1. Military Decision Making Process – Multinational (MDMP-M)
Overview
MPAT TEMPEST EXPRESS 27
23-31 July 2015
Manila, Philippines

2. Overview
Purpose:
Provide an introduction and overview to the Military Decision Making Process – Multinational (MDMP-M)
Applicability
Range of Military Operations
Interchangeable with all types of country/service-specific military planning processes
JMAP, JOPP, MCPP, MDMP
Reference
Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP), Version 2.9a

3. Objectives
Gain a foundation of knowledge for what MDMP-M is, and how it is conducted
Increased confidence in how to apply MDMP-M during TE-27, future exercises, and real-world operations

4. Method Formal Presentation Interactive approach
Questions and comments are encouraged
Evaluation:
Unless the sydicate agrees to use a different planning method, MDMP-M will be used as the MNF Planning Process for TE-27

5. What is MDMP-M?
The approved Multinational Planning Process for USA and others
An interactive planning methodology to understand the situation and mission, develop a courses of action, and produce an operations plan or order
The Military Decision-Making Process in a Multinational context is intended to provide an orderly, analytical means to achieve mission analysis, to develop, analyze and compare Courses of Action, to select a Course of Action, and to produce plans or orders. It is expected to occur in an iterative fashion, including after execution.
The rationale behind this cyclical notion of planning is that Commanders and their staffs will learn from the outcomes of actions in the battle-space and adapt plans and orders based on that learning in order to remain focused on the end-state. Constant revision of design elements, understanding of the situation, and tools is expected based on a now historical approach to large-scale strategic and campaign planning.
This learning-adaptive approach to planning requires communication among commanders and staffs at all levels, thus, interaction is built into the MDMP-M.

6. What is MDMP-M ? (continued)
MDMP-M is part of Commander’s Decision Cycle
Proactive and adaptive, based on intelligence inputs and assessments
As in all MNF SOP processes, MDMP-M is only a start point, a universal foundation for the Force Commander and staff
Focuses on interaction between the Commander, staff, and staffs of higher/lower commands
Establishes a common operational vision; supports Unity of Effort
The Military Decision-Making Process in a Multinational context is intended to provide an orderly, analytical means to achieve mission analysis, to develop, analyze and compare Courses of Action, to select a Course of Action, and to produce plans or orders. It is expected to occur in an iterative fashion, including after execution.
The rationale behind this cyclical notion of planning is that Commanders and their staffs will learn from the outcomes of actions in the battle-space and adapt plans and orders based on that learning in order to remain focused on the end-state. Constant revision of design elements, understanding of the situation, and tools is expected based on a now historical approach to large-scale strategic and campaign planning.
This learning-adaptive approach to planning requires communication among commanders and staffs at all levels, thus, interaction is built into the MDMP-M.
Orderly, analytical, logical

7. Key Steps Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design
A proactive and ongoing process
Initiates, drives, and refines each step of MDMP-M
Seven steps of MDMP-M
Mission Analysis
COA Development
COA Analysis and Gaming
COA Comparison
COA Approval
Plan / Order Development
Execution Planning
*Note: All Key Steps contain: A Starting Condition, Process, and Results
The major muscle movements of the MNF planning staff follow a systematic and iterative path. The steps consist of:
1) The Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design where in the Commander and staff are oriented toward the problem and begin to visualize solutions;
2) Mission Analysis where the planning staff enumerates facts, assumptions, informational needs and Centers of Gravity along with identifying tasks and the mission statement;
3) COA Development, Analysis and Gaming which are 3 distinct activities that develop, manipulate and assess the potential for any given course of action to achieve the operational military objectives;
4) COA Comparison sets developed COA against the Commander’s and HHQ’s mission success criteria and assesses risk;
5) COA Approval & the Commander’s Estimate take the COA recommended by the staff, incorporates the Commander’s identified necessary forces and resources and submits it to HHQ for review, comment and approval;
6) Plan or Order Development uses the approved COA as a basis to add detail to a Concept of Operations as well as identify means to act, synchronize and phase operations; and
7) Execution planning, Execution, and Assessment
We will not deal with Execution in this forum.
The MDMP-M offers a timeline for completing each of the steps as well as key players in each step. However, most often under compressed time lines, steps bleed over into one another with steps like “facts,” “assumptions,” and “limitations” all being worked through at the same time but being divided up later to present a clear analysis to the commander.

8. Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design
Purpose: Set conditions for focused, effective, integrated planning environment and organizational actions in support of MNF planning process
Starting Condition: Force Commander receives direction from a higher authority and receives an Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE) from his staff
Process: Force Commander identifies major information / knowledge gaps; conducts time-appreciation review; issues guidance on battle/operational rhythm, broad readiness guidance for staff & units, and assigns broad responsibilities
Results:
The major muscle movements of the MNF planning staff follow a systematic and iterative path. The steps consist of:
1) The Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design where in the Commander and staff are oriented toward the problem and begin to visualize solutions;
2) Mission Analysis where the planning staff enumerates facts, assumptions, informational needs and Centers of Gravity along with identifying tasks and the mission statement;
3) COA Development, Analysis and Gaming which are 3 distinct activities that develop, manipulate and assess the potential for any given course of action to achieve the operational military objectives;
4) COA Comparison sets developed COA against the Commander’s and HHQ’s mission success criteria and assesses risk;
5) COA Approval & the Commander’s Estimate take the COA recommended by the staff, incorporates the Commander’s identified necessary forces and resources and submits it to HHQ for review, comment and approval;
6) Plan or Order Development uses the approved COA as a basis to add detail to a Concept of Operations as well as identify means to act, synchronize and phase operations; and
7) Execution planning, Execution, and Assessment
We will not deal with Execution in this forum.
The MDMP-M offers a timeline for completing each of the steps as well as key players in each step. However, most often under compressed time lines, steps bleed over into one another with steps like “facts,” “assumptions,” and “limitations” all being worked through at the same time but being divided up later to present a clear analysis to the commander.
Commander’s Operational Design
Initial Commander’s Planning Guidance
Commander’s Initial Intent
Issue Warning Order #1 (WARNORD #1)
OIPE Products
Initial Staff Estimates
Time Appreciation Review

9. MDMP-M: Graphic Depiction of Steps
Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE) – The analytical process used by operational intelligence organizations to produce intelligence estimates and other intelligence products in support of force commander’s decision-making process.
A continuous process that includes defining operational environment; describing impact of the operational environment; evaluating the adversary; and determining and describing adversary potential courses of action.
Within the MDMP-M Process, there is a cycle of analysis and development that constantly informs and is informed by the on-going Commander-centric development of an overall Operational Design. Once begun, planning is continuous.
In the initial stage of the process, the Commander receives guidance from higher authorities to begin planning, and based on this guidance as well as any limitations, the Commander gathers information on two major elements – the environment and the problem. One of the main vehicles for informing the Commander on the environment of the expected operation is the Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE).
While the OIPE in general focuses on facts and assumptions related to the environment and the adversary, the Commander is also responsible for gaining a full understanding of the problem between the adversary and friendly forces. This problem can include the difference between the actual and the desired states, any limitations, the input of other commanders and the potential range of actions available to achieve the desired end-state.
With the Commander armed with an “appreciation” of the facts of the situation, his/her focus then shifts to crafting a framework for planning to meet the challenge. The Commander will describe, visualize and communicate intent based on this conceptual framework which is, itself, an iterative analytical process – Operational Design. Operational Design is intended to flesh out the initial commander’s intent issued at receipt of the order to being planning. Most importantly, it provides the planning staff with a shared understanding of the environment, the problem and the desired end-state to guide COA development.

