The Staff Study Individual Requirement Introduction and Overview

Purpose To provide instruction on how to correctly write a staff study, further improve your problem solving and written communication skills, and to deliver a decision brief to standard.

References Field Manual (FM) 5-0, Army Planning and Orders Production Army Regulation (AR) 25-50,Preparing and Managing Correspondence, 3 June 2002 Staff Officers Guide (SOG), Chapter 7, staff study example

Outline Staff study background Standard format requirements Common staff study errors Summary Questions Conclusion

“To solve a problem, a staff officer must research the problem to identify issues, develop and eval- uate alternatives, and recommend effective action based on relevant facts…. Because a staff study generally conforms to the problem-solving model, it is both a formal military problem-solving process and the written form ofa decision briefing.” FM 5-0 (Appendix D) Overview

Staff Study Format Problem Recommendation Background Facts Assumptions Courses of Action Criteria Analysis Comparison of COAs Conclusion Decision briefing follows very similar format

Problem Statement Paragraph 1 Must be concise, specific, and answer the “4 W’s”: who, what, where, when. “Why” is optional but helpful to decision maker EXAMPLE: “ To determine the best4-wheel drive, full- size SUV, costing under $40,000, for me to purchase in the Kansas City area, during 20xx to replace my old car.” (Scope the problem down up front)

Recommendation Paragraph 2 Based on final staff study results Must recommend a specific COA Must solve the problem

Background Paragraph 3 Answers “why the problem exists” Chronologically presents problem/symptoms Provides a lead-in to your staff study Concise, short paragraph Sets the stage for presentation of pertinent facts and assumptions

10 Facts Paragraph 4 Foundation for remainder of staff study Must use complete sentences and convey complete ideas. Stated as given. Facts relevant to problem and allCOAs Organize facts efficiently: - Group facts by verifiable source - Use sub-paragraphing to list facts - List facts from most to least important Must provide references used -

11 Assumptions Paragraph 5 Must pass two tests: - Is the assumption valid? - Is the assumption necessary? Must be based on a fact you’ve already presented (believe it’s true but can’t verify) Must make sense and be defendable Should use to help shape the problem or support evaluation or screening criteria

12 Courses of Action Paragraph 6 List all COAs you will study Identify each COA by short title and a more detailed description Must briefly describe where your COAs came from

13 Criteria Paragraph 7 List all criteria to judge theCOAs Clearly define each criteria to ensure reader can understand them There must be a fact or assumption from paragraph 4 or 5 that supports each criteria

14 Places specific limitations on theCOAs Show the “must have” attributes a COA must possess to warrant further study Screening criteria have two parts: - Short Title: 1 or 2 words - Definition: Clear, concise definition that includes the words “must” or “must not” Go / No-Go proposition Screening Criteria Paragraph 7a

15 Evaluation Criteria Paragraph 7b (1of 2) Measures, evaluates, and analyzes remainingCOAs Presented in priority order Written in detailed narrative form Don’t “short-cut” the format example provided in the SOG

16 Evaluation Criteria have five parts: - Short Title: 1 or 2 words -Definition: Stated precisely -Unit of Measure: Objective, quantifiable -Benchmark: Minimum point of advantage (source?) -Advantage Formula: State whether more or less is better Each EC subparagraph includesall the above Evaluation Criteria Paragraph 7b (2 of 2)

17 Weighting of Criteria Paragraph 7c Establishes importance of one evaluation criterion over another Reflects important guidance and intent from key players Explains your DECMAT criteria weighting

Analysis Paragraph 8 8a. Presents screened outCOAs: - Explain whichCOAs failed your screening criteria 8b. Analysis of survivingCOAs: - Shows whether each COA is advantaged or disadvantaged compared to benchmark - Uses COA raw data and tells whether it’s better, worse, or equal to the benchmark

Comparison of the COAs Paragraph 9 9a. Evaluation Criteria Comparison: - Visual depiction of a COA ranking against evaluation criteria, based on raw data 9b. Results of Quantitative Techniques: - Refers to raw data matrix - Refers to DECMAT (consistency ratio) - Presents detailed discussion of DECMAT sensitivity analysis results

Conclusion Paragraph 10 Objectively answers the problem statement Tell the good newsand the bad news Addresseach EC Tell how your COA is advantaged or disadvantaged againsteach EC Finish strong, sell your recommendation-- but don’t omit shortfalls “Truth in lending”

21 Common Staff Study Errors (1 of 3) Procrastination. Short-cutting format requirements, thereby sacrificing clarity for the reader. Not providing enough detail in the facts section. Write complete sentences and convey complete ideas (I don’t know what you know unless you tell me).

22 Using an SC or EC that is not supported by a previously presented fact or assumption Not telling whether the recommended COA is advantaged or disadvantaged againsteach EC in conclusion paragraph Raw data matrix and DECMAT errors Common Staff Study Errors (2 of 3)

23 Choosing a COA before doing the analysis and evaluation, then trying to make your product fit your choice Common Staff Study Errors (3 of 3)

Summary The staff study is a written decision briefing Keys to success in writing a good staff study are: - Follow the problem-solving process - Write clearly and effectively - Do thorough and accurate research - Make it easy for thedecisionmaker Use the Staff Officers Guide

Questions

Conclusion The litmus test of any staff study is whether thedecision-maker canfollow it, understand it, and “get it” in a single read. Writing a good staff study is relatively hard. Reading a good staff study is extremely easy.