Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

MULTINATIONAL FORCE
STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES
(MNF SOP)

MNF SOP
MDMP-M EXTRACT

Version 3.1
December 2016
For use during TEMPEST EXPRESS 30

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Annex B – MNF Planning Process and Organization B 2 B-1

...
Appendix 6 – Military Decision Making Process – Multinational B 2 B 6-1
Tab A: CDR’s Appreciation and Operational Design B 2 B 6 A-1

Tab B: MDMP-M Steps Explanation B 2 B 6 B-1

Tab C: MNF Assessment of Operations B 2 B 6 C-1

Tab D: MDMP-M Abbreviated Planning Process Template B 2 B 6 D-1

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 2 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

ANNEX B
MNF PLANNING PROCESS AND ORGANIZATION
1. Overview: The MNF planning process and supporting organizations are fundamental operational starting
points for the MNF SOP.

1.1. The MNF planning process is the heart of the multinational effort. Only effective planning and
decision making can achieve integrated operations to support multinational mission
accomplishment.

1.2. The MNF planning process provides an integrated and managed method for the movement of
plans from the planning stage, to the refinement stage, to the execution stage. This process is
specifically designed to enable unity of effort.

1.3. The MNF headquarters includes the staff and Cross-Functional Organizations which support the
MNF planning process and the Commander’s Decision Cycle.

2. MNF Planning Process and Organization.

2.1. Commander’s Decision Cycle. All MNF planning is primarily in support of the Commander’s
Decision Cycle. The Commander’s Decision Cycle is a process that depicts how command and
staff elements determine required MNF command actions, codify them in directives, execute them,
and monitor their results. This cycle has four phases: plan, direct, monitor, and assess. Underlying
this cycle is an adaptive process that assesses the effectiveness of MNF plans and actions. Refer
to Appendix 1: Commander’s Decision Cycle for details.

2.2. MNF Planning Organizations. The Plans (C5), Future Operations (C35), and Current Operations
(C33) functional organizational structures are used to ensure that an integrated and managed
planning process is present within the MNF headquarters. Refer to Appendix 2, MNF Planning
Organizations for details.

2.3. Multinational Staff Coordination Process (Cross-Functional Organizations) and MNF Battle
/ Operational Rhythm. A well thought out cross-functional coordination process within the MNF
headquarters that is arranged within a Battle / Operational Rhythm framework is critical for effective
support of the Commander’s Decision Cycle. Refer to Appendix 3 and 4 of this Annex. This is a
key component for the establishment of integrated operations within the MNF Area of Operations
(AO).

2.4. MNF Headquarters Organization. The establishment of a MNF headquarters that supports and
enforces an inclusive, cooperative, and coordinated environment of planning and execution within
a multinational framework is fundamental to effective mission accomplishment. Refer to Appendix
5: MNF Headquarters Organization for the initial starting point template for the MNF headquarters.

2.5. Military Decision Making Process – Multinational (MDMP-M). This process supports all military
decision making and assessment actions, from deliberate to abbreviated planning, across the
Range of Military Operations. There are two MDMP-M references that have been developed to
support MNF planners:

2.5.1. MDMP-M Process Template. This planning template focuses on the steps and outcomes
for MDMP-M in a simple, easy-to-use format that can be utilized by a multinational staff to
support the planning process. Refer to Appendix 6, Multinational Decision Making Process-
Multinational.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 3 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

2.5.2. MNF SOP Planning Handbook MDMP-M. This is a pocket reference handbook that exists
outside the MNF SOP on the Internet at the MPAT home page (www.mpat.org). It acts as a
detailed background reference for the MDMP-M Process Template steps within the MNF SOP.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Commander’s Decision Cycle

Appendix 2: MNF Planning Organizations

Appendix 3: Multinational Staff Coordination Process Cross-Functional Organizations

Appendix 4: MNF Battle / Operational Rhythm

Appendix 5: MNF Headquarters Organization

Appendix 6: Military Decision Making Process – Multinational

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 4 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

APPENDIX 6
MILITARY DECISION MAKING PROCESS – MULTINATIONAL
(MDMP-M)
1. Overview. This appendix and supporting tabs outline the MNF planning process. Tab A provides
background for the Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design. Tab B explains in detail each
step of MDMP-M. Tab C outlines the MNF assessment of operations, and Tab D provides a MDMP-M
abbreviated planning process template for time sensitive multinational crisis response planning. As in
all processes within the MNF SOP, this planning process is only a starting point for the Force
Commander and MNF staff. It can be revised or adjusted to meet a specific nation’s multinational
planning requirements.

2. MDMP-M Planning Process. Figure B-2-B-6.1 on the following page provides a visual conceptualization
of the MDMP-M. This process encompasses planning, execution, assessment and adaptation.
Assessment and adaptation are treated as integral to the planning process and this process does not
stop with execution of the plan; rather, the process also focuses on planning during execution. The
entire process is underpinned by a continuing review and update of intelligence and situational
awareness. The Commander’s Appreciation of the situation and the Operational Design are revisited
frequently as the MNF command interacts within the operational situation and are constantly reviewed
for effectiveness in achieving the military end state, supporting operational military objectives, and
strategic objectives. MNF plans and orders are refined and updated as the MNF command learns and
adapts to the ever changing situation to support mission success.

Tab A: Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design

Tab B: MDMP-M Steps Explanation

Tab C: MNF Assessment of Operations

Tab D: MDMP-M Abbreviated Planning Process Template

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 5 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

TAB A
COMMANDER’S APPRECIATION AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN
1. Starting Condition: The Force Commander receives direction, from a higher authority and receives an
Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE) from his staff.

2. Description: Force Commander receives essential strategic guidance (ref: Part B, Chapter 1, Annex A,
“National Strategic Factors”), seeking to understand the environment and problem(s) so that the
commander may issue initial intent and guidance while developing an operational design to address
the challenges presented. The Force Commander identifies major information and knowledge gaps;
conducts time appreciation review; issues guidance on battle/operational rhythm, outlines broad
readiness guidance for staff & units, and assigns broad responsibilities.

2.1. Commander’s Appreciation: Commanders will combine their knowledge of the situation starting
with an orientation, then understanding the environment and the problem to formulate the intent
and guidance to possible solutions.

2.1.1. Commander’s Orientation: The commander’s orientation is the initial step in the design effort
to frame the problem as a basis for developing possible solutions. The commander, staff, and
others participate in discussions to collectively gain an enhanced understanding of the
environment and the nature of the problem.

2.1.2. Understanding the Environment: Understanding the environment helps expose a broad
range of ideas to be considered in the identification of the problem. The environment provides
background information, facts, status, connections, and a range of other factors that serve as
context for the commander and staff to better understand the problem. These factors also help
the commander gain an appreciation for the existing situation. Coupled with any assigned or
anticipated tasks, participants engaged in design can help determine a desired future state.
The difference between the current and desired states enable the participants to narrow their
focus on the environment to determine the nature of the problem.

2.1.3. Understanding the Problem: The essential activities in understanding the problem are critical
thinking and an open, frank dialogue to help reveal the underlying nature of the problem. With
the larger environment as context, additional elements of the problem may emerge that require
resolution during subsequent planning. Understanding the problem helps to identify the military
end state and ensures a common operational vision of what must be achieved.

