NATOs Operational

Planning Process
The COPD -
Comprehensive Operations
Planning Directive
Lieutenant Colonel Mehmet Salar, TUR-A
NATO School Joint Operations Department

1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 NATOs Operational Planning
Process (OPP) and COPD
Agenda:
NATO Crisis Management Process
and Planning Categories
Collaborative mindset
The Operations Planning Process
in the Comprehensive Operations
Planning Directive (COPD)
Take away and summary (incl. Q & A)

2 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO Crisis Management Process
PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE
PHASE PHASE
1 4 5 6
2 3
Assessment Response
Options
Indications Development Planning Execution Transition
&
Warning
POLITICAL-MILITARY
ESTIMATE PROCESS

HQ NATO NIWS (NATO Intelligence and Warning System)

HQ NATO MC 133 (Operations Planning System)

HQ NATO CEP (Civil Emergency Planning)
ACO Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive
Strategic Concept
 Planning Categories

for FUTURE TASKS for CURRENT TASKS

ADVANCE PLANNING CRISIS RESPONSE PLANNING

CONTINGENCY STANDING OPERATION

PLAN (COP) DEFENCE PLAN (SDP) PLAN (OPLAN)

- Generic - Specific - Response to crisis

- Possible risk - Executable - COP-based
- Not executable - COM Terms - Specific
- Basis for OPLAN Of Reference - Execution capable
- MC approved - NAC approved - NAC approved

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 From GOP to COPD

ACO GUIDELINES TO NEW COMPREHENSIVE

OPERATIONAL PLANNING OPERATIONS PLANNING
DIRECTIVE 2010
2005

STRATEGIC
COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH
OPERATIONAL STRATEGIC
PLANNING AND
OPERATIONAL
PLANNING

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Collaborative Planning

As part of the collaborative planning process documents submitted to the NAC will also be passed to subordinate Cdrs
 The Evolution

sequential parallel converging

Collaboration
A process where two or more people or
organisations work together to realise shared
goals

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Philosophy & Intent

Horizontal and Vertical Collaboration

Knowledge Development
Planning
Execution Transparency
Commanders & Staffs Concurrence

Services and Functions

Civil & Military Entities
Full exploitation of the wide range of expertise
iot ensure common understanding of what
needs to be done (comprehensive approach)
Enhanced effect sooner

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Requirements

Common doctrine, SOP & SOIs

Co-location embedded planning teams
Integration of civil and military actors
Connectivity
Personal
Technical (the collaborative information
environment) STAGES OF THE PROCESS

3 level collaboration Strategic PP

SOPG
Product

Operational PP Product
JOPG

Tactical PP Product
OPG

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 The Collaborative
Information Environment
Synchronous Collaboration Tools:

TOPFAS
JCHAT TOPFAS VTC
Asynchronous Collaboration Tools:

WEB portals/Wise
Document and management systems
E-mail

10 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Planning and Plans

Planning is everything; plans are nothing.

No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
Field Marshal Helmuth Graf von Moltke
 Guiding Documents

The Comprehensive Operations

Planning Directive
(Trial version - Feb 2010)
(INTERIM V1.0 Dec 2010)
MC 133
(Operational Planning System)

Letter of promulgation

12 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
COPD Planning Phases
 Joint Operational
Planning Group

STRATEGIC

OPERATIONAL JOPG
(JPB/J5)

TACTICAL
Phase 1 Situation Awareness
 Phase 1 Situation Awareness

Purpose:
To develop and maintain a level of understanding to support
operational assessments and the provision of operational level
of advice and decision making to SACEUR during the planning
for and conduct of operations.

Products:
Commanders requests for information;
Key judgements about the situation in the area (risks and
threats);
Conditions, trends and tendencies in the area;
Assessment of NATO indicators and warnings.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 New type of conflict
Comprehensive Approach
Traditional Approach
D Non lethal
i
In plo

om y
fo m

on tar
ic
rm at

Ec ili
at ic

M
io MPEC
n
UGS UAV
GH

Ai
y
rt

r
A XXX XXX Nonlethal PMESII Agents
Homeland Pr
ec
PW Allies IS isio
JSTARS R n
Corps Marine Expeditionary
XX X Force
CIE / VIE

