OPP NOTES

CF OPP NOTES

1/24 OPP NOTES (15 Aug 2013) For Educational Purposes Only Canadian Forces College, Toronto

SUB-PROCESS NOTES

THE CF OPP - INTRODUCTION

The Canadian Forces Operational Planning Process (CF OPP) a coordinated process to determine the best method of

accomplishing assigned operational tasks and to plan possible future tasks. Having great similarity to the formal Estimate

of the Situation carried out at the tactical level, the CF OPP is intended to be conducted collaboratively and

simultaneously by all staff branches within a formation headquarters (HQ) and with significant interaction throughout

the process between superior and subordinate formations and units.

The CF OPP is a tool or framework to help commanders and staffs solve complex problems in mutually-supporting yet

complimentary roles. The staffs are objective and rational. They analyze facts, make logical deductions, draw

conclusions, propose solutions and solve problems. Meanwhile, the Commander is more subjective and imaginative,

drawing upon his experience and intuition and capitalizes on opportunities to demonstrate the operational art while

expressing his intent. To be successful in planning, the Commander must provide guidance to his staff and monitor their

progress.

The CF OPP is formalized problem-solving incorporated with analytical step-by-step approach to decision-making at the

operational level. Like the Estimate of the Situation, it applies the same simple formula of first stating the aim to be

achieved, identifying and analyzing the facts, devising courses open and making a plan. It has the following main

advantages:

a. It allows strategic control to be maintained during the development of a plan; b. It enables the commander and staff to translate strategic or superior objectives into operational-level military

objectives;

c. It standardizes the planning process within the HQ and across the CF, and indeed also across NATO; d. It enables commanders to guide development of the plan including the synchronization of operational combat

functions; and

e. It maximizes the commanders and staffs creative thinking and associated thought processes.

STAGE 1 - INITIATION

Introduction Stage 1 is about the Commanders initial assessment, assisted by a small number of key staff and advisors to understand the problem and tasks received from his

Superior. Its important to realize that initiation of planning does not confer the authority to execute an operation. Usually, forces required will have to be identified,

requested to higher authority, approved and sourced sometimes from multiple commands or nations. It is quite possible and indeed common - that you are perhaps planning an operation for a Task Force that does not yet exist, except for the HQ or

the Commander-designate.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2013

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

Input Superior Comds Initiating Directive

Operations planning may be initiated at any level in response to either political or

military events. An Initiating Directive is a generic term for the instrument issued by

an Initiating Authority (IA) that triggers operations planning and it could take the

form of a written directive, an operations plan (OPLAN), planning guidance, warning

order, or informal means such as telephone call, email or verbal instruction. The IA

can be considered as being one level above the Commander who is in receipt of

direction to carry out planning for and execution of an operation. In other words, the

IA is the Commanders commander and throughout the CF OPP is referred to as the Superior Commander. The CF OPP might also be initiated by a commander on his

own initiative for his staff to carry out planning for contingencies, branches or

sequels.

In the Canadian context (see CFJP 01 Canadian Military Doctrine), at the strategic

level the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) is the principal military advisor to the

Government of Canada and responds to government direction for military operations

by the CF. It is the Strategic Joint Staff (SJS) who analyze domestic or global

situations and translate government direction in order to provide the CDS with

decision-making support thus enabling his strategic command. The SJS might take

part in the preliminary stages of operational planning with other government

departments, CF operational and environmental commands, and the strategic staffs of

Canadas allies. The SJS enables the CDS strategic level planning, initiation, direction, synchronization and control of operations whilst also translating the CDS intent into strategic directives. Thus for CDS-directed operations, the CDS would

issue an Implementation Order that directs the implementation of a Plan.

At the operational level, for example the Commander Canadian Joint Operations

Command (CJOC) as the Superior Commander would be the IA that directs a Joint

Task Force Commander (JTFC) to plan and execute operations.

In the NATO context, at strategic level, SACEUR would issue an Activation Order to

initiate the Transfer of Authority for national forces to him and authorizes the

deployment of NATO forces as well as the release of NATO common funding.

Commanders Initial Assessment - Tasks

The Comd needs to assess the tasks he has been assigned by his Superior Comd, the

general situation within which he will carry out his operation and the main factors

that characterize it. He should ask himself, "What have I been asked to do?"

Commanders Initial Assessment -

Operational Timelines

The Comd needs to consider timelines applicable to operational activities and also to

planning.

Commanders Initial Assessment - Threats to

Planning

The Comd needs to consider any threats that might impact on operational activities or

on his planning. He should do so in the grand context of Diplomatic, Informational,

Military or Economic (DIME) or Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure

and Informational Systems (PMESII).


Comd's Initial Assumptions

The Comd may have to make assumptions in order to carry out planning of the

operation.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES


Initial End State

The Comd should have a reasonable idea of a likely desired End State, based on

Superior Comd's Initiating Directive, intent or concept of operations. In the Canadian

context, it is likely that the Military End State would be determined by the SJS.


Required Staff Products

At this early stage, the Comd may have a reasonable idea of which staff products or

critical information requirements will be necessary. There may be an applicable

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in use within the HQ.

Activate Planning Staff -

Organization

In the context of a major Joint HQ, the core planning staffs are known as the Joint

Operations Planning Group, or JOPG, and they are described in detail in the HQ

SOPs and Terms of Reference (TOR). The JOPG could be a permanent branch within

the HQ, but most likely is ad hoc and activated when necessary by the COS. The

JOPG is a cross-functional working group led by COS and/or the Joint Plans Branch

(a.k.a. J5 or Chief JOPG) and is responsible for the process of operational level

planning to develop the operational design and associated plans. It includes planners

from all staff branches, subject matter experts (SME), and liaisons representing all the

required functional areas and disciplines, depending on the type and level of operation

being conducted and taking into account political, economic, civil and military

instruments. It is responsible for the coordination and production of operational plans,

contingency plans, Statement of Requirements (SOR), branch plans and sequel plans.

The JOPG will be supplemented by other important Staff Groups and Boards such as

the Information Operations Coordination Committee (IOCC), the Joint Targeting

Coordination Board (JTCB), the Joint Intelligence Centre (JIC), the Joint Fusion

Centre and the Joint Operations Centre (JOC). Further, the JOPG will be

supplemented by augmentees, liaison personnel and specialist staff such as legal

advisor (LEGAD), political advisor (POLAD) and medical advisor (MEDAD). The

key roles in the JOPG are the J5 and the J2.

