1. Course of Action (COA) Comparison
Deployable Joint Task Force Augmentation Cell (DJTFAC)
Multinational Planning Augmentation Team (MPAT)
Course of Action (COA) Comparison
Maj Tom Woods

2. Purpose
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
The purpose of this module is to:
1. Define course of action comparison and explain its purpose in the Commander’s Estimate process,
2. Discuss the associated tasks steps, and
3. Provide lessons learned from previous exercises and operations.
Courses of action are not directly compared to each other in this process… they are individually evaluated against criteria that is established by the planning staff section.

3. References
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual , Joint Task Force Headquarters Master Training Guide, 15 Apr 97
Joint Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations, 10 Sep 01
JP , Joint Task Force Planning Guidance and Procedures, 13 Jan 99
The concepts presented here are based on US doctrine and publications. The JTF Headquarters Master Training Guide has a few examples of the course of action comparison process. Joint Publication, 3-0 Principles of Joint Operations, is also useful. Much of this discussion is based on Joint Publication
Shown here are the key references used to prepare this module.
You can also reference the Joint Doctrine Website, listed.
DJTFAC
HANDBOOK
Joint Doctrine Website:

4. Crisis Action Planning (CAP) Process
Situation
Development II
Crisis
Assessment
III
Course of
Action
Development IV
Course of
Action
Selection V
Execution
Planning
OPORD
&
Deployment
Data Base VI
Execution
And/or
Warning
Order
Planning
Order
Alert
Order
Execute
Order I
Mission Analysis
This slide gives a comprehensive view of the Crisis Action Planning Process, and where we are in it.
It shows that we have progressed through Situation Development, Crisis Assessment, and are now in phase III, Coarse of Action (COA) Development.
Within the COA Development, we have completed our:
1. Mission Analysis
2. Coarse of Action Development
3. Analysis of Opposing Courses of Action ( War gamming )
Mission analysis has been accomplished and the restated mission, commander’s intent, and commander’s planning guidance has been issued. The headquarters staff has completed course of action development and analyzed those courses of action. The staff estimates of the supportability for each course of action should be nearly complete at this stage. Now it is time to compare the courses of action.
We are now going to complete that next step: Comparison of Own Course of Action ( COA Comparison ). II
Course of Action
Development
III
Analysis of Opposing
Courses of Action IV
Comparison of Own
Courses of Action V
Commander’s
Decision

5. COA Comparison Purpose:
Objectively compare friendly courses of action against a set of established criteria ( not against each other! )
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
1. The purpose of Course of Action Comparison, in the commander’s estimate process, is for the staff to objectively compare friendly courses of action against a set of established criteria,
2. and to identify and recommend the course of action that has the highest probability of success against the threat or the enemy course of action that is of the most concern to the multinational force commander.
3. The product of the commander’s estimate process is a staff recommendation of a particular course of action, the commander’s course of action decision, and finally his guidance for further planning. The selected course of action can then be further refined into a tentative campaign plan.

6. Why Compare COAs? To seek the COA that:
Gives our commander the maximum flexibility
Limits the enemy commander’s freedom of action
Determine which COA has the highest probability of success within the constraints of operational factors
1. A good course of action comparison should result in a course of action decision by the commander that maximizes friendly flexibility and
2. limits the enemy’s freedom of action, or the effects of the threat.
3. In addition, a thorough comparison will facilitate the selection of the course with the highest probability of success

7. ”… an objective process …”
COA Comparison
”… an objective process …”
Facilitated discussion led by the Chief of Plans (C3 or C5)
Participants should include each of the key staff principles, and component liaisons and representatives
1. Course of action comparison is an objective process whereby COAs are considered independently of each other and evaluated and compared against a set of criteria. Consequently, courses of action are not compared to each other, but rather they are individually evaluated against the criteria that are established by the commander.
2. Generally, facilitated staff discussion is used to identify the particular course of action the staff will recommend to the commander. This discussion is normally led by the joint planning group representative, usually the C3 or C5, and should include the key staff principles. This discussion should also include multinational force component representatives, when they’re available.
3. Each staff section and component should rate the courses of action using the established criteria and brief the reasons for their rating.

