an alliance, a military force or other grouping derives its freedom of action, physical strength or will to fight.

3- STELLARIA IS NOT INTERFIRING WITH SHIPPING IN JOA

4

2-SHIPPING TRAFFIC IN JOA UTILISE VTMS

1-PIRACY NO LONGER INPACTS ON FON

1

Maritime traffic control effective

2

HA ships reach destination SPODs

HA delivery enabled

REGIONAL STABILTY

TYTAN SECURITY

27-IAG Groups ACTIVITIES MITIGATED

31

SLOC in JOA: sufficiently secure to 3 PIRACY exercise freedom of Hostile interference with shipping navigation for acceptable the delivery HA

Stellaria is complying with international maritime laws

SLOC sufficiently secure to permit FoN and the delivery of HA

8

7-ARM’S REGISTRATION PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL

IAGs threats contained

5-DELIVERY HA IN NE TYTAN IS ENABLED 24-Ports and LOCs established, secured and maintained

6 5

IAGs/MA Security in NE Tytan AAA

22-Tytan SF capabilities improved by NIMFOR assistance

Sufficient Security established and maintained for HA deliveries

achieved

PODs & LOCs operational TERRORIST GROUP ACTIVITIES MITIGATED

A secure and stable environment is achieved in Tytan

8a Terrorist threat limited

SUFFICIENT STABILITY IN TYTAN TO HANDOVER TO FOF KAMON RECOGNISE TYTAN SOVEREGNTY

Effective cooperation with HN

STELLARIA IS COMPLIYING WITH INTERNATIONA COMMUNITY

9

ARM’S REGISTRATION PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL

10

TERRORIST GROUP ACTIVITIES MITIGATED

KAM & STE deterred from actions against TYT

TYT support NIMFOR

KAMON PETRACEROS Stability in Tytan INFLUENCE

11 Malign influence marginalized

HA delivery sufficient for the provision of DRPEs

improved TYTAN OPPOSITION IN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

12

Coordination with other stakeholders established

Initiation G----G+65

BASIC NEEDS IN NE TYTAN PROVIDED BASIC INTERNAL SECURITY PROVIDED

TYTAN

PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF TYTAN SF IMPROVED

UNMEC PROGRAMS ENABLED IOs NGOs SUFFICENTLY COOPERATING

Stability is maintained in the East Cerasian region

13 UNMEC programs sustainable

NATOG+65------G+250 UNCLASSIFIEDTransition G+250------G+365 Stabilization

COGs: TYT:Population support NIMFOR: Effective relationship with other actors STE: Credible instruments of Power KAMON: Armed Forces AAA / MA / IAGs / Piracy: PET Base of Operations

A sufficiently secure and stable environment in East Cerasia to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid and to set the conditions for the handover of security responsibilities to a Cerasian Union force, thereby allowing an orderly disengagement of NATO-led forces.

MARITIME SECURITY

Operational Design (example SFJE 10)

Oct 2010

Phase 3 – Response Options/Orientation Initiate Operational Orientation Operational Orientation Review Strategic

SACEUR’s Strategic Assessment

Strategic Planning Directive

Other strategic analysis, assessments

Understand the Operational Environment and Main Actors

Operational Factors Time/Space/Forces/ Actors Information Required Civil-Military Interaction Complimentary action, mutual support, deconfliction

The purpose of mission analysis is to establish precisely the operational results to be achieved and to identify critical operational requirements, limitations on freedom of action, and inherent risks. It is driven by the strategic assessments, direction and guidance and further influenced by operational estimates, CPOE as well as advice from subordinate commands and cooperating organisations.

Assumptions Likely actor behavior Probable future events

Commander’s Estimate Operational Requirements Critical capabilities Preconditions for success Critical Information Crisis Response Measures

Staff Functional Estimates

Analyze the Mission Limits on Freedom of Action Constraints, Restraints

Operational Risks Time/Space/Force Mitigation

COG Analysis What can be exploited? What must be protected?

Advice from cooperating IO/GO/ NGOs

Operational Design Objectives, LOO, effects, actions, DPs Force Capability/ C2 Initial Force capability, and C2 Requirements

Mission Analysis Brief

CPOE Operational Planning Directive

Requests to SACEUR (CRMs, ROE,...) Guidance for COA development

Advice from Subordinates

Operational Factors

Strategic Context

Operational Context Level JFC

Phase 4a – CONOPS Development

Phase 4a – CONOPS Development Purpose: − Determine how best to carry out operations that will accomplish the mission.