2.2. Operational Design: As commanders conceptualize operations, their periodic guidance in the
form of visualization, description, and direction leads the staff during the planning process.
Operational Design provides a means to learn and adapt. It requires intellectually versatile leaders
with high-order thinking skills who actively engage in continuous dialogue and collaboration. The
purpose of operational design is to achieve a greater understanding of the environment and the
nature of the problem in order to identify an appropriate conceptual solution and enhance decision
making at all levels.

2.3. The Commander’s Appreciation and the Operational Design will be refined and further developed
throughout the planning process (refer to Page 2 of Appendix 6). The process will be ongoing and
occur simultaneously with all planning steps. Appreciation and design supports learning during
planning and adaptation to an ever changing situation.

3. Aim: To complete the Commander’s Appreciation, Operational Design, and set the conditions for a
focused, effective, and integrated planning environment outlining organizational actions in support of
the MNF planning process.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 6 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

4. Results: The results of the initial Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design are listed below.
This process is an ongoing process and will be updated as planning progresses.

• Commander’s Operational Design

• Initial Commander’s Intent

• OIPE Products

• Time Appreciation Review

• Initial Commander’s Planning Guidance Issue Warning Order #1

• Initial Staff Estimates

PROCESS
1. Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design Meeting: Force Commander, National
Command Element (NCE), Deputy Commander, Chief of Staff (COS) (with C2, C3, C3 FOPS Chief,
C5 Directors, & C5 PLANS Chief) conduct a small group meeting, informed by the Operational
Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE), to commence the Commander’s Appreciation of
the situation and initial Operational Design. The following items should be addressed during the small
group meeting as outlined below.

1.1. Item 1: Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE) Brief

1.1.1. The initial OIPE is briefed to the Commander and it is refined throughout the planning
process.

1.1.2. The group discusses the OIPE (overall environment, threat, friendly forces, and major actors
/ stakeholders, and PMESII Analysis) to confirm basic understanding of the situation.

1.2. Item 2: Commander’s Orientation

1.2.1. Commander commences orientation. This process is a commander driven cognitive process.
Much of the information will come out of the OIPE assessment coupled with Essential Strategic
Guidance and the commander’s judgment and analysis.

1.2.2. Items to be considered during the Commander’s Orientation include:

i. Understanding strategic context and guidance. This allows the Force Commander to
generate discussions with the National Command Element (NCE) within the
command, higher headquarters, and other key leaders. The following items should
be considered:

i-i. What are the Essential Strategic Guidance elements? Are they complete? What is
missing?

i-ii. What is the history of the problem? What is its genesis?

i-iii. What caused the problem to come to the forefront within the crisis?

i-iv. Why is this emerging problem important to the nation’s strategic leaders? Determine
how they view the problem:

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 7 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

i-iv-i. Are national and international interests at stake?

i-iv-ii. What are the domestic political considerations for taking action?

i-iv-iii. What are the economic considerations for action?

i-iv-iv. Are there treaty obligations that require or block the ability to act?

i-v. Determine if there are limitations to the commander’s ability to act. Are there authorities,
new or expanded, that the commander should seek regarding the limitations?

ii. Conducting an actor/stakeholder analysis is an important way of increasing the information

available when making decisions. This involves identifying and describing the different
actors/stake holders involved and their relationships on the basis of characteristics,
interests, and motivations. The analysis should cover the following:

ii-i. Factors bearing on the problem.

ii-ii. Friendly forces, organizations, and entities.

ii-iii. Adversaries and opposition forces /entities.

ii-iv. Neutrals – both with and without interests relative to problem at hand.

ii-v. Unknowns – clear interests and influence but intentions are unknown.

iii. Attempting to identify trends occurring in the situation that may be manifested at all levels
(tactical through strategic):

iii-i. What trends should the commander reinforce?

iii-ii. What trends should the commander stabilize?

iii-iii. What trends should the commander reverse, redirect, or transform?

iv. Identifying gaps in knowledge. What does the commander need to know to understand the
operational problem?

v. Identifying initial assumptions.

vi. Identifying the problem(s) preventing attainment of the operational and strategic end state.

vii. Reviewing the assigned mission statement from higher headquarters.

vii-i. The commander may determine some factors may be missing in the mission
statement from the higher headquarters. This is called Mission Clarification, and needs
to be identified prior to commencement of Mission Analysis.

1.3. Item 3: Understanding the Environment. Understanding the environment is an important aspect
of design. This provides background information, facts, status, connections, relevant actors,
habitat, local beliefs, and a broad range of other factors that serve as context for the commander
and his staff to better understand the problem. Useful items to consider include the following:

1.3.1. Information environment, which includes the physical, informational, and cognitive domains.

1.3.2. Culture.

1.3.3. Political.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 8 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

1.3.4. Language.

1.3.5. Demographics.

1.3.6. Religion.

1.3.7. Geography.

1.3.8. Local economics.

1.3.9. Key actors.

1.3.10. Stakeholders

1.3.11. Tendencies.

1.3.12. Relationships.

1.3.13. Potential.

1.3.14. Security.

1.3.15. Climate.

1.3.16. Time.

1.3.17. Historical events

1.3.18. Protected sites.

1.4. Item 4: Understanding the Problem. Armed with an appreciation of the environment, the design
effort shifts to understanding the problem. Understanding the problem points to possible solutions.
Useful items to consider include the following:

1.4.1. Adversary.

1.4.2. Friendly force update.

1.4.3. Information environment.

1.4.4. Terrain and weather.

1.4.5. Troops and support available.

1.4.6. Civil considerations (to include indigenous/local population).

1.4.7. Difference between existing and desired conditions.

1.4.8. Limitations.

1.4.9. Assumptions.

1.4.10. Specified tasks.

1.4.11. Initial staff estimates.

1.4.12. Input from other commanders.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 9 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

1.4.13. Experience and judgment.

1.4.14. Range of potential actions.

1.4.15. Tempo.

1.5. Item 5: Design Elements. The following items are identified as a result of the Commander’s
Appreciation Process, and should be incorporated into the Commander’s Operational Design as
“Design Elements”:

1.5.1. Termination criteria.

1.5.2. End state.

1.5.3. Objectives.

1.5.4. Effects.

1.5.5. Center of gravity.

1.5.6. Decisive points.

1.5.7. Direct and indirect approaches.

1.5.8. Lines of operation and lines of effort.

1.5.9. Operational reach.

1.5.10. Simultaneity and depth.

1.5.11. Forces and functions.

1.5.12. Arranging operations.

1.5.13. Synergy.

1.5.14. Balance.

1.5.15. Anticipation.

1.5.16. Leverage.

1.6. Item 6: Operational Design Development. The Operational Design provides a framework for the
successful completion of the planning process, a cognitive approach for addressing the key factors,
and a shared understanding of the situation as it is known at that point in time. This supports a
comprehensive approach to planning. The commander will communicate the design as follows:

1.6.1. Commander’s Narrative Description. This describes the problem and ties the
commander’s thoughts, analysis, and judgment into a cohesive shared understanding /
knowledge of the situation. This is not a formal planning document or intent statement, rather,
it is a commander’s communication tool to help shape staff planning.