Roles for all JOPG members should be described in HQ SOP or TOR. Broadly, these

could be as follows:

J1 Personnel, human resources J2 - Adversary strategic, operational factors; environment; geomatics J3 Operational considerations J4 Logistics considerations; Lines of Communication (LOC), deployment; sustainment; Host Nation (HN) support

J5 Mission guidance; Alliance strategy, operational factors J6 C2 factors; C2 options for Opposition/Allied/IO/Space J7 Training and exercise considerations J8 Financial considerations J9 HN strategic and operational factors; HN support

The nature of recent global challenges has highlighted the importance for military

officers to consider the comprehensive aspect of planning to work alongside other

players and within not only a joint but interagency, inter-governmental, multinational

and public (JIIMP) environment. To achieve interoperability, commanders and staffs

will have to be ready to include those other players in the JOPG whenever possible.


Establish Liaison

In Stage 1, the Comd might direct that the staff initiate liaison with higher, lower and

flanking formations.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES


Battle Rhythm

Most likely, the HQ will have an established and well-described battle rhythm

published in their SOPs. Chief JOPG, or COS, is the principal staff officer

responsible for the battle rhythm of the JOPG. Among other considerations, the battle

rhythm should consider team assignments, working hours and locations, meetings and

conferences, briefings, deliverables and staff products.


Gather Planning Tools

To support the JOPG workspace organization, all necessary planning tools are

gathered, such as higher HQ directives, orders, maps, overlays, briefing templates and

other information sources such as country studies and strategic assessments.

Commander's Direction to

Staff - General

The Comd will issue direction to his staff for the conduct of Stage 2. The format will

vary depending on the HQ, but this could likely be drafted by the COS or Chief JOPG

who also leads internal staff coordination efforts.


Staff - Type of Planning

The Comd will direct his staff regarding the type of planning they are to conduct,

whether deliberate or crisis action and whether they are to abbreviate or modify any

aspect of the OPP. For example, the Comd may wish to receive a mission analysis

briefing before the staff commences factors analysis or operational design. Types of

planning include:

a. Deliberate planning. Deliberate planning consists of initiating and developing plans in anticipation of a known or anticipated future event or circumstances

that Canada might or could reasonably face. The outputs are Operations Plans

(OPLAN) or Contingency Plans (CONPLAN);

b. Crisis Action planning. Crisis Action planning consists of initiating and developing plans in response to a current or developing crisis. It requires

expeditious coordination and approval. While following the same stages as in

deliberate planning, some activities are truncated to meet time constraints.

The outputs are the same as for deliberate planning;

c. NATO Fast-Track Decision-Making (FTDM). This applies only to NATO, for those situations requiring an urgent response of rapidly-deployable forces

(for example the NATO Response Force (NRF)) when an existing relevant

and current contingency plan is available. Based on his strategic assessment,

SACEUR may recommend to the North Atlantic Council (NAC) that the

FTDM process be used.


Staff - Initial Time Allocation

for Planning and for Operations

The Comd, COS and Chief JOPG will consider the operational timeline and the time

available for planning since this could significantly affect the battle rhythm and the

potential to produce various staff products.


Staff - Authorized Movement,

Including Initial Recce and

Liaison

The Comd will consider issuing direction regarding liaison and authorized

movements of forces, personnel or equipment.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES


Staff - Additional Tasks for

Staff

As necessary.


Staff - Initial Comds Critical Information Requirements

(CCIR)

CCIR guide information gathering and dissemination, synchronize joint activities and

assist in resource allocation. They concern the operational status and capability of

friendly forces, operational status, capabilities and intentions of the adversary and the

battle space environment. CCIR derive from analysis of key factors that highlights

gaps in information essential to the planning and execution of operations. Staff should

include those information requirements identified by the Comd during Stage 1 and

those Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIR), Essential Elements of Friendly

Information (EEFI) or Friendly Force Information Requirements (FFIR) deemed

sufficiently important to the Comd during Stage 2. At this point in Stage 1, based on

the Comd's initial assessment, he may have identified initial CCIR that should be

relayed to the staff. Further staff consideration of factors during subsequent sub-

processes should enhance refinement of CCIR which then can be finalized and

approved following operational design.

OUTPUT:

Comd's Stage 2 Direction

This direction is provided to the staff to initiate their Stage 2 efforts.

OUTPUT:

Warning Order (WNG O)

If applicable, the Comd might issue a WNG O to subordinate formations and units

about the probable operation to come.

STAGE 2 - ORIENTATION

Introduction In Stage 2, through deductive reasoning, the Comd and staff become oriented to the

situation, the problem to be solved and the tasks to be accomplished. The Staff will

define the situation as it currently exists, determine what needs to happen to change

the situation from its current state to the desired end state and define what the

situation should look like when the operation is done. In other words, the Comd and

staff must determine What is the mission? Among the more significant details to be drawn out during Stage 2 analysis are:

a. Operational Military End State. The military situation that needs to exist

when an operation has been completed;

b. Criteria for Success. Measurable criteria that determine when the End State is

achieved; and

c. Operational Objectives. These should be assessed within the context of

DIME.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

Mission Analysis Mission Analysis (MA) comprises the analysis of the Superior Comds intent, tasks, assumptions and limitations. This sets the scene for operational design. MA usually

begins as a brainstorming session involving the Comd, COS, J5, J2 and perhaps key

members of the JOPG. MA is a logical process for extracting and deducing from a

superiors orders the tasks necessary to fulfill a mission. It places in context what effect is to be achieved in the overall op design and results in the Comd's mission

statement. Possibly, the Commander and staff might conclude that the mission

cannot be achieved by a single operation and hence a campaign plan consisting of

multiple operations may be required.

The Comd may prefer that a Mission Analysis Briefing be conducted immediately

following this sub-process in order to clearly state for his staff and subordinates with

a unified purpose what effect is to be achieved in the overall operational design. Such

statement not only triggers, but regulates the remainder of the analysis and planning

process. Alternatively, the Comd may prefer that the briefing be conducted later in

Stage 2 so as to include the results of factors analysis, operational design and initial

risk assessment.

Intent Analysis - Superior

Comd's Initiating Directive and

Op Design

Here the staff will consider the Superior Comds initiating directive, op design and if known his concept of ops (CONOPS). A Comd is required to understand the Intent of

his Superior Comd two levels up, and the Intent and CONOPS of his Superior Comd

one level up. The first issues to be agreed upon are the nature of the problem to be

solved and the results to be achieved. The boundaries of the problem need to be

established. The guidelines provided by the Superior Comd must be defined and

interpreted and any physical, military or political conditions that may affect the

mission determined. Examine whatever intelligence is available at this time; this may

be little more than a summary of background reports or country studies, or it may be

very detailed intelligence products already prepared. Collate the known facts from

any and all other sources books, references, staff-officers handbooks, liaison reports. The Superior Comd might have made assumptions contained within his

direction.

Task Analysis - Assigned

Tasks

Assigned tasks or Specified Tasks - are explicitly stated in the directives or orders received from the Superior Comd. With respect to the Comd's operational design,

they can translate into potential decisive points (DP), objectives or lines of operation

(LOO).