10. Coalition Planning Group (CPG)
CPG Members:
Numbered Directorate Representatives
Public Affairs
Legal/Judge Advocate
Medical
CTF Components
Representatives from CTF coordination
centers (MNCC, CLCC, CMOC, etc.)
Liaisons from other boards/cells
Staff
CPG
CPG – The Commander’s communication is critical to success
The basic unit performing most of the planning activities is the Coalition Planning Group (CPG).
In accordance with Joint Pub 5-0, the CPG may also be known as the operational planning group (OPG), operational planning team (OPT) or crisis action team (CAT). Often, the overall primary planning team is referred to as CPG with a small subset of planners known as the OPT. Thus, the CPG designation may include liaisons to other boards and cells as required even though the OPT is keeping track of Mission Analysis and COA development progress in a dedicated manner.
As with all cells and boards, CPGs should have broad cross-functional representation/skill sets. Planning is a dynamic, interactive process, requiring constant coordination and communication between all participants. Most often a member of the C5 or the C3 is the CTF’s director for the CPG/planning process and is supported by the remainder of the staff.
The CPGs provide cross-functional staff environment that promotes and is conducive to developing concepts and sharing information ensuring an integrated CTF planning effort. CPGs provide a forum for interaction, and maintain the flow of information among group members. Members act as a conduit to provide information back to their respective staffs and components on the current planning effort as well as requirements for additional support or information. In addition, CPGs should institute a practice of periodic informal briefs to the commander and principle staff members, including LNO’s, on the status of the planning process.
The basic unit performing most planning activities
CPGs provide a cross-functional environment to promote development of concepts and information sharing to ensure an integrated CTF planning effort
CPG may also be known as the operational planning group (OPG), operational planning team (OPT) or crisis action team (CAT). *JP 5-0

11. Step 1: Mission Analysis
Mission Analysis is intended to refine understanding of the problem and clarify the purpose of the operation
The process outlines MNF Commander’s accepted responsibilities and limitations
This step focuses on analysis of the mission, higher headquarters guidance and intent, and examination of key planning factors by which the MNF Military End State can be achieved
The analysis steps include:
Analyze Higher Headquarters Order
Determination of Known Facts, Current Status, or Conditions
Development of assumptions
Development of operational limitations
Identify operational-level tasks
Initial MNF Force Structure analysis
Main results of Mission Analysis are Mission Statement, Revised Commander’s Intent, identification of Military End State, and release of Warning Order #2
With initiating authorities having issued guidance or a warning order to the Commander and the Commander having complete one iteration of the Appreciation/Design process, the Commander issues guidance to the staff that incorporates the present understanding of the problem in order to promote a shared comprehension of the intended direction of operations.
The staff undertakes Mission Analysis to refine understanding and recommend a mission statement, commander’s intent and desired military end-states. This Analysis incorporates the higher authority guidance, the OIPE and other elements leading to an understanding of the overall scope and needs of the operation.
In the context of MDMP-M, the Mission Analysis must take into consideration the intents and understandings of all friendly forces in hopes of presenting a united MNF mission statement and other statements of goals and capabilities.
All sub-steps within Mission Analysis are listed in the MNF SOP

12. COAs must be suitable, feasible, acceptable, distinct and complete
Step 2: COA Development
COA Development merges “art and science” of planning to:
Provide possible solutions
Focus planning
Allow for follow-on assessment
Each COA outlines:
Military actions
DIME support requirements
Purpose of each action
Forces and resources
Deployment concept
Time required to achieve mission success or termination
Concept for a theater reserve
COAs must be suitable, feasible, acceptable, distinct and complete
With Mission Analysis completed and Warning Order #2 published, the CPG moves on to COA Development. This process can be run by several OPTs each working on a COA or by a single OPT developing multiple COAs, depending on the time constraints for crisis action planning.
The goal is to provide the MNF Commander with multiple potential solutions to the problem in accordance with the Commander’s published understanding of the situation and Operational Design. There are many elements that appear in the COA as described and visualized by the OPT, but, some of the most critical components are: Command & Control relationships, a review of the AO, the reasons for action and who will take what actions when. It should include an initial concept of force flow and an analysis of the risks that taking action could create or mitigate. It is in this stage that planners can identify potential branches and sequels if/when contingencies arise during the operation.
An internal CPG review of each COA should ensure that the COAs are suitable, feasible, acceptable, distinct (from one another) and complete in that they are designed to achieve the operational military end-state envisioned by the Commander and HHQ.