MEU / OGAs LIF / ODAs

Corps / MEF/ Fleet / NAF Joint Force Commander (JFC)
M on M (Attrition-based) PMEC on PMESII (Effects-based)
Tactical Strategic / Operational
Independent Interdependent / Nested
Symmetrical Asymmetrical
Massed Forces Massed Electrons
Massed Fires Precision Fires / ISR
Lethality Lethal and Nonlethal
Combat Combat / PKO / HA / CMO

17 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Strategic Design
 The four Instruments of Power
(MPEC)
Military. The military is NATOs main instrument. It refers to the application
of military power, including the threat or use of lethal and non-lethal force, to
coerce, deter, contain or defeat an adversary, including the disruption and
destruction of its critical military and non-military capabilities.
Political. The political instrument refers to the use of political power, in
particular in the diplomatic arena cooperating with various actors, to
influence an adversary or to create advantageous conditions.
Economic. The economic instrument generally refers to initiatives and
sanctions designed to affect the flow of goods and services, as well as
financial support to state and non-state actors involved in a crisis.
Civil. The civil instrument refers to the use of powers contained within such
areas as judiciary, constabulary, education, public information and civilian
administration and support infrastructure, which can lead to access to
medical care, food, power and water. It also includes the administrative
capacities of international, governmental and non-governmental
organizations (NGO). The civil instrument is controlled and exercised by
sovereign nations, IOs and NGOs.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Transition to System of Systems Analysis

Todays adversary is a dynamic, adaptive foe who operates within

a complex, interconnected operational environment

Military focused on PMESII Environment

time-force-space
Systems
Understanding Information
Vulnerabilities Political Infrastructure
K Military

K
Links Social
Strengths

Economic
Key Nodes

Weaknesses
Relationships
The
Challenge
Bi/Tri-dimensional Multi-dimensional

20 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Understand the environment
and your adversaries
Phase 2 Assessment and
Operational Appreciation
 Phase 2 Assessment and
Operational Appreciation

Purpose:
to understand the strategic situation and the nature
of the problem;
to understand NATOs desired end state and
objectives;
to contribute operational advice to SACEUR;
to assess the operational viability of strategic
response options .

Product:
Commanders operational advice.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Phase 2 Assessment and
Operational Appreciation

Operational
Advice
Briefing
Phase 3 Response
Options/Orientation
 Phase 3 Response
Options/Orientation
Purpose:
to determine the operational problem that must be
solved;
to determine specific operational conditions that must
be achieved;
to identify the key operational factors
to identify any limitations on the commanders freedom
of action.
Product:
Comprehensive Preparation of the Operational
Environment (CPOE).
The operational design.
Commander's planning guidance.
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Phase 3 Response
Options/Orientation
Initiate Operational
Orientation
Operational Orientation

Review Strategic
Operational
Context
Level
JFC
Understand the
Operational
Environment and Main Commanders
Actors Estimate
SACEURs
Strategic
Assessment Operational Factors Operational Requirements
Strategic Context

Assumptions

Operational Factors
Time/Space/Forces/ Critical capabilities
Likely actor behavior Preconditions for success Staff Functional
Actors
Probable future events Critical Information Estimates
Information
Strategic Crisis Response Measures
Planning
Required Civil-Military Analyze the Mission
Directive
Interaction
Limits on Operational Risks
Complimentary action,
Freedom of Action Time/Space/Force Advice from
mutual support, de-
Constraints, Restraints Mitigation Subordinates
Other strategic confliction
analysis,
assessments
COG Analysis Advice from
What can be exploited? cooperating IO/GO/
The purpose of mission analysis is to establish What must be protected? NGOs

precisely the operational results to be achieved Operational Design

Objectives, LOO, effects,
and to identify critical operational requirements, actions, DPs
limitations on freedom of action, and inherent
Force Capability/ C2
risks. It is driven by the strategic assessments, Initial Force capability,
and C2 Requirements
direction and guidance and further influenced by
operational estimates, CPOE as well as advice
from subordinate commands and cooperating Mission Analysis
Brief
organisations.

CPOE
Operational Planning
Requests to SACEUR
Directive
(CRMs, ROE,...)
Guidance for COA
development
Strategic Design
 Key Collaborative Output Phase 3
The Operational Design

Action:The process of engaging

any Alliance instrument at each
level in the engagement space in
order to create (a) specific
effect(s) in support of an
objective.
From Strategic Design
Effect: A change in the
behavioural or physical state of a
system (or system elements), that
results from one or more actions,
or other causes.
Objective: A clearly defined and End-State: The NAC approved
attainable goal to be achieved in set of required conditions within
order to establish conditions
required to achieve a higher
objective and/or the desired end-
the engagement space that define
an acceptable concluding
situation to be attained at the end
state. of a strategic engagement.