Task Analysis - Implied Tasks Implied tasks are other activities that must be carried out in order to achieve the

mission, including the requirement to support the Superior Comds Main Effort, but which are not explicitly stated in higher directives. These are derived from a detailed

analysis of the Superior Comds directives and orders and also the key factors. For example, we can be tasked to conduct offensive action in a theatre and it is implied

that we must enter the theatre to achieve this.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

Task Analysis - Essential Tasks Once all assigned and implied tasks have been identified, they should be analyzed to

determine those that require an allocation of resources and must be executed to

accomplish the mission or would result in mission failure if not completed

successfully. They have high correlation with objectives and drive the op design.

These are known as Essential Tasks. Such a list generally requires approval by the

Comd during the MA Briefing. A comparison of all tasks against the Superior Comd's

intent should lead to an initial deduction of the critical activity required or the Main

Effort.

Assumptions & Limitations -

Superior Comd's Assumptions

In the absence of positive proof, assumptions may be made to provide necessary

information in order to enable commanders and staff to continue the planning process

and to ultimately decide upon a course of action. They must however realize that

assumptions must later be validated before a plan could be considered reliable. Any

assumptions listed in the Superior Comds Initiating Directive should be noted and considered during subsequent planning.


Own Assumptions

Then, the JOPG should identify and highlight any assumptions necessary for

continuation of planning. Throughout the OPP, any further assumptions identified

should be incorporated into the list.


Limitations

Limitations may be either assigned or implied and may apply to planning or execution

of an op, or both. A commander may place some limitations on his subordinate

commanders that restrict their freedom of action.

Constraints take the form of a requirement to do something (for example, maintain a

reserve of one division, maintain a fighter squadron on alert, conduct maritime

interdiction operations in a specific area).

Restraints are prohibitions on action (for example, no reconnaissance forward of a

line before H-hour).

Mission Statement At this point, the Commander and staff should be able to derive the mission statement

which will underpin all remaining planning and execution of the operation. The

mission statement is a clear expression by the Commander that describes: who will

execute actions; what type of action will be executed (attack, defend, deter etc); when

will the action begin (e.g. on order); where will the action occur and why will this action be carried out (e.g. in order to).

In the event the Comd was not intimately involved in the analysis thus far, it may be

worthwhile for the staff to formally brief him and seek approval of the proposed

mission statement. In some organizations, it has become customary to consider this an

initial mission statement at this time, allowing further staff consideration during

subsequent sub-processes then to finalize the mission statement as an output of

operational design (included within the Mission Analysis Briefing).

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

Evaluate Friendly Forces -

General

An evaluation of facts should lead to many deductions and conclusions translating

into identifiable elements of all aspects of OPP such as operational timeline,

operational design, risk management, Commanders Planning Guidance, Courses of Action (COA), OPLAN, supporting plans and annexes (coordinating measures,

logistics planning, targeting, intelligence collection to name just a few). Staff should

identify the key factors - those that can affect the mission in fundamental ways.

During this process, the analyst asks the question So what? in order to make those deductions. Consider and assess all factors concerning all "actors", namely own

forces, alliance forces and partners.

OPERATIONAL TIMELINE

In anticipation of the timeline comparison step at the end of this sub-process, JOPG

should now begin development of the own forces operational timeline, enhancing and refining it throughout Stages 2 and 3.

TERMINOLOGY

Planners should consult the Defence Terminology Bank (DTB) (at DWAN

http://terminology.mil.ca/) for operational definitions, such as :

D-Day: The day on which an operation, whether hostilities or any other operation,

commences or is due to commence; or, the day on which an operation commences or

is due to commence. This may be the commencement of hostilities or any other

operation.

G-Day: The day on which an order is or is due to be given to deploy a unit. Note:

Such an order is normally a national one.

M-Day: The day on which mobilization commences or is due to commence.


Impact of the Operational

Environment

The operational environment is primarily considered during Step 2 of the Joint

Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (JIPOE) and the information

is treated by both the J2 in subsequent JIPOE steps and by the JOPG during OPP

Stage 2. Consequently, close cooperation and staff interaction will be essential

between the JOPG and J2 Branch. To facilitate this, the JOPG battle rhythm should

include periodic J2 JIPOE update briefings.


Strengths & Weaknesses

While examining own forces and adversary forces, it is common to consider their

strengths and weaknesses. There are various techniques commonly employed,

however one of the more useful methods employed is the CC/CR/CV Analysis in

which you examine the Centre(s) of Gravity (COG) or End State to determine its

Critical Capabilities (CC), Critical Requirements (CR) and Critical Vulnerabilities

(CV).


Centre of Gravity

NATO AAP-6 defines COG (a noun) as that characteristic, capability or locality from

which a military force, nation or alliance derives its freedom of action, physical

strength or will to fight. Clausewitz described COG as the "hub of all power and

movement, upon which everything depends...and the principal source of strength and

power for achieving one's aim." Example, Iraqi Republican Guard during the 1991

Persian Gulf War.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES


CC/CR/CV

Ref: US Joint Pub 2-01.3 Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational

Environment

At this point, staff should examine their own forces with a view toward identifying

critical vulnerabilities that should be shielded. The method associated with this is

called the Strange Analysis, named for Mr Joseph Strange, an instructor at the US Marine Corps War College. For this analysis, a Centre of Gravity (COG) is assessed

for its associated Critical Capabilities (CC), then those capabilities are assessed for

their Critical Requirements (CR) and finally those requirements are assessed for their

Critical Vulnerabilities (CV).

Alternatively, when the COG is not readily apparent the staff may assess an End State

for its associated CC, CR and CV. This is known as the Modified Strange Analysis.

Critical Capabilities (CC) - (a verb) those means that are considered crucial enablers

for a COG to function as such, and are essential to the accomplishment of the

specified objective or assumed objective. CC is a strength. Analysts may find it useful

to think of CC as an "ability to...". Examples: "ability to dominate sea lanes of

communication (SLOC)", "ability to communicate with...", "ability to counter...".

Critical Requirements (CR) - (a noun) the conditions, resources and means that enable

a CC to become fully operational or to sustain the CC with its strength. In operational

context, CR are "high-level" descriptions of capabilities such as "Air Force capable of

Close Air Support or Interdiction", "secure environment", "mobile rocket or missile

launchers", "advance warning capability", "SAM umbrella".

Critical Vulnerabilities (CV) - (a noun with modifiers) those aspects or components

of CR that are deficient, or vulnerable to direct or indirect attack in a manner

achieving decisive or significant results. CV expose the CC. However, in identifying

CV, the J2 or JOPG analysts must also compare their criticality with their

accessibility, vulnerability, redundancy, ability to recuperate and impact on the

civilian populace. Examples: "vulnerability of ports to attack", "Network of radars".

Adversary CV are your potential targets. Own CV should be protected from attack (as

in "Shield DP").