Product: − Concept of operations. − Proposed target sets and, as appropriate, target categories. − Rules of Engagement Request (ROEREQ). − Combined Joint Statement of Requirements (CJSOR). NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Course of Action COA 1

CO A 2

COA 3

• A method for accomplishing the mission. • A way to implement the operational design by arranging actions in space and time in order set the conditions required to reach the End State.

Who, what, when, where, why and how NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Phase 4a – CONOPS Development

Decision Briefing

ACTION

Wargaming REACTION

COUNTER ACTION

COGNITION/ ADJUSTMENTS Game Facilitator

Key Facts/Assumptions

Map

Synch Matrix Specialist Staff

Game Referee

Red Players

Red COA Lead

WHITE

Game Map/Tokens

Own COA Lead

CELL

Recorder

Component LNO

GREEN CELL

Additional Recorder Blue Players

COA – Decision Briefing P h as e 1 P has e 2 Ph as e 3

Ph as e 1 Inten t

COGs Own E n em y

O p D e sign

DP s O w n/O PF O R O bjec tiv es E nd State s

O p T im e lin e

A ssu m ptions

C2 Arra nge m en ts (T as k O rg an iz ation)

D e scription S tart/E nd D e cis iv e P oin ts a ch ie ved

S ync hron iz ationm a trix

R eq ues ts F or Info (R FIs)

C m d r’s C ritica l Info R equ irem ents (C C IR )

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

C om m a nde r’s D ec ision P oints

Ta sks to Tro ops

Phase 4b – OPLAN Development

Phase 4b – OPLAN Development Purpose: − to develop the arrangements and further specify the required activities; − to implement and specify the concept of operations; − to provide a basis for planning by subordinate/supporting commands. Product: − Crisis Response Planning: an executable OPLAN. − Advance Planning: • Contingency Plan (COP), or • Standing Defence Plan (SDP).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Phase 5 – Execution/ Assessment/Plan Review Execution requires the command and control of military forces and interaction with other non-military means to conduct integrated, coordinated or synchronised actions that create desired effects. Based on assessments and on evaluation of progress the plan will be adjusted accordingly.

Phase 6 – Transition

The purpose is to develop and coordinate OPLAN for the handover of responsibility to the UN, other international organisations (e.g. EU) or indigenous actor in the crisis area and withdraw NATO forces in a controlled manner so as to avoid this action being a destabilising influence in the region.

Summary & take away (1)

• It is a trial/interim version − An evolution, not a revolution − Still discrepancies − A lot of good – new ideas in COPD

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Summary & take away (2) • Different mindset – Comprehensive Approach (MPEC) • Staff at several levels will collaborate to produce the deliverables in concert − Increased inclusion and transparency − Increased number of actors − Increased interaction. • Transparency and information management • The planning outputs has not changed a lot – deliverables are the same (CONOPS, OPLAN)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Summary & take away (3) • The Operational Planning Process continues to evolve. There are still too many moving parts • Working definitions – terminology still to be ratified • COPD – Still under continuous review • Lots of associated doctrinal work (handbooks, AJPs, etc.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Questions

46

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Current Situation

Each actor produces uncoordinated actions that generate unplanned effects

RESULT Crisis solution impossible to predict Success guaranteed only by continuous IC presence Long term commitment (and higher cost) as a consequence

Comprehensive Approach Outcome

END STATE

A Comprehensive Approach seeks to produce coordinated actions aimed at realizing desired effects in order to achieve an agreed end state.

JPB/JFC, Main and FE Current Situation OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE

JHQ MAIN

COM

POLA D

COS SUPPORT OF STAFF

SPECIAL S TAF F BI M KNOW LED GE MANA GE MEN T DIREC TOR A TE

OPERA TIO NS DIREC TOR A TE KNOW LED GE CEN TRE EXERCISE & PREPARATION

JOINT POLICY APPLICATION & LESSONS IDENTIFIED/ LESSONS LEARNED

JT EFFECTS MANAGEMENT

JOIN T PLANS

SYNCHR ONI SA TIO N & EXECU TI ON

JOIN T ASSESSMEN T

SITCEN / CJOC

COM

JHQ FE/DJSE

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT RESOUR CES DIREC TOR A TE

LO GIS TI CS RESOUR CES

CO M & INFORMATIO N SYSTEMS

FINA NCIA L RESOUR CES

ENGINEER

HU MA N RESOUR CES

JLSG HQ (Deployed)

Cos Fwd

FS E

JLSG HQ Element (Core) (Pre Deployment)

Staff Supp ort

SITUATION CELL

JOINT COORDI NATION

CENTRE

THEA TRE ENGAGEMEN T CEN TRE

Future JFHQ v1.8 Model Protocol

COM

POLAD

DCOM

CSEL

SWM

COS

SPECIAL STAFF LEGAD

STRATCOM

PAO Adv

MEDAD (Twin)