8. Task Steps Recommend a COA to the Commander Do the Comparison4
Recommend a COA
to the Commander 3
Do the Comparison
and Record Data 2
Construct the
Comparison Method
Course of action comparison consists of a sequential, logical four-step process:
1. Determine the comparison criteria
2 Construct the comparison method
3. Do the comparison and record the data
4. Recommend a course of action to the commander
We will now walk through these steps.
The first two steps are critical to set the foundation. They are easier said than done. However, they are essential as it focuses the planning staff on dominant, or governing factors that the commander considers decisive for mission accomplishment. These initial steps will prevent lengthy and unnecessary staff discussion during subsequent steps. 1
Determine Comparison Criteria

9. Comparison Criteria
Those dominant or “governing factors” that emerge during COA analysis (wargaming) that are operationally significant
Determine
Comparison Criteria
Construct the
Comparison Method
Do the Comparison
and Record Data
Recommend a COA
to the Commander
During the first step, you will Determine the Comparison Criteria.
The Comparison Criteria are those dominant or “governing” factors that emerge during course of action analysis and wargaming that are operationally significant.
The real key to success is comparing each of the courses of action against criteria that are:
1. well-selected,
2. and well-defined.

10. Comparison Criteria Sources
Commander’s intent / guidance
Fixed values for joint operations, such as:
Principles of War
Principles of Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW)
Fundamentals of joint and coalition/combined warfare
Elements of Operational Art
Critical factors identified during the analysis such as logistics support, political constraints, etc.
In determining the Comparison Criteria, the commander’s intent and guidance may be the most important source of criteria.
The principles of war, and military operations other than war, are some other standard sources of governing factors. (For peace operations, legitimacy is a major factor. For humanitarian assistance operations, unity of effort, to include the goals and objectives of NGOs, is critical.)
The fundamentals of joint warfare and the elements of operational art (such as synergy, centers of gravity, flexibility, etc) provide possible candidates for comparison criteria.
Additionally, political considerations may be critical factors, especially in peace operations and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.
Standing Operating Procedures, or SOPs, also may be a good source of factors or criteria, if they outline specific preset governing factors to be used by the staff, at least initially.
Of course, the staff should modify its list to fit each particular situation. Staff sections should identify significant factors relating to the operation from their perspective.
The final selection of comparison criteria is highly situational dependent, and there is no standard list of governing factors that will suit every situation.

11. Comparison Criteria Commanders’ Guidance Quick Deployment
Handover to Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) force
Address Humanitarian Assistance (HA) requirements
In rough terms, this is what he said.
Can we take and develop them as comparison criteria? Probably…. foot stomp!

12. Comparison Criteria Principles of War Operational Art M ass O bjective
O ffensive
S implicity
E conomy of Force
M aneuver
U nity of Command
S ecurity
S urprise
Unity of Effort
Restraint
Perseverance
Legitimacy
Operational Art
Synergy
Simultaneity and Depth
Anticipation
Balance
Leverage
Tempo and Timing
Operational Reach
Forces and Functions
Arranging Operations
Centers of Gravity
Direct vs. Indirect
Decisive Points
Culmination
Termination
Additionally, the principles of war, and military operations other than war, are standard sources of governing factors. (For peace operations, legitimacy is a major factor. For humanitarian assistance operations, unity of effort, to include the goals and objectives of NGOs, is critical.)
The fundamentals of joint warfare and the elements of operational art (such as synergy, centers of gravity, flexibility, etc) provide possible candidates for comparison criteria.
Additionally, political considerations may be critical factors, especially in peace operations and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.
Standing Operating Procedures, or SOPs, also may be a good source of factors or criteria, if they outline specific preset governing factors to be used by the staff, at least initially.
Of course, the staff should modify its list to fit each particular situation. Staff sections should identify significant factors relating to the operation from their perspective.
The final selection of comparison criteria is highly situational dependent, and there is no standard list of governing factors that will suit every situation.

13. Comparison Criteria Before starting the actual comparison:
Carefully and meticulously define the criteria…
all must agree * (common understanding)
reduce subjectivity
Eliminate redundant criteria
Weight each criterion (optional)
Before you start the actual comparison, define each of the criterion. In some cases the commander may not only personally determine the criteria, but may also define them as well.
Criteria must be defined in precise terms to reduce subjectivity and ensure that the understanding of each criterion during the comparison process remains constant for each course of action. The common understanding of how each criterion is defined may be more challenging in joint or multinational operations, where headquarters staff officers may not share a common perspective or may not have the same level of language comprehension.
Eliminate redundant criteria before you start comparing courses of action. The staff may discover through their detailed discussion of the criteria some redundancies among them. These redundancies should be eliminated to keep the comparison clear and focused.
As an option, if the staff considers certain criteria to be more important than others, a weighting scheme can be applied for each criterion. This weighting should be carefully applied before beginning the comparison process.
These essential ground rules must be established prior to beginning the comparison process, or the comparison will lose its value. Unless these prerequisites are met, the validity of the comparison process may be compromised. Don’t head yourself along the Road to Abilene, with a predetermined answer.