High Value Targets (HVT) Among the important staff inputs from the J2 branch following their evaluation of the

adversarys critical vulnerabilities (CV) will be a list of the adversarys assets, resources, organizations or persons that J2 assesses the adversary requires for the

successful completion of his mission. The loss of any of these assets would be

expected to seriously degrade important adversary functions and thus successful

targeting against them would be a high value action for our own operation. These

HVT should be considered when staff design the operation and prepare courses of

action.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES


Initial Capability Requirements

Deductions and conclusions drawn from the analysis of factors thus far should allow

the JOPG to prepare the broad initial list of capabilities the Task Force (TF) would

require. This will be further amplified and detailed following the op design and

during Stage 3 to become the Joint Statement of Requirements (JSOR). In comparison

to those forces presently available a shortfall will be identified and the staff may

assess the initial level of operational risks as a result. Staff may also be able to design

the initial broad TF C2 structure.


Time/ Space / Force Analysis

For a detailed description of this activity, please refer to JIPOE Step 2.

These factors impact on travel, movement, decision-making, reaction time,

sustainment, exhaustion of resources, tempo, initiative and so forth. Taking into

consideration the available intelligence products from the JIPOE Step 2, the JOPG

should assess in greater fidelity the time, space and force relationships applicable to

friendly forces. This analysis has four aspects: time vs. force; space vs. time; force vs.

space; and time vs. space vs. force.


Adversary vs. Blue Timeline

Comparison

Consider and compare operational timelines of adversary versus own forces. These

will need to be synchronized for the purpose of the COA War Game during Stage 3.

Determine if there are any windows of vulnerability, i.e. when the adversary actions

could not be sufficiently countered due to own forces not being operationally ready.

For the adversary, consider the estimate of soonest achievement of capability. For

own forces, consider reference from a "G-day" (to be defined by the staff).

Operational Design vs.

Campaign Design

The CF OPP applies equally to the planning of either operations or campaigns, whilst

the product of Stage 2 will be either an operation design or a campaign design. Thus

the process is the same but the level at which the activity is planned and led will vary

from the operational level to the strategic level. Similarly, the term operational level

also applies equally to either operations or campaigns, and is defined by the Defence

Terminology Board (DTB) as the level of conflict concerned with producing and

sequencing a campaign which synchronizes military and other resources to achieve

the desired end state and military strategic objectives. Military actions at the

operational level are usually joint and often combined. Likewise, our British allies

describe the operational level as the level at which campaigns and major operations

are planned, conducted and sustained within theatres or areas of operation, to achieve

strategic objectives. Military campaigns are orchestrated in concert with other actors

and agencies and are most effective as part of a comprehensive approach to crisis

management.

A campaign may be characterized as a major operation or a series of operations

intended to achieve an end state having national, multinational, strategic or

operational objectives. NATO defines a campaign as a set of military operations

planned and conducted to achieve a strategic objective within a given time and

geographical area, which normally involve maritime, land and air forces. Hence, a

campaign plan provides the framework for a series of related plans. As described in

UK JDP 01, campaigns and their objectives relate to a single Theatre of Operations

and fall under the jurisdiction of a single Joint Force Comd (JFC). Therefore, in a

global conflict there may be multiple campaigns to be waged, each with their own

JFC and campaign plan.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

An operation is a military action or the carrying out of a strategic, tactical, service,

training, or administrative military mission, or the process of carrying on combat,

including movement, supply, attack, defence and manoeuvres needed to gain the

objectives of any battle or campaign.

Operational design is the practical expression of operational art and should be driven

by the essential tasks while considering the situation and the adversarys capabilities and likely intentions. Knowing these, the JOPG designs an operation to accomplish

objectives set by the Superior Commander and by your own commander, while

determining objectives for subordinate commands and the end state criteria.

Operational Design - End State End State is a descriptive statement of the military or political conditions or situation

to be attained at the end of an operation and that indicate that the objectives have been

attained or in order to achieve defined policy goals. Defining the End State is the

most important concept in operational design. Example - territorial integrity of nation

X restored.

Operational Design - Criteria

for Success

Because desired End-states are broad in nature a requirement exists to set out

measurable criteria which determine that they have actually been achieved. These are

called Criteria for Success and are closely linked to objectives.

Example - foreign nationals within territory X are safe and secure.

Operational Design -

Objectives

NATO AAP-6 describes an objective as a clearly defined and attainable goal for a

military operation. Existing on the physical and psychological planes, objectives are

desired outcomes essential to a commanders plan and towards which the operation is directed. Objectives can also be considered as the constituent elements, which when

combined achieve the End State. They may be described in terms of force applied

against the adversary (e.g. expel, defeat, destroy, contain, neutralize, isolate,

convince), space (e.g. seize, secure, defend, control, deny) or time (e.g. gain time for

build-up of forces).

Operational Design - Decisive

Points Development

A DP is a point from which a hostile or friendly COG can be threatened, and when

acted upon allows a Commander to gain an advantage over an adversary or

contributes significantly to achieving success. This could be an event, geographic

place, critical factor or function that may exist in time, space or the information

environment. If described as an event, the successful outcome would be a pre-

condition to the defeat or neutralization of a COG, achievement of an objective or

End State. DPs indicate conditions or effects that must be set in order to achieve the

aim of the campaign for example sea lanes of communication opened or attainment of air superiority or commitment of the adversarys reserve. They can also be considered as intermediate operational objectives and can be assigned resources to

protect, control or achieve them. They are usually the main focus of a war game. DPs

are deduced primarily during mission analysis, factors analysis and JIPOE Step 3

evaluation of the adversary, and they derive from the essential tasks, critical factors,

own CVs you want to protect and the adversarys CVs you want to target. The art of identifying DPs and selection of those to be addressed is a highly important part of

operational design. In Stage 2, the staff develops initial DPs, describing what effect is

to be achieved or what event is to take place and what Measures of Effectiveness

(MOE) apply. Then, during Stage 3, the staff refines the operational design to include

adding fidelity in close coordination with Component staffs about how the DP is

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

to be achieved. In other words, during Stage 3, DP development looks at specific

tasks and resource allocation necessary. DPs are described by several specific

characteristics.

Effect to be achieved Measures of Effectiveness (MOE), example build-up to xx% of TF in theatre or Adversary degraded to xx% or Adversary pushed back to within their own territory

Date to be completed Tasks Resources required Associated Risks

Example DP: APOD X open, SLOC secured

To deduce a DP:

1. List the essential tasks 2. List CV that you want to target 3. List major deductions from your analysis of the operational environment 4. List major deductions from your analysis of forces 5. List major deductions from your analysis of time 6. List Own CV that you must protect ("Shield" DP)

Operational Design - Decision

Points Development

US Joint Publication 2-01.3 Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational

Environment describes a decision point as a point in space and time when the

Commander anticipates making a key decision concerning a specific course of action.