Action
Effect
Military Strategic Acceptable
Unacceptable DP
Condition Objective Objective Condition
Effect
Acti o Desired
n
Current Unacceptable DP Military Centre Acceptable End State
Action Effect
Situation Condition Objective of Condition (Future
Gravity Situation)
Strategic
Military Objective
Unacceptable Effect DP Acceptable
Condition Action Objective Condition

Effect

Centre of Gravity.
Decisive Point Characteristics, capabilities or
System: A functionally, Lines of Operation.
A point from which a hostile or localities from which a nation ,
physically, or behaviourally In a campaign or operation, a
friendly centre of gravity can be
related group of regularly
interacting or inter-dependent
elements forming a unified whole.
To Operational design
threatened. This point may exist
in time, space or the information
environment.
logical line (s) linking effects and
decisive conditions in time and
purpose to an objective.
an alliance, a military force or
other grouping derives its
freedom of action, physical
strength or will to fight.

29 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Operational Design

Action:The process of engaging

any Alliance instrument at each
level in the engagement space in
order to create (a) specific
effect(s) in support of an
objective.
Effect: A change in the
behavioural or physical state of a
system (or system elements), that
results from one or more actions,
or other causes.
Objective: A clearly defined and End-State: The NAC approved
attainable goal to be achieved in
order to establish conditions
required to achieve a higher
End State
set of required conditions within
the engagement space that define
an acceptable concluding
objective and/or the desired end- situation to be attained at the end
state. of a strategic engagement.

Actio
Objective
n Effect
Military Strategic Acceptable
Unacceptable DP
Condition Objective Objective Condition
Effect

Current
Situation
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Condition
Conditions
Ac ti o
Actio
n
n
Condition Effect DP Military
Objective
Centre
of
Acceptable
Acceptable
Condition
Conditions
Desired
End State
(Future
Gravity Situation)
Strategic
Military Objective
Unacceptable Effect DP Acceptable
n
Condition Actio Objective Condition

Effect Effect

Centre of Gravity.
Decisive Point

Action System: A functionally, Lines of Operation. Characteristics, capabilities or

A point from which a hostile or
physically , or behaviourally
friendly centre of gravity can be
related group of regularly
threatened. This point may exist
interacting or inter-dependent
in time, space or the information
elements forming a unified whole.
environment.
localities from which a nation ,
In a campaign or operation, a
an alliance, a military force or
logical line (s) linking effects and
other grouping derives its
decisive conditions in time and
freedom of action, physical
purpose to an objective.
strength or will to fight.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 MARITIME SECURITY
Operational Design (example SFJE 10)
3- STELLARIA IS NOT INTERFIRING WITH SHIPPING IN JOA
4

humanitarian aid and to set the conditions for the handover of security responsibilities to a
Cerasian Union force, thereby allowing an orderly disengagement of NATO-led forces.
Stellaria is complying SLOC in JOA:

A sufficiently secure and stable environment in East Cerasia to allow the delivery of
with international sufficiently
maritime laws secure to
2-SHIPPING TRAFFIC
1-PIRACY NO LONGER INPACTS ON FON
3 PIRACY exercise
IN JOA UTILISE VTMS 1
Hostile interference freedom of
Maritime traffic control with shipping navigation for
effective acceptable the delivery HA
HA ships reach 2
destination SPODs
HA delivery enabled
SLOC sufficiently
secure to permit
27-IAG Groups ACTIVITIES MITIGATED
FoN and the
8 delivery of HA
7-ARMS REGISTRATION PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL
TYTAN SECURITY

5-DELIVERY HA IN NE TYTAN IS ENABLED IAGs threats contained

24-Ports and LOCs established,

6
secured and maintained IAGs/MA Security in NE
5 Sufficient Security established
22-Tytan SF capabilities improved by NIMFOR assistance
AAA Tytan
and maintained for HA deliveries achieved
PODs & LOCs operational