14. Comparison Criteria Remember,
… there is no standard set of comparison criteria
… highly situation dependant
It is important to note that there is no standard set of comparison criteria. Every new crisis with Crisis Action Planning will require a new set of comparison criteria to be developed and carefully selected weighting.

15. Comparison Criteria (“notional” example)
Rapid Delivery
Critical Needs
Integration
Transition
Simplicity
Force Protection
Flexibility
For the following slides, we will use this notional set of Comparison Criteria.
Now that we have a carefully selected set of “notional” comparison criteria, we next select the comparison method to apply them to.

16. Comparison Criteria ( Definition )
… seeking a well defined criteria…
Bad example:
Rapid Delivery – get there fast
Better example:
Rapid Delivery – forces arrive at Forward Staging Base (FSB)
Best example:
Rapid Delivery – Combat forces Reception, Staging, Onward movement and Integration (RSO&I) within 48 hours into Operating Area
Bad example:
Rapid Delivery – get there fast
Bad example:
Rapid Delivery – get there fast
Better example:
Rapid Delivery – forces arrive at Forward Staging Base (FSB)
This slide illustrates the importance of spending time to properly define each comparison criteria and have the group agree.
Time spent up front on accurate and mutually agreed upon definitions will set a solid foundation for subsequent steps in the COA Comparison.
A simplified way to develop the definition might be to make sure the definition answers the questions: Who, What, When, and Where.
The “Bad example” defines our notional RAPID DELIVERY criteria in a very generic way with no Measures of Effectiveness.
The “Better example” refines the definition, but leaves some important details out, such as: When.
The “Best example” is a much better refinement and allows each COA to be compared against a well-defined Comparison Criteria.

17. Assist commander in making decisions
Comparison Methods
Descriptive
Positive - Neutral – Negative
Weighted Matrix ( two variations )
Weighted scale
Weighted scale / weighted criteria
Summarize key points
Assist commander in making decisions
The comparison method used by headquarters staff is typically dictated by an SOP, but may also be directed in the commander’s planning guidance. The method selected also depends on the planning time available and staff expertise.
There are several comparison methods. The most common is the decision matrix. The U.S. military’s Joint Task Force Master Training Guide and U.S. joint doctrine discuss examples of the four basic types of decision matrices, which we will cover:
A. Descriptive comparison
B. Positive-neutral-negative comparison, an
C. two Weighted Matrix comparison methods
Each technique has advantages and disadvantages.
The bottom line is that these distinct methods are simply different ways to organize staff thoughts, reduce subjectivity, and help prepare a coherent presentation of the staff’s course of action analysis.
The method you choose should assist the staff in summarizing key points and facilitate the commander’s decision making.
Determine
Comparison Criteria
Construct the
Comparison Method
Do the Comparison
and Record Data
Recommend a COA
to the Commander
 Summarize key points
 Assist commander in making decisions

18. “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
- Best force protection
- Less flexible
- Less rapid delivery
- Does not meet all critical needs
- Smooth Integration
- Smooth Transition
1. Shown here is an example of the descriptive comparison matrix, using the “notional” criteria previously selected: speed of delivery of assistance; satisfaction of critical needs; integration and organization of the force, and force protection.
2. With this method, describe each course of action, using the criteria, listing advantages and disadvantages, or strengths or weaknesses, in narrative or bulletized format. The course of action with most advantages and fewest disadvantages should be the one the staff recommends to the commander for adoption.
3. The advantage of using the descriptive comparison matrix is that the results correlate well with the format of paragraph 4 in the Commander’s Estimate wherein the commander justifies his recommendation to the national command authorities. It also may be the preferred method when all of the criteria are considered to be of equal importance.
4. In cases where the criteria are not of equal importance, the disadvantage of using this method is that the relative importance of each criterion is not recorded on the matrix and is not self-evident. This method is more subjective and less objective.