1.6.2. Commander’s Visualization. This supports the Commander’s Narrative Description, listed
above, and will guide Mission Analysis and COA Development.

1.6.3. Commander’s Intent. This is a description of the desired end state that a commander wants
to see after the mission is accomplished.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 10 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

1.7. Item 7: Time Appreciation Review – Formal review of the time parameters surrounding response
situation.

1.7.1. 1/3 – 2/3 Rule (1/3 for MNF HQ & 2/3 for Component Planning)

1.8. Item 8: Initial Commander’s Planning Guidance.

1.8.1. A narrative describing the elements of Operational Approach.

1.8.2. Guidance on Battle / Operational Rhythm.

1.8.3. Initial readiness guidance for forces and personnel.

1.8.4. Initial planning process guidance and responsibilities for C5 PLANS, C3 FOPS, & C3 COPS.

1.8.5. Assignment of any special staff / component responsibilities.

1.8.6. Special guidance for multinational elements and/or coordination requirements.

1.8.7. Cooperation guidance and requirements with interagency and IHC to support the
comprehensive planning approach.

2. Warning Order #1 is Issued. A warning order is published to provide immediate information on the
pending mission, readiness guidelines, and other broad planning guidance to MNF components, the
NCE of participating nations within the MNF, HQ staff, and other supporting organizations. Refer to
Part F, Chapter 3, Annex B, “Warning Order Format” - MNF SOP.

3. Staff Estimates. Initial staff estimates development should begin no later than when the MNF HQ issues
planning guidance. Staff estimates are a continuous process throughout the life of the planning cycle.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 11 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

TAB B
MDMP-M STEPS EXPLANATION

STEP #1
MISSION ANALYSIS
1. Starting Conditions: The MNF Commander’s appreciation and design has completed its initial actions
to form an understanding of the situation and problem. The initial OIPE summary and brief have been
disseminated along with the commander’s design and appropriate guidance. Warning Order #1 has
been issued.

2. Description: MNF Headquarters conducts Mission Analysis to refine their shared understanding /
knowledge of the problem, situation, and develops a Mission Statement, a revised Commander’s Intent,
and Military End State.

3. Aim: This step focuses on an analysis of the mission, higher headquarters guidance and intent, and
examination of the key planning factors by which the MNF Military End State conditions can be
achieved. A proper Mission Analysis establishes the foundation for the successful completion of the
next step in the planning process- COA Development.

4. Results: The key results of Mission Analysis are listed below. An understanding of the mission is
enhanced and Warning Order #2 is issued to the MNF command.

• Refined OIPE

• Staff Estimates

• CCIRs

• Mission Statement

• Revised Commander’s Intent

• Commander’s Guidance for COA Development

• Warning Order #2

PROCESS

1. Mission Analysis. The commander’s staff is responsible for analyzing the mission and proposing
the restated mission for the commander’s approval, thus allowing subordinate and supporting
commanders to begin their own estimate and planning efforts and for higher headquarters’
concurrence. The combined/coalition task force’s mission is the essential task or set of essential
tasks, together with the purpose, that clearly indicates the action to be taken and the reason for
doing so. Mission Analysis is used to study the assigned tasks and to identify all other tasks
necessary to accomplish the mission. Mission analysis consists of 14 steps as outlined in Figure
B- 2-B-6-B.1 below. These steps are not necessarily sequential.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 12 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Mission Analysis Steps

1. Analyze the Higher Headquarters Order (Mission, Intent, and Strategic Communications
Guidance)
2. Determine Known Facts, Current Status, or Conditions
3. Develop Assumptions
4. Determine Operational Limitations (Constraints and Restraints)
5. Determine COGs, Decisive Points, and Critical Factors
6. Identify operational-level tasks (Essential, Specified, Implied)
7. Conduct Initial MNF Force Structure Analysis (Forces and Resources)
8. Conduct Initial risk assessment
9. Determine Military End State, Military Objectives, and Supporting Effects
10. Develop the Mission Statement and refine the Commander’s Intent
11. Determine initial Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIR)
12. Develop and conduct a Mission Analysis Brief
13. Review and Refine Commander’s Appreciation and Commander’s Operational Design
14. Publish Commander’s Planning Guidance for COA Development and issue Warning
Order #2

Figure B-2-B-6-B.1: Mission Analysis

2. Step 1: Analyze the Higher Headquarters Order (Mission, Intent, and Strategic Communication
Guidance): The Force Commander, NCE, and MNF staff thoroughly analyze the higher headquarters
orders and guidance, to include strategic communication plan/guidance. This establishes where the
MNF mission fits into the strategic framework of the operation. The primary inputs to the MNF Mission
Analysis comes from higher headquarters planning factors. Key areas to focus upon are:

2.1. Strategic Guidance:

2.1.1. Strategic End State conditions.

2.1.2. Support existing National Plans (ie: National Emergency Response Plans for HA/DR).

2.1.3. Strategic objectives that support end state conditions attainment.

2.1.4. Termination Criteria.

2.1.5. Military End State conditions (may not be identified by the national level).

2.2. Supported Strategic Commander (Theater Strategic Guidance):

2.2.1. Military End State conditions (may not be identified).

2.2.2. Mission.

2.2.3. Strategic Military Objectives.

2.2.4. Effects (Conditions).

2.2.5. Tasks.

2.3. National objectives and aims of participating nations within the MNF command.

2.4. Higher Commander’s Intent.

2.5. Higher Commander’s Concept of Operation (if given).

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 13 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

2.6. Limitations (directed constraints and restraints; will be revisited again within the mission analysis
for other limitations not specifically directed by higher headquarters).

2.7. Assigned Area of Operation (AO).

2.8. Available assets.

2.9. Operational time line.

2.10. Strategic Communication Plan/Guidance.

3. Step 2: Determine Known Facts, Current Status, or Conditions. A fact is a statement of information
known to be true (such as verified locations of friendly and adversary force dispositions). The current
status and conditions represent the commander’s assessment of the situation and updated OIPE. This
step in the MNF planning process provides the factual framework for the follow on detailed Mission
Analysis steps.

3.1. The OIPE is updated by the C2 with assistance from cultural and political subject matter experts
and operational considerations (C3, C5, C7, POLAD & IA reps) & UN / UN agencies/programs, and
IHC as applicable). This supports the establishment of key facts, current status of key factors, and
key conditions that are present within the current situation. The Force Commander updates his
assessment of the situation as required.

3.2. The CTF Combined/Coalition Planning Group (CPG), led by the C5 and the Combined/Coalition
Intelligence Support Element, review the updated Commander’s Assessment of the situation,
updated OIPE, and the problem framework. The Operational Design is continually referenced within
the CPG and refined as the planning process continues. 3.3. Time appreciation analysis. The CPG
reviews the time appreciation analysis established within the Force Commander’s “Initiation and
Scoping” step and ensure balance between the desire for detailed planning and allocating time for
component planning.

3.3.1. Determine the time available.

3.3.2. Understand the time required for Force Commander to make a decision, issues orders, and
subordinates to execute the operation.