TERRORIST GROUP ACTIVITIES MITIGATED A secure and

8a stable
Terrorist threat limited environment is
achieved in Tytan

Stability is
SUFFICIENT STABILITY IN
maintained in the
REGIONAL STABILTY

TYTAN TO HANDOVER TO FOF East Cerasian

ARMS REGISTRATION PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL region
KAMON RECOGNISE TYTAN SOVEREGNTY
Effective
cooperation with STELLARIA IS COMPLIYING TERRORIST GROUP KAMON
10
HN WITH INTERNATIONA COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES MITIGATED 11 PETRACEROS Stability in
9 KAM & STE deterred INFLUENCE Tytan
Malign influence
from actions against improved
TYT support NIMFOR marginalized
TYT
TYTAN OPPOSITION IN
HA delivery sufficient for the provision of DRPEs DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
TYTAN COGs:
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF TYT:Population support
UNMEC PROGRAMS ENABLED TYTAN SF IMPROVED NIMFOR: Effective
IOs NGOs SUFFICENTLY COOPERATING 12 relationship with other
BASIC NEEDS IN NE TYTAN 13 actors
Coordination with other PROVIDED STE: Credible instruments of
stakeholders UNMEC programs Power
BASIC INTERNAL SECURITY PROVIDED sustainable KAMON: Armed Forces
31 established
NATOG+65------G+250
UNCLASSIFIEDTransition G+250------G+365 Oct 2010
AAA / MA / IAGs / Piracy: PET
Initiation G----G+65 Stabilization Base of Operations
 Phase 3 Response
Options/Orientation
Initiate Operational
Orientation
Operational Orientation

Review Strategic
Operational
Context
Level
JFC
Understand the
Operational
Environment and Main Commanders
Actors Estimate
SACEURs
Strategic
Assessment Operational Factors Operational Requirements
Strategic Context

Assumptions

Operational Factors
Time/Space/Forces/ Critical capabilities
Likely actor behavior Preconditions for success Staff Functional
Actors
Probable future events Critical Information Estimates
Information
Strategic Crisis Response Measures
Planning
Required Civil-Military Analyze the Mission
Directive
Interaction
Limits on Operational Risks
Complimentary action,
Freedom of Action Time/Space/Force Advice from
mutual support, de-
Constraints, Restraints Mitigation Subordinates
Other strategic confliction
analysis,
assessments
COG Analysis Advice from
What can be exploited? cooperating IO/GO/
The purpose of mission analysis is to establish What must be protected? NGOs

precisely the operational results to be achieved Operational Design

Objectives, LOO, effects,
and to identify critical operational requirements, actions, DPs
limitations on freedom of action, and inherent
Force Capability/ C2
risks. It is driven by the strategic assessments, Initial Force capability,
and C2 Requirements
direction and guidance and further influenced by
operational estimates, CPOE as well as advice
from subordinate commands and cooperating Mission Analysis
Brief
organisations.

CPOE
Operational Planning
Requests to SACEUR
Directive
(CRMs, ROE,...)
Guidance for COA
development
 Phase 4a
CONOPS Development
 Phase 4a
CONOPS Development

Purpose:
Determine how best to carry out operations that will
accomplish the mission.

Product:
Concept of operations.
Proposed target sets and, as appropriate, target
categories.
Rules of Engagement Request (ROEREQ).
Combined Joint Statement of Requirements
(CJSOR).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Course of Action

COA 1 CO A 2 COA 3

A method for accomplishing the mission.

A way to implement the operational design by arranging

actions in space and time in order set the conditions
required to reach the End State.

Who, what, when, where, why and how

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Phase 4a
CONOPS Development

Decision
Briefing
 ACTION

Wargaming
REACTION

COUNTER Key Facts/Assumptions

Map Synch Matrix
ACTION
Specialist Staff

Game Recorder
COGNITION/ Red Players Referee
ADJUSTMENTS
Game
Facilitator Red COA
Lead Game Map/Tokens

WHITE
Own COA
Lead Component LNO
CELL

GREEN
Additional Recorder
CELL Blue Players
 COA Decision Briefing

P h as e 1
P has e 2
Ph as e 3 COGs
Ph as e 1 Own O p D e sign
Inten t E n em y

D e scription
DP s
S tart/E nd
O w n/O PF O R
O p T im e lin e
O bjec tiv es
D e cis iv e
E nd State s
P oin ts
a ch ie ved

C2
A ssu m ptions Arra nge m en ts
(T as k O rg an iz ation)

S ync hron iz ationm a trix R eq ues ts C m d rs

C ritica l
F or C om m a nde rs Ta sks
Info
Info R equ irem ents D ec ision P oints to Tro ops
(R FIs) (C C IR )

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Phase 4b
OPLAN Development
 Phase 4b
OPLAN Development
Purpose:
to develop the arrangements and further specify the
required activities;
to implement and specify the concept of operations;
to provide a basis for planning by
subordinate/supporting commands.