19. “Positive - Neutral - Negative” Comparison
Comparison Criteria
COA # 1
COA # 2
COA # 3
Remarks
Rapid Delivery - +
- 2 + 1 -
Critical Needs -
Smooth Integration
Smooth Transition
Simplicity
Force Protection +
Flexibility
1. Shown here is an example of a positive-neutral-negative matrix, again using the same “notional” factors. This type of matrix provides general assessments that reflect the degree to which a particular course of action reflects selected criteria.
2. When a course of action just meets the criteria or governing factor definition, it is assigned a value of zero. If it exceeds the criteria requirements, it receives a plus. If it falls short of meeting the criteria, then it is given a minus.
3. The advantage of this method is its mathematical simplicity and objectivity. However, similar to the descriptive comparison method, the results of the comparison do not reflect relative weighting of criteria. Thus, this method is best employed when all of the criteria are of equal importance.
4. The other disadvantage of this method is that the justification of the values assigned must be recorded separately in order for the staff to use the matrix as the basis for its recommendation to the commander, and to draft that section of the Commander’s Estimate where the comparison is presented. +
Totals
- = Fair
+ = Good
0 = Poor
More Positive (+) is Better + -

20. “Weighted” Comparison (Weighted Scale)
Comparison Criteria
COA # 1
COA # 2
COA # 3
Remarks
Rapid Delivery 3 2 1 3 2 3 19
Critical Needs 3
Smooth Integration 3
Smooth Transition 3
Simplicity 2
Force Protection 2
Flexibility
1. In the weighted comparison method, the staff assigns a numerical value to each factor. The course of action with the highest numerical score is considered the best. We will discuss two techniques under this “weighted” method.
2. In the simple weighted scale technique, shown here, each criterion is assigned a number from a scale. You can use scales of, for example, 1 to 5 or 1 to 10. The higher the number, the greater the value. Values reflect strengths and weaknesses of each course of action relative to each of the criterion. For our example shown here, we used a simple 1-3 scale. One of its criteria, the rapid delivery of relief goods, was assigned a value of three for course of actions 1 and 2, and a value of two for COA 3. This means, that COAs 1 and 2 are superior to COA 3 regarding this first criterion.
3. The advantage of this technique of weighted comparison is that greater discrimination can be made in assigning values to each COA for each criterion than in the descriptive and “positive-neutral-negative comparison methods, especially if the scales have a wide range, like 1 to However, similar to the descriptive and “positive-neutral-negative” comparison methods, the weighted scale technique does not account for the relative importance of individual criterion.
4. The disadvantage of this technique is that, like the positive-neutral-negative method, the justification for the values assigned must be recorded separately. 2
Totals 15 18 3
3 = Good 2 = Fair 1 = Poor Higher Score is Better 2 1

21. “Weighted” Comparison (Weighted Scale / Weighted Criteria)
Comparison Criteria
WT. 2 3 1
COA # 1
COA # 2
COA # 3
Remarks
Rapid Delivery 3 3 9 3 9 2 6
Critical Needs 2 3 6 3 6 2 4
Smooth Integration 2 2 4 3 6 3 6
Smooth Transition 1 2 3 3 3 3
Simplicity 1 2 2 2 2 3 3
Force Protection 2 2 2 2 3 3 1
Flexibility 1 1 2 2 3 3 1
1. The second weighted technique for course of action comparison prioritizes the criteria by assigning a “weight” or value to each based on the commander’s guidance or staff discussion.
2. Weight the criteria before the initial comparison to avoid “gaming” or compromising the results.
As you can see, weighting of the governing factors can have a significant direct impact on the results of the comparison process. Here, the commander has decided that rapid delivery of relief goods and services is his most important factor in this operation, followed by meeting the critical needs of the population and smooth integration of the multinational forces.
Applying weights to the criteria, course of action number 2 has the highest score, versus course of action number 3 having the highest unweighted score.
5. The advantage of this technique is that the relative value of each criterion is reflected in the results due to weighting them. Coupled with the weighted scale, this technique provides for great discrimination in assigning values to each COA.
6. One disadvantage to this technique is it tends to be more time consuming. Not only does the staff need to discuss the scale to be used, but it must also reach agreement on the relative weights to be assigned to each criterion, unless these have already been directed by the commander. Another disadvantage is that the justification for the weights assigned must be recorded separately. 6
Totals 15 26 18 30 19 28
WT (Level of Significance) : 3 = Highest, 2 = Moderate, 1 = Lowest 3 2 1

22. Comparison Method ( Key Points )
The matrix is merely a tool to:
Organize thoughts
Present data
The process is nearly as more important as the product
The matrix is not a substitute for honest assessment and detailed staff work
1. Remember, the matrix used in course of action comparison is simply a tool to help the staff to organize the huge amount of information that a complex planning process can generate.
2. When working with any of these decision matrices, avoid the trap of thinking of the matrix as the final product. It is the thought process and relevant organization of the data that is most important.
3. You will see these ideas again when we discuss lessons learned from previous exercises.