3.3.3. Develop a timeline reflecting known and assumed operational requirements (e.g., C-day, D-
day) to focus the staff as it conducts the MNF planning process.

3.3.4. Additionally, post a timeline identifying the time available to complete the steps of the MNF
planning process based on the Commander’s estimate and operation order delivery
requirements.

3.3.5. Planning timelines for branch and sequel plans are identified during the Course of Action
(COA) analysis process. As requirements are identified and assumptions validated, these
timelines may require updating.

3.3.6. Allocate the time necessary. Consider a technique whereby each headquarters limits itself
to one-third of the available planning time and allocates two-thirds to their components. Also,
use parallel planning, where headquarters at different levels conducts planning simultaneously.
The MNF COS is responsible for the time management within the MNF command with support
from the C5 / C3 staff. The CPG directly addresses time appreciation planning within the MNF
command.

3.4. MNF Staff. Participate in Mission Analysis and contribute to the continued development of the
Commander’s Appreciation and the continued improvement and development of the Operational

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 14 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Design. This enables the shared understanding / knowledge of the operational setting within the
MNF staff.

3.4.1. Staff Estimates. The development of staff estimates continues as required by the planning
process. Staff estimates are focused by Mission Analysis as it proceeds.

3.4.2. Staff estimates are provided to the CPG and Force Commander, as required, to support
Mission Analysis. As staff sections determine other known facts, current status, or conditions
from their situational analysis, they should provide that input to the CPG through their
representatives.

4. Step 3: Develop Assumptions. An assumption provides a supposition about the current situation or
future course of events, assumed to be true in the absence of facts. Assumptions replace necessary
but missing or unknown facts. A valid assumption has three characteristics: it is logical, realistic, and
essential for planning to continue. A litmus test for assumptions is: if an assumption proves false, the
plan could be invalid; if a proposed assumption does not have this effect, it should not be an
assumption.

4.1. Never assume away threat / adversary capabilities.

4.2. Assumptions must be continuously reassessed throughout the process to ensure they remain
relevant and valid.

4.3. In developing assumptions, the CPG and MNF staff should consider the following as a minimum:

4.3.1. Coordination with NCEs relative to multinational assumptions.

4.3.2. Coordination with governmental agencies relative to interagency assumptions.

4.3.3. Support from other governmental and civilian agencies.

4.3.4. The availability of and support requirements for host nation(s) or multinational forces.

4.3.5. Time line factors.

4.3.6. The political situation with the countries in or near the MNF AO.

4.4. Assumptions should be replaced with facts as soon as possible. The staff identifies the information
needed to convert assumptions into facts and submit them to the appropriate agency as Information
Requirements. If the Commander needs information to make a decision, he may designate the
information requirement as one of the Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIR)
(refer to Step 12 below).

5. Step 4: Develop Operational Limitations. Operational limitations are actions required or prohibited by
higher authority and other restrictions that limit the Commander’s freedom of action, such as diplomatic
agreements, political and economic conditions in affected nations, and host nation issues. There are
two types of operational limitations:

5.1. Constraint. Is a requirement placed on the command by a higher command that dictates an action,
thus restricting freedom of action. Constraints can also be identified based upon the Commander’s
assessment of the situation and CPG planning actions.

5.2. Restraint. Is a requirement placed on the command by a higher command that prohibits an action,
thus restricting freedom of action. Restraints can also be identified based upon the Commander’s
assessment of the situation and CPG planning actions.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 15 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

6. Step 5: Determine COGs, Decisive Points, and Critical Factors. The COG concept is an element of
operational design to assist the Force Commander and staff in understanding the dominant threat
factors within an operational-level AO. A COG is defined as the source of power that provides moral or
physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act. Analysis of COGs helps identify friendly and
adversary strengths and weaknesses. Planners analyze COGs within a framework of three critical
factors: critical capabilities, critical requirements, and critical vulnerabilities (refer to Figure B-2-B-6-
B.2).

Figure B-2-B-6-B.2: Center of Gravity and Three Critical Factors

6.1. COGs are normally established for the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of planning and
operations.

6.1.1. The Supported Strategic Commander will normally establish the COGs for the strategic-level
friendly and threat elements. If this is not so indicated, the Force Commander may identify such
and recommend to the Supported Strategic Commander for consideration.

6.1.2. The Supported Strategic Commander may also establish the COGs for the operational friendly
and threat levels. The Force Commander will normally confirm or recommend refinements to the
operational COGs as more understanding / knowledge of the operational environment is gained
during planning / execution. This is part of the Force Commander’s Mission Analysis steps.

6.1.3. The Force Commander and MNF components will normally identify the COGs for the tactical-
level friendly and threat elements.

6.2. COGs are intended to be the major factors by which friendly and threat elements derive their power.

6.2.1. If a number of COGs appear within a planning process, many of these will be most likely
Critical Capabilities (see Figure 4) that make up a larger COG.

6.2.2. The MNF staff simply needs to refine the COGs until one or two emerge as the domineering
factors. (Note: This is NOT to say three or more COGs may not be present for a given level of
operations / planning, but it is generally agreed upon that a smaller number enables focus.) .
factors).

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 16 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

6.3. COGs are not only appropriate for threat or adversarial forces. COGs can be found for other threats
such as a Pandemic Influenza, a nation’s potential collapse, or even natural disasters, and so forth.

6.4. Analysis of COGs:

6.4.1. The C2 focuses on the identification of the strategic and operational COGs as part of the
OIPE process. The goal is to determine the critical factors by which threats derive freedom of
action, physical strength (means) and the will to fight.

6.4.2. The CPG (with MNF staff support) focuses on the friendly strategic and operational COGs.
The goal is to determine the critical factors by which friendly COGs derive their freedom of
action, physical strength (means) and the will to fight.

6.4.3. This is not a separate process but is rather a parallel process that comes together formally
within Mission Analysis step within the CPG.

6.5. CPG Actions. The CPG uses a systems perspective of the operational environment to assist in
identification of threat COGs and their critical capabilities, critical requirements, and critical
vulnerabilities.

6.5.1. In combat operations, this involves knowing a threat’s physical and psychological strengths
and weaknesses and how the adversary organizes, fights, and makes decisions within the
operational area.

6.5.2. In non-combat operations it is essential to understand the dynamics of the threat, the critical
factors that make up the threat COG, and how it relates to other factors in the non-combat
situation.

6.6. Using the COG Tool: Once COGs and their critical factors have been identified, the Force
Commander and his staff determine how to attack / diminish / weaken the threat COGs and protect
improve / build upon the friendly COGs. This provides for points of influence within the operational
area for MNF forces to exploit / influence / attack to weaken major power sources for threats (refer
to Figure B-2-B-6-B.3). These points are referred to as Decisive Points.

6.6.1. Decisive Points help determine where and how to apply friendly capabilities to exploit threat
vulnerabilities. A Decisive Point is a geographic place, specific key event, critical factor, or
function that, when acted upon, allows a Commander to gain a marked advantage (or influence)
over an adversary or contributes materially to achieving success.