13. Step 3: COA Analysis and Gamin
COAs Analysis and Gaming takes a step-by-step approach at setting each separate COA against not only Force Commander’s Intent and Design but also the threat and the environment
Furthers shared understanding of operational environment and potential impacts of actions upon this environment
Analysis should reveal:
Confirmation of LOOs/LOEs, Decisive Points and Support Effects (SE)
Potential decision points
Task organization adjustment
Data for a synchronization matrix
High Value Actions
Insights on Deployment, Sustainment, and Info Ops
A risk assessment
COA advantages and disadvantages
Recommended CCIRs
COA gaming involves an action-reaction-counteraction method
Tentative COAs must undergo a systematic analysis and gaming process that it intended to reveal how the COA will hold up in the face of threat capabilities and elements of the environment. Gaming is a conscious effort to visualize the operation point by point and improve it as weaknesses or disadvantages come to light.
Based upon time available, each tentative COA will be war-gamed against the most probable and the most dangerous adversary COAs, as represented by a red team that represents the threat/adversary point of view.
The Analysis stage first confirms lines of operations, decisive points and supporting effects for each decisive point. It identifies decision points and critical events as well as gaps still open in informational needs. It verbalizes the risk assessment of each COA in line with the Commander’s accepted risk and any undesired effects on the risk profile.
Then the CPG moves to gaming. Each critical event should be wargamed using the action, reaction, counteraction method of friendly and/or opposition force interaction. The results of this gaming are recorded and analyzed to discover the advantages and disadvantages that each COA enjoys with regard to the most likely and most dangerous threat COAs.
This gaming and analysis provides the data that will be fed into comparative frameworks in the next step.

14. Step 4: COA Comparison
COAs are compared against a set of criteria established by the staff and Commander
Goal is to identify strengths and weaknesses so that a COA with the highest probability of success can be selected or developed
The staff determines the recommend COA for approval by the Commander
The selected COA should:
Mitigate risk to force and mission
Provide maximum latitude for subordinates
Provide most flexibility to meet unexpected threats and opportunities
Criteria for ranking will come from guidance, doctrine, and operational design
With the advantages and disadvantages of each COA revealed by gaming, the CPG sets each COA against a set of criteria established by the staff and commander. This process is focused on identifying that proposed COA that has the highest probability of succeeding in accomplishing the mission.
The enumeration of criteria most often comes from the Force Commander’s analysis of the most relevant major aspects of the operational design. These criteria usually are related to Lines of Operations, Commander’s intent, governing factors or mission success criteria, principles of war and joint/multinational functions.
There are several different ways of comparing COAs to criteria, including descriptive, positive-neutral-negative and weighted or un-weighted scales. The selection depends on Commander’s Guidance, time available and staff expertise.
The COAs scores are then ranked, and the “highest” scoring COA should be recommended to the Commander for approval.

15. Step 5: COA Approval
Staff presents recommended COA to Commander
Staff briefs commander on why COA is being recommended, based on results of COA Comparison, Analysis and Gaming
Commander can:
Approve COA and direct development of Commander’s Estimate*.
Direct refinements to COA and direct development of Commander’s Estimate*.
Combine COAs or portions of each COA to form a new COA.
Disapprove all COAs, and direct additional COAs (or COA) be developed, analyzed, gamed, and compared
Approved COA becomes basis for Concept of Operations
Warning Order #3 is released
Approved COA should have best chance of accomplishing the Military End State
With COAs Analyzed, Compared and ranked, the staff will brief the Commander on all of the COAs developed and recommend the one that Comparison has shown has the best probability of achieving operational military end-state conditions. The Commander has three options: to approve the recommended COA and direct development of the Commander’s Estimate; to direct refinements of the recommended COA and development of the Commander’s Estimate; to send the OPT back to the drawing board to develop alternate COAs.
The Commander’s Estimate is a formal estimate of the various potential COAs, forces and resources to be used and broad time-lines for their arrival in the AO. It may incorporate recommendations on refinements of the strategic guidance and military end-state conditions. It should always include inputs, perspectives and insights from the partner MNF nations’ national command elements, the host nation or governmental agencies, as applicable.
This Estimate will become the formal foundation for maintaining unity of effort within the MNF and promotes a shared understanding of the problem and goal.
The Commander’s Estimate is forwarded to the Supported Strategic Commander and Supporting Strategic Commanders for review and approval / comment.
*Commander’s Estimate. This is a formal estimate, but the precise contents may vary widely depending on the nature of the operation, time available, and applicability of prior planning.