Product:
Crisis Response Planning: an executable OPLAN.
Advance Planning:
Contingency Plan (COP), or
Standing Defence Plan (SDP).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Phase 5 Execution/
Assessment/Plan Review

Execution requires the command and control of

military forces and interaction with other non-military
means to conduct integrated, coordinated or
synchronised actions that create desired effects.

Based on assessments and on evaluation of progress

the plan will be adjusted accordingly.
 Phase 6 Transition

The purpose is to develop and coordinate OPLAN for

the handover of responsibility to the UN, other
international organisations (e.g. EU) or indigenous
actor in the crisis area and withdraw NATO forces in a
controlled manner so as to avoid this action being a
destabilising influence in the region.
 Summary & take away (1)

It is a trial/interim
version

An evolution, not a
revolution
Still discrepancies
A lot of good new
ideas in COPD

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Summary & take away (2)

Different mindset Comprehensive Approach

(MPEC)
Staff at several levels will collaborate to produce
the deliverables in concert
Increased inclusion and transparency
Increased number of actors
Increased interaction.
Transparency and information management
The planning outputs has not changed a lot
deliverables are the same (CONOPS, OPLAN)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Summary & take away (3)

The Operational Planning Process continues to

evolve. There are still too many moving parts
Working definitions terminology still to be
ratified
COPD Still under continuous review
Lots of associated doctrinal work (handbooks,
AJPs, etc.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Questions

46 NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Current Situation

Each actor produces uncoordinated actions that generate unplanned effects

RESULT
Crisis solution impossible to predict
Success guaranteed only by continuous IC presence
Long term commitment (and higher cost) as a consequence
 Comprehensive Approach
Outcome

END
STATE

A Comprehensive Approach seeks to produce coordinated actions

aimed at realizing desired effects in order to achieve an agreed end state.
 JPB/JFC, Main and FE
Current Situation

OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE
JHQ MAIN COM
POLA D
COS

SUPPORT OF STAFF
SPECIAL S TAF F
BI M FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT

KNOW LED GE OPERA TIO NS RESOUR CES

MANA GE MEN T DIREC TOR A TE DIREC TOR A TE
DIREC TOR A TE
KNOW LED GE JT EFFECTS JOIN T LO GIS TI CS CO M & INFORMATIO N
CEN TRE MANAGEMENT PLANS RESOUR CES SYSTEMS
EXERCISE &
SYNCHR ONI - FINA NCIA L
PREPARATION JOIN T ENGINEER
SA TIO N & RESOUR CES
ASSESSMEN T
JOINT EXECU TI ON
POLICY APPLICATION & HU MA N
LESSONS IDENTIFIED/ RESOUR CES
LESSONS LEARNED SITCEN / CJOC

COM JLSG HQ (Deployed)

JHQ FE/DJSE
Cos Fwd
FS E
JLSG HQ Element (Core)
Staff Supp ort
(Pre Deployment)

JOINT COORDI NATION THEA TRE ENGAGEMEN T

SITUATION CELL CENTRE CEN TRE
 Future JFHQ v1.8 Model
Protocol
POLAD COM
CSEL DCOM SWM

SPECIAL STAFF COS IMS

LEGAD STRATCOM
MPS
PAO Adv MEDAD (Twin) DOM
JF HQ Host Nation Spt
LESO Adv Financial Con (Twin) IAC/IAT Spt DJ HQ Real Life Spt
Liaison Element SOFAD DJ HQ FP