6.6.2. The most important Decisive Points can be determined from analysis of critical factors and
understanding the relationship between a COG's critical capabilities, requirements, and
vulnerabilities. This can highlight direct and indirect approaches to the attacking / weakening the
COG. It is likely that most critical vulnerabilities will be Decisive Points, which should then be
further addressed in the planning process.

6.6.3. Although operational areas may have numerous Decisive Points, only a few will truly have
operational or even strategic significance relative to an adversary's COGs. The art of identifying
Decisive Points is a critical part of Operational Design. Decisive Points can be linked to Lines of
Operation (another Operational Design tool for visualizing the operational mission). This will be
addressed at the end of the Mission Analysis step.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 17 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

7. Step 6: Identify operational-level tasks (Specified, Implied, and Essential Tasks). The CPG
identifies the MNF operational tasks to be performed. There are three types of tasks that are identified,
see below:

7.1. Specified Task: A task that is specifically assigned to the FORCE COMMANDER by the
Supported Strategic Commander. Can be written or oral. Normally found in the Supported Strategic
Commanders orders to the FORCE COMMANDER (and in the annexes to such orders / directives).

7.2. Implied Task: A task derived during mission analysis that an organization must perform or prepare
to perform to accomplish a specified task or the mission, but which is not stated in the Supported
Strategic Commander’s order.

7.3. Essential Task: A specified or implied task that an organization must perform to accomplish the
mission. An essential task is typically included in the mission statement.

8. Step 7: Conduct Initial MNF Force Structure Analysis =The primary purpose of the Force Structure
Analysis is to influence COA Development and approval based on multinational force apportionment,
availability, and readiness. The analysis process consists:

8.1. Review forces that have been apportioned to the FORCE COMMANDER. Determine readiness
status, the time they will be available, and possible national restrictions.

8.2. Determine the broad multinational force structure and capabilities required to accomplish the
mission.

8.3. Identify shortfalls of forces and resources required to accomplish the mission.

9. Step 8: Conduct Initial Risk Assessment. The CPG and MNF staff conducts an initial risk assessment.

9.1. Risk assessment is associated with:

9.1.1. Mission risks the Supported Strategic Commander and FORCE COMMANDER are willing to
accept in order to accomplish the mission.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 18 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

9.1.2. Force protection issues given the threat levels (permissive, uncertain or hostile environment).

9.1.3. Time available.

9.2. The CPG and MNF staff should consider the following as part of their initial risk assessments:

9.2.1. The Supported Strategic Commander might state or imply acceptable risk (for example, could
be addressed in the Supported Strategic Commander’s intent, concept of operations, additional
guidance).

9.2.2. MNF staff sections determine risks from their own situational analysis and staff estimate
process and, in turn, provide them to the CPG through their representatives.

9.2.3. The CPG determines the overall risks, considers potential methods for risk mitigation, and
disseminates them within the MNF command.

10. Step 9: Determine Military End State , Military Objectives, and supporting effects. In many
multinational operations the Military End State and some initial operational military objectives may be
given to the FORCE COMMANDER by the Supported Strategic Commander. Nevertheless, within
multinational operations, the FORCE COMMANDER, NCEs, component commands, and staff need to
review the Military End State conditions in a systematic manner and derive the supporting operational
military objectives required for their attainment.

10.1. This builds upon the Commander’s Appreciation process and specifically addresses what “should
be done” given the identified problem. This ensures the right problem is being focused upon for the
Military End State conditions attainment.

10.2. It also ensures a bottom-up approach for identification (or confirmation) of the Military End State
conditions within the MNF command. This recognizes that directives may come from a higher
headquarters (strategic level), but understanding of the specific situation will normally flow from the
bottom-up (operational / tactical levels).

10.3. This promotes a shared understanding / knowledge of the mission, respects the insights /
perspectives of the NCE from the participating nations, and underscores unity of effort within the
MNF command.

10.4. Determining the Military End State, Operational Military Objectives and Supporting Effects.

10.4.1. Review the Military End State given to the Force Commander from the Supporting Strategic
Commander (or develop the Military End State if none was given).

10.4.2. While many of the conditions may reflect the Strategic/National End State conditions, the
Military End State conditions will typically be more specific and contain other supporting
conditions that are based upon a bottom-up perspective of forces and elements within the MNF
AO and from key actors / stakeholders supporting the operation. These conditions contribute
to confirming termination criteria in later planning steps.

10.4.3. Identify the operational military objectives that support attainment of the Military End
State conditions.

i. Aside from its obvious association with supporting strategic objectives, clearly defining the
Military End State conditions and supporting military objectives promotes unity of effort,
facilitates synchronization, and helps clarify the risk associated with the multinational
operation.

ii. Commanders should include the Military End State conditions in their planning guidance and
Commander's Intent.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 19 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

iii. For the MNF command, the MNF’s end state conditions and supporting operational military
objectives may not fully equate to the Supported Strategic Commander’s end state
conditions and strategic military objectives. For example, the Supporting Strategic
Commander could be directing other significant military operations within the Area of
Responsibility (AOR) in addition to those of the MNF command. This reinforces the
requirement for the MNF command to conduct a formal identification of the Military End
State to understand the relationship of the MNF's mission accomplishment to the
Supporting Strategic Commander’s strategic military objectives and Military End State.

10.4.4. Identify the supporting effects for each operational military objective.

i. These effects are defined as the conditions, which if achieved, support the attainment of the
operational military objectives.

ii. Supporting effects at this level will be broad in scope and capture the major conditions which
contribute to the attainment of the operational military objectives.

iii. This initiates the formal MNF assessment process (refer to Part B, Chapter 2, Annex B:
Appendix 4, Tab B; “MNF Assessment of Operations” - MNF SOP Ver. 2.4.).

11. Step 10: Develop the Mission Statement and refine the Commander’s Intent. During this step the
initial mission statement is developed, and the Commander’s Intent is refined. This step supports the
MNF assessment actions (refer to Refer to Part B, Chapter 2, Annex B: Appendix 4, Tab B; “MNF
Assessment of Operations” - MNF SOP Ver. 2.4.for the MNF assessment process details).

11.1. Develop Mission Statement. The mission statement should be a short sentence or paragraph
that provides a clear statement of the action to be taken and the reason for doing so.

11.1.1. The mission statement includes the MNF's essential task (or tasks) and purpose.

11.1.2. The mission statement should cover the elements WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, and
WHY, but does not specify HOW.

11.1.3. It forms the basis for planning and is included in the planning guidance, the planning
directive, staff estimates, the Commander's estimate, the CONOPS, and the completed plan.

11.1.4. It can be revised during the remainder of the planning process if initial circumstances
change.

11.2. Refine the Commander’s Intent. The FORCE COMMANDER's intent is a clear and concise
expression of the purpose of the operation and the Military End State conditions and is a central
planning framework for MNF planning.

11.2.1. It provides focus to the staff and helps subordinate and supporting commanders take
actions to achieve the Military End State conditions without further orders, even when
operations do not unfold as planned. It also includes where the FORCE COMMANDER will
accept risk during the operation.

11.2.2. The Commander’s Appreciation (OIPE and problem framework) and initial Operational
Design serves as a key foundation for development of this intent coupled with the preceding
Mission Analysis steps.

