course of action comparison purpose u define course of action comparison and its role in the crisis...
DESCRIPTION
COA Comparison Purpose: u Objectively compare friendly courses of action against a set of established criteria u 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 commanderTRANSCRIPT
Course of Action Comparison
PurposePurpose
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
ReferencesReferences
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
Multinational Planning Augmentation TeamMultinational Planning Augmentation Team(MPAT)(MPAT)
Crisis Action Planning ProcessCrisis Action Planning Process
I I Mission AnalysisMission Analysis
CCRRIISSIISS
IISituationSituation
DevelopmentDevelopment
IIIICrisisCrisis
AssessmentAssessment
IVIVCourse of Course of
ActionActionSelectionSelection
VVExecutionExecutionPlanningPlanning
WarningWarningOrderOrder
PlanningPlanningOrderOrder
AlertAlertOrderOrder
ExecuteExecuteOrderOrder
OPORD OPORD & &
Deployment Deployment Data BaseData Base
VIVIExecutionExecution
And/orAnd/or
IIICourse of
ActionDevelopment
IICourse of Action
Development IIIIIIAnalysis of OpposingAnalysis of Opposing
Courses of ActionCourses of ActionIVIV
Comparison of OwnComparison of OwnCourses of ActionCourses of Action VV
Commander’sCommander’sDecisionDecisionCommander’s Estimate ProcessCommander’s Estimate Process
Key Planning Concepts:Key Planning Concepts:– Supported Strategic Commander’s (higher headquarters) strategic intent and operational Supported Strategic Commander’s (higher headquarters) strategic intent and operational
(CTF HQ) focus(CTF HQ) focus– Orientation on the strategic and operational centers of gravity of the threatOrientation on the strategic and operational centers of gravity of the threat– Protection of friendly strategic and operational centers of gravityProtection of friendly strategic and operational centers of gravity– Phasing of operations to include the commanders intent for each phasePhasing of operations to include the commanders intent for each phase
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
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
An Objective Process– Facilitated discussion led by the chief of
plans (C3 or C5)– Participants include each of the key staff
principles
COA Comparison
Determine Comparison Criteria
Construct the Comparison Method
Do the Comparisonand Record Data
Recommend a COAto the Commander
Task Steps
Determine Comparison Criteria
Those dominant or “governing” factors that emerge during COA analysis and
wargaming that are operationally significant
DetermineComparison Criteria
Construct the Comparison Method
Do the Comparisonand Record Data
Recommend a COAto the Commander COA Comparison
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.
Determine Comparison CriteriaCOA Comparison Prerequisites
Before starting the actual comparison:
Define the criteria
Weight each criterion (optional)
Eliminate redundant criteria
Construct the Comparison Method
Descriptive Comparison Positive - Neutral - Negative
Comparison Weighted Matrix Comparison
Summarize key pointsAssist commander in making decisions
DetermineComparison Criteria
Construct the Comparison Method
Do the Comparisonand Record Data
Recommend a COAto the Commander
COA Comparison
Descriptive Comparison
COA ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
COA 1
COA 2
COA 3
- Rapid delivery- Meets critical needs
- Rough integration of forces- Rough transition - Complex organization- Not flexible at all- Adequate force protection
- Smooth integration- Smooth transition- Simplest organization- Adequate force protection- Best force protection
- Complex organization- Less flexible- Adequate force protection
- Less rapid delivery- Does not meet all critical needs
- Rapid delivery- Meets critical needs- Smooth Integration- Smooth Transition
Positive - Neutral - Negative Comparison
COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3
Rapid DeliveryCritical NeedsSmooth IntegrationSmooth TransitionSimplicityForce ProtectionFlexibility
Comparison Criteria
Totals
Remarks
00-
0-
-+
-2
0+
0
0
0
0
0
1
-
+
0
-
+
0
0
0
Weighted Comparison (Weighted Scale)
COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3
Rapid DeliveryCritical NeedsSmooth IntegrationSmooth TransitionSimplicityForce ProtectionFlexibility
Governing Criteria
Totals
Remarks
332
21
22
33
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
1915 18
Weighted Comparison (Weighted Scale/Criteria)
COA # 1 COA # 2 COA # 3
Rapid DeliveryCritical NeedsSmooth IntegrationSmooth TransitionSimplicityForce ProtectionFlexibility
WT. Governing Criteria
Totals
Remarks
3 9322
21
2
6
64
21
2 2
3
15 26
3
266
3 3
3
33
22
42
3
3
3 322
9 63
2 2111
3 3
18 30
3 6
19 28
2
1 2
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
COA Comparison INPUTINPUT Wargamed COAs Agreed upon criteria & comparison
method
OUTPUTOUTPUT Information for paragraphs 4 and 5 of
the Commander’s Estimate– Comparison of friendly COAs– Recommended COA
DetermineComparison Criteria
Construct the Comparison Method
Do the Comparisonand Record Data
Recommend a COAto the Commander
COA Comparison
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
DetermineComparison Criteria
Construct the Comparison Method
Do the Comparisonand Record Data
Recommend a COAto the Commander
COA Comparison
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
DetermineComparison Criteria
Construct the Comparison Method
Do the Comparisonand Record Data
Recommend a COAto the Commander
COA Comparison Summary: Task Steps
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