LESO Adv

Financial Con (Twin)

Liaison Element

SOFAD

MPS DOM

DCOS PARTNERSHIP & READINESS Knowledge Mgt & Acquisition Intel Support

J7 Force Preparation

DJ HQ Real Life Spt

Plans

NFS Readiness DJHQ Readiness/Trg

Doctrine & NFS Interoperability

Manpower

J1 Human Resources

Joint Doctrine Land Doctrine

J9 Civ-Mil Interaction & Mil Partnership

Civ-Mil Interaction

J4 Logistics

Ops & Plans Mvt & Transp Multinational Logistics

J6 CIS

Plans & Ops Management

Mil Partnerships J39/TEC **

Purch & Contr

J8 Financial

Budget & D Fin & Account

Policy

J-ENG J10 Assessment

MIL Pers Civ Pers

Lessons Learned

J3/5 Synchronization & Execution Effects & Influence

Exercises & Preparation Spt

Eval & Certification

JOC

J5 Plans & Policy

Host Nation Spt

DCOS SUPPORT NATO Exercise & Preparation

Knowledge Analysis & Production

J3 Operations

JF HQ Spt

IAC/IAT

DJ HQ FP

DCOS OPERATIONS

J2 * Knowledge

IMS

Campaign Assessment Operational Assessment

Ops & Trg

* No global agreement on that name ** Generated from J9 for deployment

Infrastructure & Plans

J-MED

JLSG

NCRS and Planning

CPOE – elements (Comprehensive Preparation of the Operational Environment) Characteristics

Operational Impact

Theatre geometry

Possible access, staging, entry, operating areas, bases and distances, lines of communications, sustainment, etc

Geographical/oceanographi c characteristics

Observation, obstacles, movement/mobility, key terrain, littorals, choke points, international sea lanes

Meteorological characteristics

Visibility, ground mobility, air operations, maritime operations, risks to exposed personnel

Population demographics

Human development, population movement, displaced populations/refugees, dependence on humanitarian aid, populations at risk, unemployment

Political situation

Credibility, popularity, effectiveness of governments to provide for the basic needs of the populace, opposition, stability, status of forces agreements, rule of law,

Military and security situation

External/internal threats, surrogates and proxy forces, illegally armed groups, extremism/terrorism, operational areas, military dispositions, police, para-military activity.

Economic situation

Availability of money, food, energy, raw materials, industry, services

Socio-cultural situation

Social cohesion/conflicts, dominant groups, extremism

Health and medical situation

Risk of famine, diseases, epidemics, environmental hazards, available medical support

Infrastructure situation

Adequacy of transportation and communications nodes and networks; POL storage and distribution

Information and media situation

Control/bias/manipulation of media, public access to information, use of propaganda, robustness of communications

Operational Design (example) THE OPERATIONAL PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED.

Line of Operation 2 Airport Vicinity

Airport controlled and threatened by guerilla fighters

Phase 2 Airport Operations

Phase 3 Transition MOO 1 Secure the Airport Property

5 RISKS

Effect

3

Effect ASSUMPTIONS Effect PRE-CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS

1

6 Effect

FACTOR 2 ANALYSIS CIV-MIL CONSTRAINTS / Effect RESTRICTIONS Effect CRITICAL CAPABILITIES

4

7 Effect

Guerrilla Fighting Forces

UNDESIRED STATE

Line of Operation 1 Airport Property

Phase 1 Deploy and Shape

GIVEN TO JOPG

MOO 2 Re-establish full functionality at the airport

MOO 3 Establish Security from External Threats at the airport

END STATE A secure and efficient airport environment able to offer flights to international aid organizations which are free of threats.

Operational Design n g i s e D l a n o i Operat

JOPG Chief CJTF COMMANDER

Course of Action development Who will conduct the operation? (i.e., capabilities required)

Who? How?

What?

How will the operation be conducted?

Course Of Action

Why? Why is the operation being conducted (e.g., in order to defeat the enemy)?

What actions must be performed?

When? Where?

Where will these actions be performed?

When does the action begin and/or when must it be completed (i.e., sequencing, phasing)?

Infrastructure Requirements COA Red

en e r G

e ov

Powerpoint

COA Blue Sy nc hr oM

y rla

White

Green

Cell

Cell

at

MAP Functional Experts

Scribe Blue

Scribe Red

Functional Experts

CC-Liaison

Cell

Cell

CC-Liaison

Referee KD Analysts

Co-ordinator Scribe

Op Analysts

Staff Developing Common Understanding (but keeping out of game play)

Recording Turn Information

Slide Artists

Detailing Blue Game Turn

Game Map/Tokens

Commanders Selection Criteria

COA 1

Ex am

CO A 2

COA 3

• Flexibility pl e

• Tempo • Operational risk • Logistic simplicity • Collateral damage

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

COA recommendation

Overall layout of OPP (Phases 2, 3 and 4a) WHAT?