11.2.3. The initial Commander’s Intent statement normally contains a purpose, the commander’s
narrative of his intent and the Military End State. Some nations use a “Purpose, Method, and
End State” format for intent. There is no standardized template for an intent statement – this is
a commander’s prerogative based on how he wishes to communicate his intent.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 20 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

12. Step 11: Determine initial Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIR). CCIRs
comprise information requirements identified by the FORCE COMMANDER as being critical to timely
information management and his decision-making process. CCIRs result from an analysis of
information requirements in the context of the mission and the FORCE COMMANDER’s intent. The
information needed to verify or refute a planning assumption is an example of a CCIR. The FORCE
COMMANDER and MNF staff refines and updates CCIRs throughout an operation based on actionable
information they need for decision-making. The three key subcomponents are:

12.1. Friendly Force Information Requirement (FFIR). FFIRs are information that is essential to the
FORCE COMMANDER’s decision making process for mission success. An FFIR is information the
commander and staff need to understand the status of friendly force and supporting capabilities.
FFIRs identify the information about the mission, troops and support available, and time available
for friendly forces that the commander considers most important.

12.2. Priority intelligence requirements (PIR). A PIR is an intelligence requirement, stated as a

priority for intelligence support that the commander and staff need to understand the adversary or
the operational environment. PIR drives intelligence collection and production requirements.

12.3. Essential Elements of Friendly Information (EEFI). In addition to nominating CCIRs to the
Commander, the staff also identifies and nominates Essential Elements of Friendly Information
(EEFIs). Although EEFIs are not CCIRs, unless specifically approved by the Commander, they
have the same priority. An EEFI establishes an element of information to protect rather than one to
collect. EEFIs identify those elements of friendly force information that, if compromised, would
jeopardize mission success.

13. Step 12: Develop and Conduct a Mission Analysis Brief. The purpose of the MNF Mission Analysis
brief is to obtain the FORCE COMMANDER’s approval of the Mission Analysis results and gain the
Commander’s Guidance for follow-on COA Development.

13.1. The MNF Chief of Staff (COS) has the overall responsibility for ensuring the Mission Analysis
brief is fully coordinated and staffed with the NCE’s from the participating nations within the MNF
command and with MNF component commanders.

13.2. The CPG is responsible for development of this brief with support from the MNF staff.

13.3. The briefing presents an orderly presentation of the Mission Analysis results for the FORCE
COMMANDER’s review with respective NCEs and MNF component commanders.

13.4. Figures B-2-B-6-B.4 and B-2-B-6-B.5 present potential templates for the organization of this
briefing. This is only a start point for this briefings organization and can be revised / refined as the
FORCE COMMANDER, COS, C3, C5, and CPG participants determines what best supports the
MNF Commander’s planning requirements.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 21 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Figure B-2-B-6-B.4: Mission Analysis Brief – Part 1

Figure B-2-B-6-B.5: Mission Analysis Brief – Part 2 Update

14. Step 13: Review and Refine Commander’s Appreciation (OIPE and problem framework) and
Commander’s Operational Design.

14.1. Review and Refine Commander’s Appreciation. This is a broad review of individual Mission
Analysis steps that have been completed to date (steps 2 through 12) to support refinement actions
and the Operational Design.

14.2. Review and Refine Commander’s Operational Design. The Operational Design can now be
further developed and refined to support follow-on COA Development at this point in the planning

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 22 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

process. Refer to Tab A for examples of the Commander’s Operational Design for combat and non-
combat situations.

14.2.1. The Operational Design is refined using Operational Design elements and consideration of
the following factors: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic (DIME) elements of
national power, IHC, host nation(s), interagency, and other actors / stakeholders.

14.2.2. The product of this step is an updated and refined Commander’s narrative and visualization
of the Operational Design. Refer to Tab C.

15. Step 14: Publish Commander’s Planning Guidance for COA Development and issue Warning
Order #2:

15.1. The Commander’s Planning Guidance should include:

15.1.1. The role of the interagency, IHC cooperation / coordination guidance, and any potential
transition planning with host nation(s), other multinational commands and UN commands.

15.1.2. Development of IO campaign plan.

15.1.3. Development of specific types of COAs.

15.1.4. The risks that the FORCE COMMANDER is willing to take for mission accomplishment.

15.1.5. Any related special considerations as required.

Warning Order #2 is published to the MNF command to provide updated information on the MNF mission
and to provide coordinating guidance to the MNF commanders (refer to Part F, Chapter 3, Annex B, ,
“Warning Order Format”) based upon mission analysis.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 23 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

STEP #2
COA DEVELOPMENT
1. Starting Conditions: A Mission Analysis briefing has been presented and distributed. The Force
Commander’s Guidance is provided and distributed. Warning Order #2 has been issued.

2. Description: COA Development leads to one of more options for how the mission and Commanders
Intent might be accomplished in accordance with the Commander’s understanding as a result of the
design effort and Mission Analysis.

3. Aim: Development of suitable, feasible, acceptable, distinct, and complete COA’s for presentation to the
Force Commander.

4. Results: The key results of COA Development are listed below.

• Force Commander approves (refines) the developed COAs for analysis and gaming

• Commander’s Gaming Guidance

• COA Development Brief

PROCESS

1. COA Development. COA Development leads to one or more options for how the mission and
Commander’s Intent might be accomplished in accordance with the Commander’s understanding as a
result of the design effort that began during the Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design
Step, and during Mission Analysis.

1.1. A COA consists of the following information:

1.1.1. What type of military action is required to attain the operational military objectives?

1.1.2. What types of supportive actions are required by other elements of national power
(diplomatic, informational and economic), host nation, and/or other organizations to support
and complement military action (interagency, IHC, and other key stakeholders –
comprehensive approach)?

1.1.3. Why the action is required (purpose)?

1.1.4. Who will take the action?

1.1.5. When will the action begin?

1.1.6. Where will the action occur?

1.1.7. What are the key cooperative / coordination actions with other key stakeholders that are
required to support military end state conditions attainment?

1.1.8. How will the action occur (method of employment of forces)?

1.2. Full Participation. COA Development requires the full participation and involvement of the MNF
Component Commanders (or their representatives), NCEs and planners from the host nation and
participating nations, and appropriate interagency representatives. The IHC is integrated as
required and as cooperative / coordination requirements dictate.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 24 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

1.2.1. MNF Staff Estimates: MNF staff estimates play an especially important support function
during COA Development since many of the information requirements for decision making will
be detailed and functionally oriented.

1.2.2. Component Commanders’ Involvement. MNF Component Commanders’ involvement is

also critical for COA Development for addressing specific operational conditions (supporting
effects) and tactical actions (tasks) required within a given solution set.

1.3. COA Development Steps:

1.3.1. Organize the CPG / COA groups.

1.3.2. Review OIPE, problem framework, Force Commander’s planning guidance and Intent, and
Force Commander’s Operational Design.

1.3.3. Develop potential solutions and required capabilities:

i. The Mission Analysis relies heavily on the details and Operational Design elements (COGs,
Decisive Points, supporting effects required for Decisive Points, phasing, etc.). Staff
estimates are tailored to meet the information requirements for identification of potential
COAs.

