MCC Northwood Effects Based Approach to the Operational Planning Process

1
MCC Northwood Effects Based Approach to the
Operational Planning Process
CDR J.L. Geiger USN N521
2
Background

• What is Effect Based Planning?
• EBO v EBA v EBAO
• US - UK - NATO

3
EBO / EBA / EBAO

• EBO (US)
• A process for obtaining a desired strategic
  outcome or effect on the enemy through the
  synergistic and cumulative application of the
  full range of military and non-military
  capabilities at all levels of conflict.
• Emphasis on process
• Developing knowledge of the adversary
• Endstate ? Objectives ? Effects ? COAs ? MOE
• Understanding will enable the commander to
  determine the effects he needs to achieve to
  convince or compel the enemy to change his
  behaviour.

4
EBOs Bad Conduct Discharge

• General Mattis USMC COM USJFC calls for an end to
  EBO nonsense. JFQ 4th Qtr 2008
• Assumes a level of unachievable predictability
• cannot correctly anticipate reactions of complex
  systems
• Uses confusing terminology and is difficult to
  understand

Lt General Van Riper, USMC Corps U. JFQ 1st Qtr
2009 any taxpayer would cringe knowing that he
military spent millions to concluded that using
the past tense of a verb improves planning and
operations
NATOs effects-based approach to operations
doesnt fully mirror U.S. EBO and wasnt
addressed in either of the articles.
5
EBA / EBA / EBAO

• EBA (UK)
• The way of thinking and specific processes that
  together enable both the integration and
  effectiveness of the military contribution and a
  Comprehensive Approach and the realisation of
  strategic outcomes.

6
NATO EBAO

• 3 Strands of Development
• Knowledge
• Knowledge Development Handbook
• Experiment Autumn 2009
• Planning
• Guidelines for Operations Planning
• Planning Experiment Spring 2009
• Assessment
• Engagement Space Assessment Handbook
• Assessment Experiment in 2010
• Not approved NATO Doctrine

7
We will call itEBAO
8
SNMG1 and SNMCMG1Out of Area Deployments
planned using EBAO
9
Basic EBAO Building Blocks

• Endstate
• Objectives
• Effects
• Actions

10
Endstate

• The unambiguous concluding situation attained by
  the achievement of one or more objectives
• The situation that needs to exist when operations
  have finished
• The political and/or military situation to be
  attained at the end of an operation, which
  indicates that the objective has been achieved

11
Objectives

• An intended outcome to be achieved by the
  aggregation of specified effects
• A clearly defined and attainable goal that is
  essential to the commanders plan and towards
  which the operation is directed
• Objectives are attained through the creations of
  a number of effects

12
Effects

• A cumulative consequence caused by one or more
  actions that will lead to a change in situation
• The state of a system that results from a
  military or non-military action or set of actions

13
Actions

• An activity directed toward creation of a
  specific effect or
• specific effects.

14
EBAO Planning
End state
End State
Objectives are derived from COM MCC NW
priorities.
Objectives
Effects are the results the commander wants to
achieve.
MOEs
Effects
Actions are specific and measurable actions that
produce the Effects.
MOPs
Actions
15
EBAO
END STATE
P L A N N I N G
E X E C U T I O N
OBJECTIVES
EFFECTS
ACTIONS
16
So how did we use it?

• How Northwood incorporates EBAO into planning
• The KISS guide

17
EBAO KISS Guide

• Strategic Endstate
• Strategic Objectives
• Strategic Effects
• Operational Endstate
• Operational Objectives
• Operational Effects
• Actions

18
So how did we use it?

• How Northwood incorporated EBAO into planning
  melding into traditional OPP
• Orientation
• Concept development

19
Operational Planning Process
PLANNING STAGE
STAFF ACTIVITY
BRIEF TO COMMANDER
COMMANDERS INPUT
PRODUCED DOCUMENT
RESULTING1 DIRECTIVE
Military Assessment2
Initiating Directive
Assessment of Options
Military Assessment
Mission Analysis
Commanders Planning Guidance
Vision Guidance
Mission Analysis Brief
CONOPS
COA Development
Force Activation Directive
COA Decision
COA Decision Brief
SOR
Planning Situation change
Plan Development
Plan Approval
Execution Directive
Plan Brief
Own Capability Change
OPLAN
Plan Review Evaluation
Higher authoritys approval
1Initiated by NAC/MC/SC according to
MC133 2Applicable to SC Level Only
20
OPP vs. EBAO
TRADITIONAL OPP STAGE I INITIATION STAGE II
ORIENTATION Mission Analysis STAGE III CONCEPT
DEVELOPMENT STAGE IV PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STAGE V PLAN REVIEW
EFFECTS-BASED PLANNING
Effects- Based Assessment Planning
Gain SA/SU
END STATE ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVES AND EFFECTS DEVELOPMENT
Red/Green Teaming
ACTION DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MATCHING
SYNCHRONIZATION AND PLAN REFINEMENT
PLAN
21
OPP vs. EBAO Stage II Orientation
TRADITIONAL OPP STAGE I INITIATION STAGE II
ORIENTATION Mission Analysis STAGE III CONCEPT
DEVELOPMENT STAGE IV PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STAGE V PLAN REVIEW
EFFECTS-BASED PLANNING
Effects- Based Assessment Planning
Gain SA/SU
END STATE ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVES AND EFFECTS DEVELOPMENT
Red/Green Teaming
ACTION DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MATCHING
SYNCHRONIZATION AND PLAN REFINEMENT
PLAN
22
Stage II - OrientationEnd state analysis
Effect development