NAC ID SSA MROs

→

FA T/S/F

R of HG

PMESII analysis

COG/CC/CV/CR CRM / CCIR/ROEs

DC

Enablers Early Deployment Requirement IFE Assumptions

HOW? (MPEC)

DC

Branch/

effects

Sequel

Decision Point

Actions MoEs MoPs ----

Phase 3 Products MAB CPG

Direct App CV Indirect App CC/CR

LoO

Criteria for Success

OP COG

Phasing Effects Actions

OP DESIGN (DC/DP)

OP advice

OP OBJ OP OBJ

Acceptable Condtions To be established

OP OBJ

Review of CPG Viability Check Factors affecting COA Dev OPT1 Risks F Common requirements, NRF, A OPT2 FoF C Alternatives E OPT3 S

Phase3 Continuous Phase 4a

COA1 Gen

SYNCH Phasing

COA2

Concept

S T A T E

From JTTL to CJSOR Force /St/CRD/FD

Refinement COA U P D A T E

E N D

DS N E

COM`s

See List of Abbreviations

STR/MIL

JTTL

Orientation

CPOE

STR/MIL OBJ

STR COG

“Troops-to- tasks”

MA

Knowledge Dev. SoS

→

MEANS

Phase 3

WAYS

Phase 1/2

Alliance OBJ

JPB / JAB CCs / OA

MATRIX Start/End Main Effort DPs Effects Actions

W Refinement COA S A *Adv/Disadv E *Risks R L *Gaps E G *Refine C A - OPDESIGN T - CJSOR I M - effects O - Actions E N - Timeline

Criteria

D C E O M C P I A S R I I O S I N O N Brief

Phase 4a Products *CONOPS *ROEREQ *CJSOR

Crisis Response Planning NATO Crisis Response Planning

Phase 1 Indicators and Warnings

Phase 2 Assessment of the Crisis

Phase 3 Development of Response Options

NAC Approved Strategic Strategic CONOPS OPLAN NAC Approved with MC Guidance Force Activation Strategic Directive OPLAN Strategic With MC with CONOPS Guidance MC Guidance

Tasker for MRO Tasker for SSA Information Sharing

NAC ID with Military MC guidance Response Options

SACEUR’s Strategic Assessment

Phase 1 Situation Awareness

Phase 2 Strategic Assessment Warning Order

Information Sharing

Phase 1 Situation Awareness

Information Sharing

Phase 1 Situation Awareness

Phase 3 Military Response Options

Phase 4aStrategic CONOPS Development

Phase 2 Operational Appreciation/ Assessment of Options Operational Warning Order

Tactical Advice

Phase 2 Appreciation and Assessment of Options

Strategic Planning Directive

Phase 3 Operational Orientation

Operational Planning Directive

Phase 3 Orientation

Operational CONOPS

Phase 4a Operational CONOPS Development

Operational CONOPS

Approved Strategic OPLAN

Approved Operational CONOPS

Phase 4a CONOPS Development

Tasker for Periodic Mission Review SACEUR’s Mission Progress Report

Approved operational OPLAN ACTORD

NAC Approved Strategic OPLAN NAC with MC Guidance Execution Directive Strategic with MC OPLAN Guidance

NAC DS for Transition planning with MC Guidance

Assessment

Phase 6Transition

Strategic Planning Directive

Disengagement Planning

Operational OPLAN

Phase 4b Operational OPLAN Development Approved Component CONOPS

Component CONOPSs,

NAC Execution Directive with MC Guidance

Phase 6 Transition

Phase 5 Execution Assessment/OPLAN Review

Phase 4b Strategic OPLAN Development (Force Generation)

Strategic CONOPS SACEUR’s Strategic Operational Assessment Advice

Phase 5 Execution

Phase 4 Planning

Phase 5 Execution/ Campaign Assessment OPLAN Review

Component OPLANs ACTORD Approved Components OPLANs

Approved Operational OPLAN

Phase 4b OPLAN/Order Development

Assessment

Phase 5 Execution/Assessment/ OPLAN Review

As As partpart of the of the collaborative collaborativeplanning planningprocess processdocuments documents submitted submitted to to the theMC MCwill willalso alsobebepassed passed to to subordinate subordinate Cdrs Cdrs

Phase 6 Transition

Operational Planning Directive

Disengagement Planning

Phase 6 Transition