1.3.4. Develop a COA Statement for each identified solution set which addresses the required
elements of a COA (refer to Para. 1.1 above).

1.3.5. Review command and control options. Identify and specify the MNF component
organizations required (or sub task force requirements). Refer to Part B, Chapter 2, Annex C,
“Command, Control, Coordination and Cooperation Relationships” – Refer to MNF SOP for
various multinational C2 options.

1.3.6. Review and/or establish the MNF AO geographic boundaries. Identify Areas of Influence and
Areas of Interest.

1.3.7. Develop a COA sketch with supportive narratives. Refer to Figure B-2-B-6-B.6 for one
approach for such a sketch.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 25 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Figure B-2-B-6-B.6: COA Sketch Example

1.3.8. Each COA is reviewed for validity in accordance with the factors outlined in Figure B-2-B-6-
B.7.

Figure B-2-B-6-B.7: COA Validity

1.3.9. COAs are reviewed in their totality to address the solution for the identified problem and the
degree which they will achieve the operational military objectives.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 26 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

i. A totality review means stepping back and objectively reviewing the total solution set in the
recognition that there will be no “one right solution” for complex problems. There will be
better or worse solutions with accompanying advantages and disadvantages.

ii. Focus COA development on capability requirements vice force requirements. This ensures
that MNF planning is capabilities based to support identification of broad requirements
verses trying to identify specific force lists.

ii-i. Different COAs may outline different approaches for achieving the required results.

ii-ii. Capability based planning allows for varying approaches for supporting such
requirements.

1.3.10. A risk analysis is made of each COA in accordance with the Force Commander’s intent and
the expected cause and effect of each solution’s impact on the operational environment (2 nd

and 3rd order effects). The list of desired and undesired effects and the mission success criteria
established in prior planning steps assists in this process.

1.3.11. Staff estimates of supportability for each respective COA.

1.3.12. Refine the COA narrative statements and sketch based upon CPG and MNF staff review.
Each COA should address the following:

i. Broad Concept of Operations for how the MNF command and MNF component commands
will achieve the military End State.

ii. Comprehensive approach requirements for support of cooperative and coordination with
other element of national power (diplomatic, informational and economic). Cooperation and
coordination with host nation(s), IHC, and other major stakeholders within the MNF AO will
support attainment of operational military objectives and the military End State.

iii. Major strategic, operational, and tactical tasks to be accomplished.

iv. Capabilities required.

v. Task organization.

vi. Broad deployment concept.

vii. Broad sustainment concept.

viii. Communications systems support concept.

ix. Supporting Strategic Communication concept with the supporting MNF IO campaign plan.

x. Estimate of time required to reach mission success criteria or termination criteria.

xi. Concept for maintaining a MNF reserve.

xii. Identification of potential branches and sequels (refer to Figure B-2-B-6-B.8).

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 27 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Branches and Sequels

Branch – a contingency option built into the basic plan. A branch is used for changing
the mission, orientation, or direction of movement of a force to aid success of the
operation based on anticipated events, opportunities, or disruptions caused by
threat actions and reaction. It answers the question, “What if …?” A branch is
normally planned within a given phase of an operation and is more immediate term in
nature. The CTF C3 will normally address branch planning.

Sequel – A major operation that follows the current operation. Plans for a sequel are
based on the possible outcomes (success, stalemate, or defeat) associated with
the current operation. It answers the question, “What’s next?” A sequel normally
is planned for the next phase of operations and is more long term in nature. The CTF
C5 normally addresses sequel planning

Figure B-2-B-6-B.8: COA Branches and Sequels

1.3.13. Conduct a Force Commander’s COA briefing for approval and guidance for follow-on
planning.

i. Prior to the Force Commander’s briefing, pre-briefing and coordination with NCEs of
participating nations within the MNF command and MNF component commanders is highly
recommended to get full support and agreement on the possible COAs for achieving the
military End State.

ii. The NCE and component briefings also supports parallel planning and potential identification
of issues, problems, and refinement and adjustment actions required to optimize potential
solutions. This ensures the commanders are fully involved and part of COA development.

1.3.14. Publish the approved COAs for follow-on analysis and gaming.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 28 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

STEP #3
COA ANALYSIS AND GAMING
1. Starting Conditions: MNF Commander approves and/or refines the Operational Design and COAs for
further planning.

2. Description: COAs are individually analyzed against the Commander’s Planning Guidance and
Commander’s Intent. Additionally, the COAs can be refined in light of threat capabilities and potential
actions/reactions as well as other factors peculiar to the operational environment.

3. Aim: The purpose of COA Analysis and Gaming is to improve the plan.

4. Results: The key results of the COA Analysis and Gaming Step are listed below. COA Analysis and
Gaming provides a better understanding of the potential options available to the Commander of how
the mission may be accomplished.

• Potential Decision Points.

• Governing Factors.

• Confirmation of Decisive Points and Points of Influence.

• Potential Branches and Sequels.

• Refined COAs.

• Advantages and Disadvantages (for each COA).

• Revised Staff Estimates.

• Commander’s COA Comparison Criteria.

PROCESS

1. COA Analysis. The FORCE COMMANDER and CPG analyze each tentative COA separately according
to the FORCE COMMANDER’s Planning Guidance, FORCE COMMANDER’s Operational Design and
the Commander’s Intent to arrive at insights on the COAs ability to achieve the operational military
objectives and Military End State.. This analysis also provides for a better understanding of the details
of each COA and operational environment factors. Below is the broad process of COA analysis (this is
done before, during, and after gaming actions for each COA).

1.1. Organize CPG, Red Cell and request appropriate staff estimates. The CPG organizes for the
gaming actions. A Red Cell is established by the C-2 that will aggressively pursue / present the
threat element(s) point of view during gaming. Additionally, the selected staff estimates are
requested based upon the situation.

1.2. Gather tools, data, and information. These items may include:

1.2.1. Running Estimates.

1.2.2. Event Templates.

1.2.3. A recording method.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 29 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

1.2.4. Completed COAs, including graphics.

1.2.5. A means to post or display enemy and friendly unit symbols and other organizations.

1.2.6. A map of the AO.

1.3. Conduct the analysis. This represents the final preparations of each COA prior to the conduct of
gaming. Such an analysis should reveal a number of factors including the following key factors:

1.3.1. Confirmation of the Lines of Operations (LOOs), Decisive Points (DPs), and Support Effects
(SEs) for each DP contained within the Operational Design.

1.3.2. Potential commander’s decision points (not to be confused with decisive points, listed above).

1.3.3. Capability and task organization adjustment.

1.3.4. Critical data or information required for further analysis or for the COA as a whole in
execution.

1.3.5. High Value Actions that support mission success criteria.

i. High payoff cooperation and coordination actions.

ii. High-Value / High Payoff Targets.

iii. High-value objectives.

1.3.6. Deployment insights.

1.3.7. Sustainment insights.

1.3.8. IO insights.

1.3.9. Time estimates required to reach mission success criteria or termination criteria.

1.3.10. Insights on maintaining a MNF reserve.

1.3.11. Risk assessment of each COA in terms of the FORCE COMMANDER’s intent, desired and
undesired effects, and overall operational environment consideration.