23. 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
When we Do the Comparison and Record the Data, we start with standard inputs:
Usually, each COA group leader will individually present and review their COA to the entire ensembled group.
The COA comparison method will be agreed upon.

24. “Weighted” Comparison
first…
carefully select and define
comparison criteria
Rapid Delivery
Critical Needs
Smooth Integration
Smooth Transition
Simplicity
Force Protection
Flexibility
Comparison Criteria
Remarks
Ability to move forces and materials into AO…
The ground work of carefully selecting and defining each comparison criteria is accomplished.
Additionally, a scale is for scoring the COAs is defined and agreed upon.
In our example, we have used a scale of: 3 = Good, 2 = Fair, and 1 = Poor. We could have just as easily used 1 though 10. It is strongly suggested to NOT use decimals or “halfs”.
3 = Good 2 = Fair 1 = Poor
Higher Score is Better 3 2 1

25. “Weighted” Comparison
… now weight each criteria
Rapid Delivery
Critical Needs
Smooth Integration
Smooth Transition
Simplicity
Force Protection
Flexibility
Comparison Criteria
Remarks 3 2 1 WT +
We now assign a weight to each comparison criteria, based on each comparison criteria’s level of significance.
Weight
(Level of Significance)
3 = Highest
2 = Moderate
1 = Lowest 3 2 1

26. Running the Comparison
Remember…
when doing the actual COA comparison,
evaluate each COA individually against the selected comparison criteria …
not against each other !
Summarize key points
Assist commander in making decisions
Remember, when doing the the actual COA comparison, evaluate each COA against the already agreed upon and well-defined, selected comparison criteria… not against each other or the enemy’s actions.

27. “Weighted” Comparison … now score each COA against the criteria
Rapid Delivery
Critical Needs
Smooth Integration
Smooth Transition
Simplicity
Force Protection
Flexibility
Comparison Criteria
Remarks 3 2 1
Rapid Delivery
Critical Needs
Smooth Integration
Smooth Transition
Simplicity
Force Protection
Flexibility
Comparison Criteria
Remarks 3 2
Rapid Delivery
Critical Needs
Smooth Integration
Smooth Transition
Simplicity
Force Protection
Flexibility
Comparison Criteria
Remarks 2 3
COA 1 Comparison +
When scoring each COA against the comparison criteria, an excellent technique is to “mask” the scoring from previous accomplished COA comparisons in order to avoid “impartial” scoring.
COA 2 Comparison +
COA 3 Comparison

28. “Weighted” Comparison … now add criteria weighting
COA # 1
COA # 2
COA # 3
Rapid Delivery
Critical Needs
Smooth Integration
Smooth Transition
Simplicity
Force Protection
Flexibility
Comparison Criteria
Totals
Remarks 3 2 1 19 15 18 3 2 1 WT +
Finally, multiply the previously agreed upon comparison criteria weights by the recorded COA grading…
Weight
(Level of Significance)
3 = Highest
2 = Moderate
1 = Lowest 3 2 1
3 = Good 2 = Fair 1 = Poor
Higher Score is Better 3 2 1

29. “Weighted” Comparison (Weighted Scale / Weighted Criteria)
Comparison Criteria
WT. 2 3 1
COA # 1
COA # 2
COA # 2
COA # 3
Remarks
Rapid Delivery 3 3 9 3 9 2 6
Critical Needs 2 3 6 3 6 2 4
Smooth Integration 2 2 4 3 6 3 6
Smooth Transition 1 2 3 3 3 3
Simplicity 1 2 2 2 2 3 3
Force Protection 2 2 2 2 3 3 1
Flexibility 1 1 2 2 3 3 1
… to arrive at the final Weighted Scale, Weighted Criteria recommended COA for the commander.
Note that the total of the first column of each COA represents the unweighted COA values, while the total of the second column for each COA represents each COA reassessed by the weight of significance for each comparison criteria.
In this example, accomplishing the COA comparison irrespective of weighting the comparison criteria resolves COA #3 as the recommended COA.
However, after factoring in the significance or weight of each comparison criteria, COA #2 resolves as the recommended COA.
Totals 15 26 18 30 19 28
WT (Level of Significance) : 3 = Highest, 2 = Moderate, 1 = Lowest 3 2 1

30. Running the Comparison
Repeat…
when doing the actual COA comparison,
evaluate each COA individually against the selected comparison criteria …
not against each other !
Summarize key points
Assist commander in making decisions
It cannot be stressed enough that when doing the the actual COA comparison, evaluate each COA against the already agreed upon and well-defined, selected comparison criteria… not against each other or the enemy’s actions.
If a COA fails to achieve any of the comparison criteria, it should have never been considered a valid COA: feasible, acceptable, suitable, distinguishable, and complete.
Additionally, if any attempt is made to changes or combine a COA during the COA comparison, you must go back and re-validate the entire COA.