Some allied nations may also refer to this as a Commanders Decision Point (CDP). In either case, this clearly shows that it is the Commanders decision and nobody elses. A decision point should be located to provide sufficient time for friendly forces to engage the adversary in a specific target area of interest (TAI). The locations

of decision points depend both on the availability and response time of friendly forces

as well as the anticipated activity, capabilities, and movement rates of adversary

forces.

If there is a branch in a line of operation (LOO), a Decision Point may be required.

This will be depicted on the operational design as a star and it highlights the trigger

for the decision. Staffs need to consider the CCIR/PIR associated with the indications

& warnings (I&W) required to cue the Commander that the trigger item(s) has

occurred. (e.g. a decision point might be based on adversary forces massing of troops,

deployment of strategic and major assets such as submarines, etc.). Decision points

should be designed to allow as much warning as is necessary to change from one state

to another state of operational readiness (e.g. go from deter posture to a defend or

offensive posture).

Operational Design - Measures

of Effectiveness

Described above

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

Operational Design - Lines of

Operation

Lines of operation (LOO) establish the relationship between decisive points and

produce a critical path in time and space to threaten the adversarys COG. The operational commander uses them to synchronize and integrate capabilities such as

firepower, deception, manoeuvre, special operations, etc. as well as ensure that

military effort is coordinated with the actions of other elements of national power in

the execution of a Whole of Government strategy or campaign plan. LOO can

describe the efforts of a functional component, an operational function, an objective, a

desired effect, or a family of activities. Usually an op might have several LOOs.


Sequencing & Phasing

Sequencing is the specific ordering and synchronizing of events, in other words DPs,

along the line of operations in an order that is most likely to achieve the desired End

State. Phasing is a way of organizing the extended and dispersed activities of the

campaign or major operation into more manageable parts that allow for flexibility in

execution. Often, logistic and strategic lift capabilities will be predominant

considerations.

Phasing is a method of organizing activities into manageable parts or groupings. They

may have overall themes, such as deployment, deterrence, counter-attack etc. and

should have specific and identifiable conditions for termination and transition to the

next. The op design or OPLAN may have specific C2 relationships (supported/

supporting) to be determined by phase.


Transition Conditions

Transition conditions describe how the JTF will move to from one phase to the next

and they describe the end state conditions which should tie directly to the initiation

conditions for the subsequent operation. They are the hinge to sequel operations or a

state of military readiness and they may define the initiation, expansion, conversion,

reduction or exit of military forces. Key considerations include the structures,

capabilities and postures required next.

Operational Design - Potential

Branch & Sequel Plans

An important feature of any plan, no matter how detailed, is its usefulness as a

common basis for change under rapidly changing circumstances while preserving

freedom of action. Therefore the commander and staff must build flexibility into the

operational design, anticipate contingencies and plan for them. Contingency planning

requires continual focusing of effort toward attainment of the objectives while

envisioning sequential and alternate outcomes to proposed actions. There are two

kinds of contingency plans:

a. Branch Plans are executed when necessary in response to an anticipated

opportunity or reversal, to provide the Commander with the flexibility to retain

the initiative while preserving freedom of action and ensuring maintenance of

the intended operational design; and

b. Sequel Plans are options for subsequent operations within a campaign. They

are planned on the basis of the likely outcome of the current operation in order

to provide the Commander with the flexibility to retain the initiative and/or

enhance operational tempo and to achieve subsequent objectives. Once a sequel

is determined, Staff must anticipate that its requirements might influence the

planning and execution of the current operation.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

OUPUT: Mission Statement In the event that the mission analysis sub-process produced only an initial mission

statement, then it should now be finalized.

OUTPUT: CCIR CCIR should now be finalized.

OUTPUT: Comd's Intent The staff will now have to consult the Commander and assist him in preparation of

his written intent for the operation. In accordance with B-GL-300-003/FP-000

Command, Mission Command, the Canadian Forces philosophy of command within

the manoeuvre warfare approach to fighting, has three enduring tenets: the importance

of understanding a Superior Commanders intent, a clear responsibility to fulfill that intent and timely decision-making. The underlying requirement is the fundamental

responsibility to act within the framework of the Commanders intentions. Thus in order to allow subordinates to exercise their initiative but in a way that will satisfy the

Commanders mission and operational design, it is paramount that the Commander expresses his intent in terms of what needs to be achieved towards his desired End

State and it should be captured within his CONOPS. This intent will drive the

development of COA during Stage 3.

OUTPUT:

Initial Force Estimate

Considering the broad initial list of capabilities requirements prepared earlier, the

staff should then estimate with greater fidelity the actual forces necessary to satisfy

the operation designed. This will be further amplified during Stage 3 to become the

Joint Statement of Requirements (JSOR). In comparison to those forces presently

available a shortfall will be identified and the staff may assess the initial level of

operational risks as a result.

OUTPUT:

Preliminary C2 Concept and

Task Organization

At this point in the OPP, the Staff will have identified preliminary C2 arrangements

necessary for the operation and a probable organizational structure necessary. These

should be depicted in a Task Organization Matrix.

Risk Assessment - General

Ref: B-GJ-005-052/FP-000 Risk Management for CF Operations

Risk Management concerns the assessment, controls and mitigation for each threat

posed: by the adversary; by the op environment; towards own forces; by time; by

civilians; and by national powers or alliances. Risk management is a process that

assists decision makers in determining how to reduce or offset risk and to make

informed decisions that weigh risks against mission benefits. Risk management

assists in the identification of the optimum course of action (COA) and ensures that

the implications of the residual risks are understood by the Commander, his staff and

subordinate commanders. The failure to manage risk can lead to the loss of resources,

lives and ultimately catastrophic mission failure. The level of risk is often related to

potential gain, so commanders must be able to weigh the gains versus the costs and

the risks.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

The fundamental aim of risk management is to enhance operational capabilities and

mission accomplishment, with minimal loss. Risk assessment involves threat

identification and assessment. A threat is a source of danger, such as an opposing

force, condition or circumstance with the potential to have a negative impact on the

accomplishment of the mission or to degrade mission capability. Examples of threats

are: actions of the adversary (use of weapons of mass destruction); actions of own

forces (early provocation of adversary, complex synchronization requirements);

environmental factors (weather); other actors (Host Nation, Other Government

Departments, Non-Government Organizations, contractors, refugees); or operational

design (threats to achieving DPs, ability to pursue LOO).