DCOS DCOS
DCOS
PARTNERSHIP & SUPPORT
OPERATIONS
READINESS
Knowledge Mgt Exercises &
NATO Exercise
& Acquisition Preparation Spt Manpower
& Preparation
J2 * NFS Readiness J1 Human
Intel Support J7 Force MIL Pers
Knowledge Preparation DJHQ Readiness/Trg Resources
Knowledge Eval & Certification Civ Pers
Analysis &
Production Joint Doctrine Ops & Plans
Doctrine & NFS J4
Interoperability Land Doctrine Logistics Mvt & Transp
JOC
Lessons Learned
J3/5 Multinational
J3 Logistics
Synchronization
Operations & Execution Civ-Mil Plans & Ops
Effects J9 Civ-Mil Interaction J6 CIS
& Influence Interaction & Management
JLSG
Mil Partnership Mil
Partnerships Purch & Contr
J8
Plans Financial Budget & D
J5 J39/TEC **
Plans Fin & Account
& Policy Policy
Infrastructure
J-ENG & Plans
Campaign
Ops & Trg
Assessment * No global agreement on that name
J10
Assessment J-MED
Operational ** Generated from J9 for deployment
Assessment
NCRS and Planning
 CPOE elements
(Comprehensive Preparation of
the Operational Environment)
Characteristics Operational Impact
Theatre geometry Possible access, staging, entry, operating areas, bases and distances, lines of
communications, sustainment, etc
Geographical/oceanographi Observation, obstacles, movement/mobility, key terrain, littorals, choke points,
c characteristics international sea lanes
Meteorological Visibility, ground mobility, air operations, maritime operations, risks to exposed
characteristics personnel
Population demographics Human development, population movement, displaced populations/refugees,
dependence on humanitarian aid, populations at risk, unemployment
Political situation Credibility, popularity, effectiveness of governments to provide for the basic needs of
the populace, opposition, stability, status of forces agreements, rule of law,
Military and security External/internal threats, surrogates and proxy forces, illegally armed groups, extrem-
situation ism/terrorism, operational areas, military dispositions, police, para-military activity.
Economic situation Availability of money, food, energy, raw materials, industry, services
Socio-cultural situation Social cohesion/conflicts, dominant groups, extremism
Health and medical Risk of famine, diseases, epidemics, environmental hazards, available medical support
situation
Infrastructure situation Adequacy of transportation and communications nodes and networks; POL storage
and distribution
Information and media Control/bias/manipulation of media, public access to information, use of propaganda,
situation robustness of communications
 Operational Design (example)
THE OPERATIONAL PROBLEM GIVEN TO
TO BE SOLVED. JOPG
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Deploy and Shape Airport Operations Transition
MOO 1
Secure the
Line of Operation 1

Airport
Airport Property

Property
5
Effect
RISKS 3 MOO 2 END STATE

Guerrilla Fighting Forces

UNDESIRED
Effect
ASSUMPTIONS Re-establish A secure and
STATE full
Effect 6 efficient airport
functionality environment
Airport PRE-CONDITIONS Effect at the airport
FOR SUCCESS able to offer
controlled
flights to
and
FACTOR international aid
threatened by 1 2
ANALYSIS organizations
Line of Operation 2

guerilla
which are free
Airport Vicinity

fighters MOO 3
CIV-MIL Establish of threats.
Security from
External
CONSTRAINTS / 4 7 Threats at
Effect
RESTRICTIONS Effect the airport
Effect
CRITICAL
CAPABILITIES
Operational Design

i on al De si g n
Operat

JOPG Chief
CJTF COMMANDER
 Course of Action development

Who will conduct the operation?

(i.e., capabilities required)

Who?
How? What actions
What? must be
performed?
How will the operation
be conducted?
Course
Of
Action
Why? When?
When does the action
Why is the operation
being conducted (e.g., Where? begin and/or when
must it be completed
in order to defeat the (i.e., sequencing,
enemy)? phasing)?
Where will these actions be
performed?
 Infrastructure Requirements

COA Red Powerpoint COA Blue

y Sy
e rla nc
hr
ov oM
e en at
r
G

White Green
Cell Cell
MAP
Functional Scribe Scribe Functional
Experts Blue Red Experts
CC-Liaison Cell Cell CC-Liaison

Referee Co-ordinator

KD Analysts Scribe Op Analysts

 Recording Turn Information Staff Developing Common Understanding
(but keeping out of game play)

Slide Artists

Detailing Blue Game Turn

Game Map/Tokens
 Commanders Selection Criteria

COA 1 CO A 2 COA 3

Ex Flexibility
am Tempo
pl COA
e Operational risk
recommendation
Logistic simplicity
Collateral damage