Commanders Planning Guidance
Approved Military End State, Objectives and
Effects
Red/Green Teaming
EB Assessment Planning
23
Stage II - Orientation

• Purpose to determine what must be accomplished
  to meet the higher authoritys direction and
  guidance
• Output Mission Analysis (Commanders Approved
  Effects List)
• Knowledge Base ? Joint Intelligence Preparation
  of the Battlespace (JIPB)
• Strategic Background
• Geographic Conditions
• METOC and Hydrographical Conditions
• Medical Conditions
• Opposing Force(s) Situation
• Civil-Military Situation
• Information and Media Situation
• Actors and environment relationships between
  them

24
Stage II - Orientation

• Review of Higher authoritys guidance
• Commanders initial guidance
• Analysis of Factors (Time, Space and Actors)
  (Assumptions)
• Limitations (constraints restraints)
• Partnership situations with other governmental
  agencies
• Status of military capabilities
• Mission Statement
• End State
• Objectives
• Effects
• Desired effects
• Cross agency review
• Sequencing the Effects List

25
Stage II - Orientation
An Effect is the physical and /or behavioural
state of a system that results from a military or
non/military action or set of actions

• Effects statements
• Express one idea, in passive voice, in simple
  language, and without adverbs
• Support the end state
• Be measurable and achievable
• Include time duration factor (when the effect
  needs to exist)
• Not be written as an action

26
Stage II - Orientation
8. Measures of Effectiveness (for effects)

• MOE statement should try to
• Describe one system element or relationship that
  is
• expected to change
• Describe how that element or relationship is
  expected
• to change ? the desired trend
• Describe the threshold of change to that system
• element or relationship that indicates effect
  attainment
• Be observable
• Be quantifiable (number, percentage, etc.)

27
Stage II - Orientation
Effect Positive view of NATO and an
understanding of NATO maritime forces amongst
regional actors developed MOE of regional
media articles that are positive about the NATO
deployment
28
Stage II - Orientation

• Lines of Operation (Groupings and Synchronization
  of Effects)
• 10. Commanders Critical Information Requirements
  (CCIRs)
• 11. Mission Briefing (Approved End State and
  Effects List Cdrs Guidance)

29
OPP vs. EBAO Stage III Concept Development
TRADITIONAL OPP STAGE I INITIATION STAGE II
ORIENTATION Mission Analysis STAGE III CONCEPT
DEVELOPMENT STAGE IV PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STAGE V PLAN REVIEW
EFFECTS-BASED PLANNING
Effects- Based Assessment Planning
Gain SA/SU
END STATE ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVES AND EFFECTS DEVELOPMENT
Red/Green Teaming
ACTION DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MATCHING
SYNCHRONIZATION AND PLAN REFINEMENT
PLAN
30
Stage III Concept Development
Commanders Planning Guidance
Action Development and CoA Forming
Red/Green Teaming
Approved Mission (Military End State Effects
List)
Decision Briefing
EB Assessment Planning
SOR
31
Stage III Concept Development

• No significant change
• What actions need to be conducted to achieve the
  desired effects
• Sequencing of Activities

32
Stage III Concept Development

• Purpose To determine how best to carry out
  operations that will achieve the End
  State effectively and efficiently
• Output Decision Brief CONOPS
• COAs Development
• - Development of Actions (needed to cause the
  desired effects)
• - Measures of Performance (assessment)
• - Risk assessment
• - Force Estimate (Matching resources to actions)
  
• - Synchronization of Actions
• 2. Wargaming and Comparison of COAs
• 3. Decision Brief
• 4. CONOPS

33
ACTION DEVELOPMENT
Stage III Concept Development

• Development of the actions needed to cause the
  desired effects
• Brainstorm for each desired effect possible
  military actions
• Should align to at least one effect
• Infer causality between action and desired
  effects (how the action will contribute to
  creating the effect)
• Prescriptively written verb and object..destroy
  bridge
• Are measurable
• Are feasible

34
Stage III Concept Development

• Develop Measure of Performance along the way,
  criteria used to evaluate the accomplishment the
  action
• - Observation that determines if action has
  been completed
• - Description of change
• - Threshold of change

35
Stage II - Orientation
Action Identify and liaise with World Food
Program Security operating within Somali
TTW MOP of World Food Program ship movements
for which liaison occurs MOP Number of other
encounters with security units
36
Stage III Concept Development

• LESSON LEARNED
• Actions needed a degree of distinctiveness to
  form more than one exclusive COA
• Actions developed, no matter how dissimilar, had
  to accomplish the same desired effects (KISS)
• SOLUTION
• Need Command Group guidance on these issues
• Strong, Non-kinetic, Political based.
  descriptions / flavours for actions COAs

37
Stage III Concept Development
Used traditional NATO OPP for COA Comparison

• Advantages and Disadvantages
• CDRs COA Comparison Criteria
• COA Decision Matrix
• COA recommendation

38
Stage IV V Plan Development Plan Review

• No changes
• CONOPS and OPLAN scribing identical to
  traditional NATO OPP

39
Questions?