Assessment of the level of risk considers probability and severity estimates for each

threat. For this, the staff questions whether the threat impacts our ability to achieve

one or more DP, to pursue a LOO or to achieve operational objectives. Probability is

the estimate of the likelihood that a threat will occur. Severity is the expected

consequence of a threat on the achievement of the mission. Assessment is done with

the following steps:

Step 1 Identify threat (example TF Capability Shortfall, ability to detect submarines beyond their torpedo range)

Step 2 Assess threats level of Risk IAW matrix (probability versus severity) Step 3 Determine controls to reduce the threat impact Step 4 Determine mitigations for each threat Step 5 Assess the overall residual post-mitigation risk for the op

Threat Controls

Risk mitigation means development of controls in line with the commander's risk

guidance that either eliminate the threat or reduce the risk and consequences

associated with it and making appropriate operational decisions. For each threat,

determine which controls may be implemented, such as:

Engineering (technologies, materiel) Administrative (policies, SOP, personnel management) Education & Trg (individual, collective and joint trg) Physical Controls (barriers, guards, protective equipment, fences) Operational Controls (avoid threat, delay actions, pace or tempo, reassignment of task or resources, boundaries, fire control measures, ROE, airspace control, exercises,

rehearsals, rectify training deficiency); or

Accept threat and its impact without action

Threat Mitigations

These are actions or measures taken to reduce the impact of threats. These usually

involve avoidance, delay, transfer, reduction or acceptance of Risk. The Comd alone

must decide whether the controls are sufficient and to accept the mitigations and

residual risks for the operation.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

OUTPUT:

Initial Risk Assessment

Matrix

Commanders need to know how likely a risk is to occur, whether it can be avoided or

controlled and can we mitigate the consequences. The matrix depicts all identified

threats for the operation, their assessed level of risk and an overall level of residual

risk with all threats, their controls and mitigations considered. During Stage 3, staff

will also prepare a risk assessment matrix for each COA. Staff recommendations

should be expressed as:

Unacceptable spectrum of risk management actions cannot reduce risk to an acceptable level

Conditionally acceptable risk can be reduced to an acceptable level if certain risk management actions are taken

Acceptable no risk management actions necessary

The matrix may also be used to prioritize resources, to resolve risks, to standardize

threat notification or to determine response actions.

It will be important to update this matrix during Stages 3, 4 and 5, particularly after

the COA War Game, Plan War Game and Stage 5 War Game (or Exercise). As well,

risk should be frequently re-assessed during the execution of an operation.

Mission Analysis Briefing Although the Commander might have already been consulted in the development of

the mission statement, he will need to be appraised of the results of staff efforts for all

of Stage 2. The venue for this will be the Mission Analysis Briefing, which highlights

mission analysis, evaluation of friendly forces, operational design and risk

assessment. It should also include an updated JIPOE briefing by the J2 branch.

Following the briefing, the staff seeks the Commanders approval of the (final) mission statement, the operational design and the list of CCIR.

OUTPUT:

Commander's Planning

Guidance

The Comds Planning Guidance (CPG) is a formal, written document intended for two audiences, namely: his own staff for further planning; and for the Superior

Commander who will be interested to see that the plan being developed meets the

higher or even strategic objectives. The CPG includes operational design, mission

analysis, mission statement, intent, confirmation of the area of operations or the Joint

Operations Area (JOA), Area of Influence, Area of Interest, CCIR, required

capabilities and direction on COA development.

OUTPUT:

Commander's Initiating

Directive

The Comds Initiating Directive is intended for subordinate commanders and supporting commanders as initiation for their planning. Like the CPG, it should

include mission analysis, mission statement, intent, confirmation of the area of

operations or JOA, Area of Influence, Area of Interest, CCIR and direction on COA

development.

STAGE 3 COA DEVELOPMENT

COA Development - Introduction

A COA is a possible option that would accomplish the mission. It is initially stated in

broad terms, with further details determined during the COA War Gaming and COA

Evaluation. A COA should follow logically from the deductions and conclusions

already derived from the Mission Analysis and Factors Analysis. Staff should

consider the Comds Planning Guidance whilst developing a range of ideas in COA design. Periodically, the Comd may wish update briefings to allow him to provide

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

further direction, focusing of efforts and possibly to call for modification or

elimination of some COA. Requirements for the number of COA will vary from one

Comd to another and might be situation-dependent; however the Staff should expect

to prepare at least three friendly COA. The chosen COA will form the basis for the

Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and supporting Joint Statement of Requirements

(JSOR). The J2 Branch should as a minimum develop an Adversary Most Likely

COA and an Adversary Most Dangerous COA.

COA Development - Develop

COA

A COA should satisfy the Essential Tasks already identified and is usually comprised

of four elements:

Intent Scheme of Manoeuvre Main Effort End State

A COA should answer the questions:

When does the activity begin or end? Consider phasing and sequencing. Who will conduct the activity? Consider capabilities required. What military operations are to happen? Consider offensive and defensive activities. Where will the activity be performed? Why is the activity to be conducted? Consider "in order to..." How will the activity be conducted?

Staff should highlight the Advantages and Disadvantages for each COA, prepare an

accompanying sketch or graphic portrayal, Task Organization Chart, Synchronization

Matrix, Risk Assessment Matrix and Initial Joint Statement of Requirements (JSOR).

Staff should also consider the intended effects - that should be developed into Joint

Effects Guidance (JEG) - and therefore the resulting targeting needs. Staff may

prepare a Joint Troops to Task List (JTTL) for each COA.

Given that all COA must satisfy the operational design, which is purpose-built to

achieve a mission along LOO in a prescribed sequence, then the COA at the

operational level will vary only in time, space or force aspects in other words, Scheme of Manoeuvre and possibly Main Effort. Staff should consider variations in

the treatment of key factors analyzed during the mission analysis and factors analysis.

Example COAs could be fast and light, slow and heavy, invade by land, invade by sea. For each DP, staff should determine the desired effect, tasks to be fulfilled, JTF elements that could fulfill those tasks (with supported and supporting

Components identified) and MOE. Consider variations in the application of

operational functions, component tasks and objectives, main effort, transition

conditions, composition and employment of the operational reserve, logistics support

concept, C2 relationships etc.

COA Development - COA

Validity Test

Each COA must be tested for validity, namely that it is:

1. Suitable: accomplishes the mission and the essential tasks, meets the Comds Intent, focuses on Objectives and Adversarys COG;

2. Feasible: it is possible to accomplish, you have now or expect to have Force structure and resources to mount and sustain;

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

3. Acceptable: it is efficient, worth the risk, politically acceptable, manageable within resource limitations, satisfies rules of engagement (ROE)

requirements, counters Adversary COAs;

4. Exclusive: is unique, fundamentally distinguishable from other COAs (with respect to scheme of manoeuvre, main effort, task organization, composition

or use of the operational Reserve and so forth); and

5. Complete: it has an Intent, Scheme of Manoeuvre, Main Effort, End State. It addresses supported and supporting efforts. It answers the questions who, what, where, when, how.