31. 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
The output after accomplishing the COA comparison supplies the information for writing paragraphs 4 and 5, the comparison of friendly COAs and a recommended COA.

32. Recommend a COA Staff determines which COA to recommend
Commander’s guidance on criteria and weighting is reviewed and incorporated
C5 or C3 separately reviews and records individual staff recommendations
In the event of an inconclusive result:
C5 / C3 consults Chief of Staff for guidance or resolution
Staff may recommend a COA modification *
Determine
Comparison Criteria
Construct the
Comparison Method
Do the Comparison
and Record Data
Recommend a COA
to the Commander
1. Last but not least - is the staff’s course of action recommendation to the multinational force commander.
2. The staff compares the courses of action using the criteria and the comparison method they have selected. The staff then determines which course of action best satisfies the criteria, and then prepares a decision brief for the commander. This brief recommends a course of action, explains the group’s rationale for picking that particular course of action, and requests the commander’s decision or further planning guidance.
3. The director of the planning effort, generally the C5 or C3, reviews and records the recommendations of individual functional planners, for example, personnel, logistics, communications, civil affairs, and so on. The functional estimates may not all agree with the consolidated course of action recommendation that is given to the commander.
4. Individual or functional staff estimates are not normally briefed to the commander, but they are made available for his review if desired. Note that the list of criteria generally includes criteria derived from various functional estimates.
5. There may be an instance where the staff is unable to recommend a specific course of action because analysis and comparison doesn’t favor one COA over another. If this happens, the staff would then consider modifications to or combinations of existing courses of action, and solicit further guidance from the chief of staff.

33. Lessons Learned or... “ things NOT to do… ”
DO NOT: change criteria, after you start comparing, changing definitions to support the “intended” COA
DO NOT: add criteria, as you compare, to ensure the “intended” COA wins
DO NOT: add criteria, after comparison, to support the “throw- away” COA so the results do not look “one-sided”
DO NOT: use redundant criteria to support the “intended” COA
DO NOT: change criteria weights, after comparison, to support the “intended” COA (especially in close comparisons)
1. During course of action comparison, you may find yourself doing some of the things shown here. Avoid these actions; in essence what you would be doing is taking the course of action decision process away from the commander.
2. The lessons shown here may seem humorous or facetious; however, these have actually occurred during previous exercises. Don’t want to let this happen to you or your staff!

34. COA Comparison Summary4
Recommend a COA
to the Commander 3
Do the Comparison
and Record Data 2
Construct the
Comparison Method
Task Steps
In summary, course of action comparison consists of four steps:
1. First determine the criteria, or governing factors, against which each course of action will be compared. It is important to precisely define these criteria before you start comparing the COAs.
2. Next, determine and construct the comparison method. A common method is the decision matrix.
3. The third step is to do the comparison and record the data.
4. The final step is to recommend a specific course of action to the multinational force commander. 1
Determine Comparison Criteria

35. Key Points / Take-Aways
Good staff work facilitates the commander’s decision-making process
Harnesses the collective wisdom of all the warfighters on the staff
The commander makes the final COA decision
Finally, here are some key points to remember: if conducted properly, course of action comparison will:
1. Facilitate the commander’s decision-making process by balancing the ends, means, ways, and risks of each course of action.
2. Harness the collective wisdom of the most experienced warfighters and planners on the staff, and
3. Include a thorough evaluation of the key governing factors.
Please note: this is very important- the commander should be making the decision, not the senior person on the staff. The commander may not select the staff’s recommended course of action. He makes his decision based upon experience, his own analysis, judgment, discussion with component commanders and the commanders at higher headquarters, as well as his staff’s recommendation. The commander makes the final decision.
“ If the staff conducts the comparison with a preconceived end state or “intended COA”, you have not done your job in presenting options to the commander… ”

36. Questions? COA Comparison
Deployable Joint Task Force Augmentation Cell (DJTFAC)
Multinational Planning Augmentation Team (MPAT)
COA Comparison
Questions?