16. Step 6: Plan / Order Development
Staff develops a plan / order by expanding the approved COA
Purpose: Translate Commander’s decision into oral, written, and/or graphic communication sufficient to guide implementation and promote initiative by subordinates
CPG is focal for development of plans and orders
First step is developing a CONOPS that includes:
Commander’s intent
Component and supporting organization actions
OPTEMPO
Links among objectives, LOOs/LOEs, Decision Points and Supporting Effects
Conducted rehearsals
CONOPS becomes “centerpiece” of EXORD
In the expectation that HHQ will approve the recommended COA, the staff will expand that COA into an OPLAN or OPORD. The contingency and time sensitivity of the pending operation will dictate, in part, what type of order or plan is written. This could include a Commander’s Estimate, a Basic Plan, a CONPLAN or an OPLAN or, if execution is imminent, an OPORD.
OPORD is a directive issued by a commander to subordinate commanders for the purpose of effecting the coordinated execution of an operation. In the Coalition/Combined Task Force this document would be prepared by Operations Directorate (C3), Future Operations Division.
OPLAN is a complete and detailed plan containing a full description of the concept of operations and all required annexes with associated appendixes. It identifies the specific forces, functional support, deployment sequence and resources required to execute the plan and provide closure estimates for their movement into the area of operations. An OPLAN can be used as the basis of a campaign plan (if required) and then developed into an operation order. It is coordinated by the Plans and Policy Directorate (C5), Plans Division.
Regardless of the type of plan/order desired, the CPG will begin by developing a CONOPS, a concept of operations that clearly and concisely expresses what the commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using the available resources. It is descriptive, integrated, synchronized and phased to accomplish the mission, including potential branches and sequels.
With a CONOPS reach, full plan development commences. It includes all necessary annexes and appendices and breaks the operation down into situation, mission, execution, administration and logistics, and command and signal.
The Plan then goes through a Rehearsal of Concept (ROC) Drill that games the OPLAN or OPORD to refine it. The identifies risk and confirms lines of operations, decisive points, supporting effects, commander’s decision points and synchronizing actions. It may include a Red Team.
With the plan gamed, the Force Commander will forward it to the HHQ for review and approval.

17. Step 7: Execution Planning
This steps starts with Higher Headquarters issuing an Execution Order (EXORD) for approved plan / order
Planning does not end with beginning of Execution
Assessment links planning and execution
Learning during execution
Informs decision making
Supports intuition, experience, and judgment
Effective PDMA Cycle
MDMP-M planning does not end with the beginning of execution. Rather, execution allows for assessment, adaptation and refinement, feeding into new iterations of the planning process. The assessment of the Measures of Effectiveness and Performance that emerge in parts of the Mission Analysis and COA Development and Gaming allow the process to continue, helping the Commander continuously refine the Operational Design.

18. Review
Military operations are an art and the Commander is the artist. The Commander is supported by scientists (planning staff) to develop the operational design using design elements. The Commander’s Decision Cycle is the mechanism used to learn about the operational environment and refine his operational design. Planning is blended with and supports operation design. The problem is framed and possible solutions (COAs) are developed, studied, and then selected for execution. Once the operation begins, the commander and staff continue planning as informed by the assessment process.

19. Questions and Discussion