COA Development - Refine

Op Design

After designing COAs, the staff may have further ideas to enhance the detail within

the operational design, particularly with input from component or specialist staff

planning processes to date. For example, there may now be available detailed MOE

developed for certain DP. The staff should review all aspects of the operational design

with a view to updating anything applicable. Regarding DPs for example, as

described earlier, during Stage 2, the staff develops initial DP, describing what effect

is to be achieved or what event is to take place and what MOE apply. Then, during

Stage 3, the staff adds fidelity, in close coordination with Component staffs, about

how the DP is to be achieved. In other words, during Stage 3, DP development looks

at specific tasks and resource allocations necessary.

COA Development - Joint

Statement of Requirements

(JSOR)

For those occasions when the Commanders own forces are insufficient to carry out the operation, or in the event the Commanders HQ does not normally have any subordinate forces assigned, a JSOR is developed that lists in broad terms those

forces required to carry out such a COA: for example two carrier groups, two

armoured divisions, one marine expeditionary force, one bomber wing. The JSOR

should build from the Initial Force Estimate developed during Stage 2. Initially during

Stage 3, a JSOR is prepared for each COA but later after one COA is chosen, it will

be enhanced in greater detail to allow other elements of the CF or nations in the NATO context to realize the type and scale of forces being sought and an opportunity to assess the costs, risks and feasibility of deployment, employment and

sustainment of such an operation. In preparing the JSOR, the staff should base it on

the requirements of component commands and include preliminary deployment

information according to the JFCs required force flow into Theatre. In the Canadian context, the CJSOR might also be accompanied by a provisional Table of

Organization & Equipment (TO&E) that prescribes the specific organization,

personnel and equipment necessary for the operation.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

COA Development - Synchronization Matrix

Each COA should be accompanied by a Synchronization Matrix describing the

activities and events and the timeframe when they will occur whether by date or by

phase. The matrix is oriented towards Joint Effects Guidance and is organized in

effects-based language focused on DPs drawn from the Op Design. Staff should identify each DP, when it should be achieved, the effects to be achieved, the measures

of effectiveness, the tasks or purpose for each major element of the JTF for example the Air Component the date to be completed and any other key operational aspects necessary to portray the activities of the operation. The matrix associates participating

forces with time and space. Time elements of interest are:

Critical dates Times affected by Constraints or Restraints Critical distances versus time Time to achieve specific elements or options Time for Adversary to react to Own actions

COA Development - Risk Assessment Matrix

Each COA should be accompanied by a Risk Assessment Matrix.

Information Briefing -

General

The format for the Info Briefing might vary, depending on the preferences of the

Comd, the SOPs for the HQ, the time available or whether the Comd has been

involved thus far in the COA Development. The purpose is to update the Comd on

the status of planning thus far, to give him an opportunity to acknowledge or concur

with certain COA, to narrow the broad range of options or to confirm the Comds preferences for COA comparison criteria.

Information Briefing - J2

JIPOE

J2 provides a JIPOE update, including a review of the predicted Adversary COA

Information Briefing - Op

Design Update

J5 highlights any updates or fidelity made to the Op Design since the Mission

Analysis Briefing

Information Briefing - COAs J5 or COA Development teams present the details of each Friendly COA (as

described above). The J5 might preface with a summary of those aspects common to

all COA. The J5 should conclude with presentation of open issues and requests for

specific guidance from the Comd. A suggested format to describe a COA is:

Overall concept, by phase Timeline comparison of COA vs. Adversary Main tasks for each Component Start/end dates for each phase DPs to be achieved during each phase Transition conditions Task Organization Advantages and disadvantages Risk assessment and management options Plans for COA refinement Identification of necessary supporting plans to be developed

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

OUTPUT:

COA Refinement

The Commander should approve the COA or direct a return to initial COA

development if required, provide guidance to the staff for refinement of COA and

most importantly he should provide guidance to the staff for COA comparison

criteria.

OUTPUT:

COA Comparison Criteria

The J5 should propose to the Commander for his approval a set of COA comparison

criteria that will focus the war gaming effort and provide a framework for data

collection by the staff. The Comd will use these to select the COA that will be

developed into a CONOPS. Consider Commanders intent, CPG, critical characteristics of each LOO, Principles of War, limitations on casualties,

exploitations of adversary weaknesses, defeat of the adversarys COG, opportunity for manoeuvre, concentration of combat power, logistics requirements, political

considerations, force protection, impact on local populations, collateral damage and

so forth. Criteria must be differentiable and measurable. Examples: rapidly enhances

deterrence, provides early support to humanitarian assistance, allow maximum

operational flexibility, shows minimum risk, ensures long-term sustainability or

supports early internal security.

COA War Game - General War Gaming is an interactive simulation of military operations that is crucial to

decision-making and it is just one way to compare COA. It can range from informal

discussions around a map to the use of sophisticated computer modeling software. In

Stage 3, the purpose of war gaming is to evaluates the COA ability to accomplish the

mission and provide the Commander with objective tools to discern one COA from

another in order to allow him to decide which COA will be used for the Operation.

Potentially, the war game might assist in identifying planning deficiencies, potential

risks and opportunities and synchronization of key actions however those are more

likely benefits of the Plan War Game in Stage 4. In a war game, a friendly COA is

played against an adversary COA in order to test its merits, advantages,

disadvantages, effectiveness in accomplishing the mission, risks incurred and so forth.

In order to prepare for the war game, staff will have to know which method is to be

used and to have prepared a synchronization matrix for each COA and to have

compared own operational timelines versus adversary timelines. Ideally, and

depending on the time available, each friendly COA will be played against each

adversary COA. If the time is short, the Commander or COS might direct that each

friendly COA be played against only one adversary COA perhaps the Most Dangerous or the Most Likely.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

COA War Game -

Conduct War Game(s)

Generally, there are four Steps:

1. Plan

2. Prepare

3. Conduct

4. Analyze war game products

There are many considerations for planning and preparation of a war game. Here are

just a few:

Step 1 Plan Method (e.g.. belt, phase, focal DPs, LOO, battle space segments) Comparison criteria Which COA Selection of focal DP, associated MOE and key phase transition criteria Forces dispositions at game Start Operational timeline synchronization Determine Participants (Control, Adversary, Blue, White, Green, Referee, Scribes, Analysts, Observers)

Requirements for Operational Analysis (OA) Use of simulation Requirements for any initial coordination Boards (e.g.. Joint Targeting Board)

Step 2 Prepare Identify and prepare the Control, Referees and Analysis Teams Selection and definition of turns including preparation of a Master Synchronization Matrix describing events to be played during each turn

Master Events List (MEL), Joint Effects Guidance (JEG) Gather tools, maps, data (etc.) available Room set-up Briefing for participants, including ground rules and duties

Step 3 Conduct Turns Side with initiative for that turn goes first Action Reaction Counter-Action Cognition (assessment) Identify decision points Identify branches and sequels Identify risks and opportunities

Step 4 - Analyze

Examine and compare results, Adversary COA vs. Own COA; Own COA vs. Own COA

COA relative advantages and disadvantages COA Comparison Matrix Identify critical issues

COA War Game - COA

Refinement or COA Evaluation

Following the COA War Game(s), the staff should either proceed to the COA

Evaluation process or refine the COA and if necessary submit them to War Gaming.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

OUTPUT:

Decision Support Template

(DST)

Each COA should be accompanied by a DST, updated with War Game results.

