Page 227 - MDSL Final

NAVY PLANNING
guidance with the commander’s governing factors to develop multiple
COAs. Then they examine each prospective COA for validity by ensuring
suitability, feasibility, acceptability, distinguishability, and completeness
with respect to the current and anticipated situation, the mission and
the commander’s guidance and intent.

Step Three: Course of Action Analysis (Wargaming)

Course of action analysis involves a detailed assessment of each COA
as it pertains to the adversary and the OE. Each friendly COA is war-
gamed against selected adversary COAs. This step assists planners in
identifying strengths, weaknesses and associated risks and in assessing
shortfalls for each prospective friendly COA. Wargaming also identifies
branches and potential sequels that may require additional planning.
Short of execution, COA wargaming provides the most reliable basis for
understanding and improving each COA. This step also allows the staff to
refine its initial estimates based on a more refined understanding of the
COA that is gained through the wargame.

Step Four: Course of Action Comparison and Decision

All retained friendly COAs are evaluated against established evaluation
criteria and against each other, ultimately leading to a decision by the
commander.

Step Five: Plan or Order Development

The staff uses the commander’s COA decision, mission statement,
commander’s intent, and guidance to develop plans or orders that direct
subordinate actions. Plans and orders serve as the principal means by
which the commander expresses the decision, intent and guidance.

Step Six: Transition

This is the orderly handover of a plan or order to those tasked with
execution of the operation. It provides staffs with the situational
understanding and rationale for key decisions necessary to ensure that
there is a coherent transition from planning to execution. The process,
however, does not end here. As depicted in figure 11.1, the process is

To Nurture a Stable Environment at Sea 207