Course of Action Comparison

1. Multinational Planning Augmentation Team (MPAT) Purpose References Course of Action Comparison • 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 • Joint Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations, 1 Feb 95 • JP 5-00.2, Joint Task Force Planning Guidance and Procedures, 13 Jan 99

2. Crisis Action Planning Process C R I S I S III Course of Action Development OPORD & Deployment Data Base IV Course of Action Selection V Execution Planning II Crisis Assessment I Situation Development VI Execution And/or Warning Order Planning Order Alert Order Execute Order I Mission Analysis II Course of Action Development III Analysis of Opposing Courses of Action IV Comparison of Own Courses of Action V Commander’s Decision Commander’s Estimate Process Key Planning Concepts: • Supported Strategic Commander’s (higher headquarters) strategic intent and operational • (CTF HQ) focus • Orientation on the strategic and operational centers of gravity of the threat • Protection of friendly strategic and operational centers of gravity • Phasing of operations to include the commanders intent for each phase

3. 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

4. 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

5. COA Comparison An Objective Process • Facilitated discussion led by the chief of plans (C3 or C5) • Participants include each of the key staff principles

6. Task Steps Determine Comparison Criteria Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander

7. Determine Comparison Criteria Those dominant or “governing” factors that emerge during COA analysis and wargaming that are operationally significant Determine Comparison Criteria Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander COA Comparison

8. 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.

9. Determine Comparison Criteria COA Comparison Prerequisites Before starting the actual comparison: • Define the criteria • Weight each criterion (optional) • Eliminate redundant criteria

10. Construct the Comparison Method • Descriptive Comparison • Positive - Neutral - Negative Comparison • Weighted Matrix Comparison Determine Comparison Criteria Summarize key points Assist commander in making decisions Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander COA Comparison

11. Descriptive Comparison COA ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES - Rough integration of forces - Rough transition - Complex organization - Not flexible at all - Adequate force protection - Rapid delivery - Meets critical needs COA 1 - Rapid delivery - Meets critical needs - Smooth Integration - Smooth Transition - Complex organization - Less flexible - Adequate force protection COA 2 - Smooth integration - Smooth transition - Simplest organization - Adequate force protection - Best force protection - Less rapid delivery - Does not meet all critical needs COA 3

12. - 0 0 - 0 0 0 - + 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + - 0 0 -2 1 Positive - Neutral - Negative Comparison Remarks Comparison Criteria COA # 2 COA # 3 COA # 1 Rapid Delivery Critical Needs Smooth Integration Smooth Transition Simplicity Force Protection Flexibility Totals

13. 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 19 Weighted Comparison (Weighted Scale) Remarks COA # 3 COA # 2 COA # 1 Governing Criteria Rapid Delivery 3 Critical Needs 3 Smooth Integration 3 Smooth Transition 3 Simplicity 2 Force Protection 2 Flexibility 2 18 15 Totals

14. Weighted Comparison (Weighted Scale/Criteria) Governing Criteria WT. Remarks COA # 2 COA # 3 COA # 1 3 9 3 2 3 9 Rapid Delivery 6 6 2 4 Critical Needs 3 6 2 3 Smooth Integration 4 3 2 6 3 2 2 6 2 3 3 Smooth Transition 1 3 3 Simplicity 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 Force Protection 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 Flexibility 2 2 6 26 Totals 15 18 30 19 28

15. Comparison Method Key Points • The matrix is merely a tool • 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

16. 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 Determine Comparison Criteria Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander COA Comparison

17. Recommend a COA • C5 or C3 reviews and records individual staff recommendations • Staff determines which COA to recommend • Commander guidance on criteria weighting reviewed and incorporated • In the event of indecision • Staff determines if COA modification would permit decision • C5/C3 consults Chief of Staff for guidance or resolution Determine Comparison Criteria Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander COA Comparison

18. Lessons Learned or...“Ways to Cook the Books” • 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

19. COA Comparison Summary: Task Steps Determine Comparison Criteria Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander

20. COA Comparison Summary: Key Points • Facilitates the commander’s decisionmaking process • Harnesses the collective wisdom of the most experienced warfighters 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