OUTPUT:

High Payoff Target List

(HPTL)

Each COA should be accompanied by a HPTL, updated with War Game results.

OUTPUT:

Refined Initial JSOR

Each COA should be accompanied by a refined Initial JSOR, updated with War Game

results.

OUTPUT:

Operational Analysis Results

Each COA should be accompanied by updated Op Analysis results.

COA Evaluation - General Using the results of the war game, the Stage 2 analysis and the JIPOE, the Staff now

evaluates and compares COA relative to each other based on the following.

COA Evaluation -

Friendly vs. Adversary

This is a comparison of the relative effectiveness of each Own COA to each

Adversary COA.

COA Evaluation -

Friendly vs. Friendly

This is a comparison of the relative merits of each Own COA versus other Own COA.

COA Evaluation -

Timeline Comparison

COA Evaluation -

Risk Assessment

OUTPUT:

COA Comparison Matrix

A COA Comparison Matrix should be prepared for the Decision Briefing.

Decision Briefing - General The purpose of the Decision Briefing is to allow the Commander to decide upon one

of the COA that will be used for the Operation. At the same time, the Commander

should confirm his Op Design and any C2 relationships that the staff have proposed.

Subordinate commanders and liaison officers from other stakeholders might attend in

order to glean the thrust of the plan, get a heads-up on any potential issues and to

offer direct advice in their areas of expertise or responsibility. This briefing is usually

orchestrated by the COS according to the SOP of the HQ. Staff should focus on the

results of COA Comparison and recommend one of the COA. The selected COA will

be developed into a CONOPS. The Commander should instruct the staff on

development of Branches or Sequels and provide additional CCIR, if applicable.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

OUTPUT:

Concept of Operations

(CONOPS)

The CONOPS has several purposes: it guides staff during Stage 4; it advises the

Superior Commander or Initiating Authority of the Commanders intentions and provides an instrument for concurrence and/or approval; and it informs subordinate

commanders and supporting formations of the scope, nature and likely tasking

required for their plans, forces and capabilities needed, timelines and supporting plans

required. The CONOPS contains an overview of situation, mission statement,

Commanders intent, outline concept for execution, outline force capability requirements, outline administrative or logistic support concept, key C2

arrangements, public affairs polices or requirements. It does not include detailed

annexes or supporting plans.

OUTPUT:

JSOR

Once a COA is chosen, its Initial JSOR should be refined. It lists the forces necessary

for the operation, is based on requirements of the component commanders, includes

preliminary deployment information based on JFCs required force flow into Theatre and might be accompanied by a provisional Table of Organization & Equipment

(TO&E) which prescribes the specific organization, personnel and equipment

necessary. For specific reference to a Canadian context, refer to CF Force

Employment Planning Process.

STAGE 4 PLAN DEVELOPMENT

Plan Preparation During Stage 4, the approved CONOPS will be amplified into a Plan or Order.

Preparation of the Plan will involve the whole Staff due to the complexity, length and

detail of such a product. Key activities include:

a. Any remaining issues will be identified and resolved by the Staff. This will typically involve detailed Staff Checks and SME advice.

b. All annexes and supporting plans (SUPLAN) need to be synchronized with the main Joint Plan and approved by the JFC. Annexes and SUPLANs are

integral parts of the plan. An Annex is used to provide details concerning a

specific aspect of the plan. The use of Annexes keeps the size of the body of

the plan manageable, and allows selected addressees to receive copies of only

those annexes that are of direct interest to them. SUPLANs are used when the

amount of detail required is too great for the use of an annex. SUPLANs are

stand-alone plans that support another plan by providing detailed direction

and information on a particular aspect of that plan.

c. If necessary, the staff will initiate the OPP for the development of Branch Plans and Sequel Plans that were identified during the planning process.

Plan War Game During Stage 4, a War Game of the Plan is employed as a tool for drawing out the

details in order to enhance and validate the OPLAN, to highlight any planning

deficiencies, to identify any new potential risks or opportunities and to synchronize

key actions. It may be planned and conducted in the same manner as the COA War

Game during Stage 3.

CF OPP NOTES


SUB-PROCESS NOTES

OUTPUT:

Operation Order (OP O) or

Operation Plan (OPLAN) or

Contingency Plan

(CONPLAN)

The aim of the OPP to plan an operation and issue a plan. It may need to be submitted

to the IA for approval before general distribution. Implementation of the plan may

require that the IA issue an Implementation Order (IMPL O) and/or that the JTFC

issue an OP O to subordinate formations and units. Consequently, after Stage 4 the

Commander will be able to issue one of the following:

a. Operation Order (OP O) a directive issued for the purpose of effecting the coordinated execution of an Operation; or

b. Operational Plan (OPLAN) used to plan and prepare well in advance for a known upcoming operation for which the Government has specifically tasked

the CF to prepare and execute; or

c. Contingency Plan (CONPLAN) - prepared for contingencies that can be

reasonably anticipated; reflects potential response options but having no

specific time set for the Operation.

STAGE 5 PLAN REVIEW

Plan Review - General A Plan or OP O must be reviewed regularly to evaluate its viability. The evaluation

may be conducted through exercises, war gaming or Staff analysis. The options

available may be dependent on time available before its anticipated that the operation might be executed, or by the resources available to carry out a review. There are two

main applications of a review:

1. Progress Review through the pre-execution and execution phases of an operation , the existing plans, supporting plans, orders and Force Generation must be

continually reviewed to ensure that Force Generation and preparation is proceeding as

required, and any necessary changes can be incorporated while ensuring the mission

remains viable.

2. Periodic Review All plans have a limited period of validity due to the changing circumstances upon which they were based. Plans and associated supporting plans

must be reviewed on a periodic basis in light of current or anticipated conditions.

An Information Briefing may be conducted to update the Commander on the findings

of the review. If it is deemed that the existing plan is no longer viable or not

satisfying the mission, then the Commander may likely direct the staff to reinitiate the

OPP at an appropriate Stage. If the required changes to the plan are reasonably

minor, it may be updated and re-promulgated.

War Game and/or Exercise During Stage 5, a War Game of the Plan is employed as a tool for validating, testing

or refining it whilst an exercise may be conducted to rehearse the participants in the

Operation. Such a war game may be planned and conducted in the same manner as

the COA War Game during Stage 3.

OUTPUT:

Revised OPLAN or

CONPLAN

Documents

OPP NOTES