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
 Overall layout of OPP (Phases 2, 3 and 4a)
Alliance
JPB / JAB OBJ
WHAT? CCs / OA
Phase Phase
MEANS STR/MIL
1/2 3 Troops-to- tasks STR
OBJ STR/MIL
COG
JTTL
Knowledge
Dev.
MA Phasing OP COG Criteria for
E
SoS FA R of HG Effects Success N
LoO Direct App CV OP
T/S/F Actions D
Orientation OP DESIGN (DC/DP)
DC
Indirect App CC/CR OBJ
OP S
NAC ID COG/CC/CV/CR DC Acceptable T
SSA
PMESII Branch/ Sequel OBJ
analysis CRM / CCIR/ROEs Condtions A
MROs OP To be T
CPOE Enablers Early Deployment established
Requirement effects Decision Point
OBJ E

Actions
OP IFE
MoEs

WAYS
advice Assumptions MoPs
DS
--
Phase 3 --- N
E
Products

MAB
CPG
Phase3 From JTTL to CJSOR
Continuous Force /St/CRD/FD
HOW? (MPEC) Phase 4a
COM`s
W Refinement COA C D
Review of CPG Refinement E
Viability Check COA A *Adv/Disadv S O
Factors affecting COA Dev E M C Phase 4a
U *Risks
Risks OPT1 F COA1 R L P
P Gen SYNCH *Gaps I Products
Common requirements, NRF, A G E A
FoF OPT2 D Phasing *Refine S
C A Concept MATRIX C R *CONOPS
Alternatives E COA2 Start/End
A - OPDESIGN
T I I
OPT3 T - CJSOR
S Main Effort M I S O *ROEREQ
E DPs - effects
Effects E - Actions O I N
Actions N
- Timeline O *CJSOR
Criteria N Brief
See List of Abbreviations
 Crisis Response Planning

NATO Crisis Response Planning

Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 1 Development Phase 5 Phase 6
Assessment of Phase 4 Planning
Indicators and Warnings of Response Execution Transition
the Crisis
Options
NAC Approved
NAC Approved NAC DS for
Tasker for MRO NAC Tasker for Strategic
Strategic Strategic Transition
Tasker for SSA NAC ID with Execution Periodic Mission OPLAN
CONOPS OPLAN planning with NAC
NAC Approved Directive Review with
Information Military MC guidance with MC Guidance Force Activation MC Guidance
Sharing SACEURs Strategic with MC MC Guidance Execution
Response Directive SACEURs Directive
Strategic Strategic OPLAN Guidance
Options With MC Mission Strategic with MC
Assessment CONOPS with
Guidance Progress OPLAN Guidance
MC Guidance
Report
Phase 4a-
Phase 3 Phase 4b Phase 5
Phase 1 Phase 2 Strategic Phase 6-
Military Strategic OPLAN Development Execution
Situation Awareness Strategic CONOPS Transition
Response (Force Generation) Assessment/OPLAN
Assessment Development
Options Review
Strategic Approved
Approved
Warning CONOPS operational
Strategic Strategic
Information Order Approved OPLAN Strategic
SACEURs Planning OPLAN Disengagement
Operational Planning
Sharing Strategic Operational ACTORD Assessment Planning
Directive Operational CONOPS Directive
Assessment Advice
CONOPS Operational
OPLAN

Phase 2 Phase 4a Phase 5

Phase 1 Phase 3 Phase 4b
Operational Operational Phase 6
Operational Operational OPLAN Execution/ Campaign
Situation Appreciation/ CONOPS Transition
Orientation Development Assessment
Awareness Assessment of Development OPLAN Review
Options Approved
Component Component
Operational Operational CONOPS OPLANs ACTORD Operational
Information Operational Disengagement
Planning CONOPS Approved Planning
Sharing Warning Tactical Approved Assessment Planning
Directive Component Components Directive
Order Advice Operational
CONOPSs, OPLANs
OPLAN

Phase 2 Phase 5
Phase 1 Phase 4a
Appreciation and Phase 3 Phase 4b Phase 6
Situation CONOPS Execution/Assessment/
Assessment of Orientation OPLAN/Order Development Transition
Awareness Development OPLAN Review
Options

As As
partpart
of the collaborative
of the collaborativeplanning
planningprocess
processdocuments
documents submitted to the
submitted to theMC
MCwill
willalso
alsobebepassed
passedto to subordinate
subordinate Cdrs
Cdrs