1.3.12. Confirmation of requirement for branches and sequels. Refer to Figure 8 for definitions.

1.3.13. COA advantages and disadvantages as viewed for each separate COA alone (do NOT
base this upon comparing the COAs at this time, this action will be performed during Step 4:
COA Comparison).

1.3.14. Revised CCIR recommendations.

1.3.15. Other revised Operational Design elements (refer to Tab b, Figure 32).

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 30 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Note: The below gaming action is an important component of the planning process because it provides
valuable insights into the approach the MNF Command will be executing operations. It also furthers the
shared understanding / knowledge of potential solutions to the crisis. It must be acknowledged that
“gaming” may not be performed in detail as outlined below due to time constraints and/or other limitations.
At the minimum, MNF planners need to conduct simple “talking through” of each COA with MNF
component planners to examine the details of each proposed solution with the components that will
execute the COAs.

2. COA Gaming. Gaming is an extension of the previous COA Analysis sub-step. It provides a means for
the FORCE COMMANDER, NCEs from participating nations within the MNF command, MNF
component commanders, and MNF staff to analyze in depth each tentative COA. This further allows
for deepening their insights on each COA’s effectiveness in achieving the Operational Military
Objectives.

2.1. Each tentative COA should be gamed against the most probable and/or most dangerous threat
COAs (may be an adversary or groups of adversaries, or may be a threat to the environment as a
whole within non-combat environments).

2.2. COA Gaming is a conscious attempt to visualize the flow of the operation, given Multinational Force
strengths and dispositions, threat capabilities, AO characteristics, and other aspects of the
operational environment.

2.3. Each critical event within a proposed COA should be gamed based upon the time available using
the action, reaction, counteraction method of friendly and threat interaction.

2.4. Gaming stimulates thought and ideas about the operation. It highlights tasks that are potentially
important to the operation and increases familiarity with the operational level possibilities that might
arise as the MNF Command interacts with the operational environment.

2.5. Governing Factors. A set of Governing Factors is an important output from COA Gaming.
Governing Factors are those aspects of the situation (or externally imposed factors) that the
FORCE COMMANDER deems critical to mission accomplishment.

2.5.1. Examples of Governing Factors include: Elements of the Commander’s Intent and Planning
Guidance; COA Gaming results; selected principles of war; external constraints or any criteria
the Commander desires.

2.5.2. These factors will be related to the planning elements of Operational Design, problem
framework, Operational Military Objectives, and to the conditions that support attainment of the
MNF Military End State, restated mission and Commander’s Intent.

2.5.3. The Governing Factors should illuminate these planning elements essential for mission
success and provide a basis for possible refinement of COAs.

2.6. Participants:

2.6.1. Initial gaming normally consists of CPG staff planners and MNF component commander’s
planner representatives.

2.6.2. The final gaming session may consist of the FORCE COMMANDER and MNF component
commanders that build upon the initial staff gaming actions. This normally will be more of an
overview analysis interjecting the Commander’s insights with less detailed gaming actions.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 31 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

2.6.3. The Red Cell aggressively pursues the threat elements point of view during the action,
reaction, and counteraction (normally the C2 oversees this cell with support from subject matter
experts across the MNF staff). This cell develops critical decision points relative to friendly
COAs and projects adversary reactions to friendly actions.

2.6.4. Staff members who were deeply involved in the COA development should participate on the
friendly element side of the gaming.

2.6.5. A gaming controller needs to be appointed to adjudicate and manage the process.

2.6.6. Recorders need to be appointed to record the actions, reactions, and counteractions and
lessons learned from each of these periods of gaming.

2.7. COA Gaming Steps. The summary of gaming steps are outlined at Figure B-2-B-6-B.9.

Figure B-2-B-6-B.9: COA Gaming Steps

2.8. Gaming Methods (manual [table top] or computer-assisted) include:

2.8.1. Gaming Methods:

i. Deliberate Timeline Analysis. The method considers MNF actions day by day or in other
discrete blocks of time. This is the most thorough method when time permits detailed
analysis.

ii. Operational Phasing Framework. This method uses operational phasing as a framework to
identify significant actions and requirements by functional area or MNF component. iii.
Critical Event Analysis. This method focuses on critical events that encompass the essence
of the COA. If time is particularly limited, focus only on the principal defeat mechanism.

iv. Combination of the above.

2.9. Record / Display Gaming Results: This provides a database from which to build or modify COAs,
task organization, synchronize activities, adjust operational concepts, and assist in the follow-on
detailed planning actions. Options include (refer to Figures B-2-B-6-B.10 thru B-2-B-6-B.14).

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 32 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

2.9.1. Gaming Worksheets will be constructed to identify pertinent data for given time period, phase
or critical events.

2.9.2. Synchronization Matrix allows the CPG to record results of gaming & synchronize the COA
over a number of different parameters.

2.10. All results need to identify the initial advantages / disadvantages for each COA separately.
These advantages / disadvantages will be further refined in the follow-on step.

Figure B-2-B-6-B.10: Gaming Action / Reaction / Counteraction

Figure B-2-B-6-B.11: Gaming Simplified Synchronization Matrix

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 33 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Figure B-2-B-6-B.12: Gaming another form of Synchronization Matrix

Figure B-2-B-6-B.13: Gaming Critical Event

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 34 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Figure B-2-B-6-B.14: Gaming Final Output – Advantages / Disadvantages

2.11. Gaming analysis. The gaming results are analyzed in the same process used within sub-step 1
of this current planning step. 2.11.1. FORCE COMMANDER Backbriefs can be presented formally
or informally, as dictated by the situation and the degree the FORCE COMMANDER desires to
participate in this process.

2.11.2. The viewpoints of the NCEs of the participating nations within the MNF Command and the
MNF component commanders’ perspective on COA Analysis are important to solicit either by
formal or informal means.

2.12. Preparation for follow-on COA Comparison Step.

2.12.1. The FORCE COMMANDER outlines his comparison criteria for the respective COAs. This
comparison criteria should capture the key military planning factors that will support mission
success. These criteria can include: Force protection, risk, speed, security or other principles
of war, or specific focus on particular war fighting functions. The CPG will normally draft a
recommended set of criteria for the FORCE COMMANDER’s consideration.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 35 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

STEP #4
COA COMPARISON
1. Starting Conditions: The Force Commander has achieved a better understanding of the potential
options of how the mission may be accomplished.

2. Description: COA Comparison is a subjective process whereby COAs are considered independently
and evaluated/compared against a set of criteria that are established by the staff and commander
during COA Analysis and Gaming.

3. Aim: To identify and recommend the COA that has the highest probability of mission success.

4. Results: The key results of COA Comparison are listed below.

4.1. Evaluated COAs

4.2. Recommended COA

4.3. Updated staff estimates

PROCESS

1. COA Comparison Steps:

1.1. CPG updates Governing Factors and other key required information, as required.

1.2. Staff estimates are requested based upon any outstanding information requirement(s).

1.3. The initial COA advantages and disadvantages developed in the previous analysis / gaming
planning step are reviewed and updated.

1.4. The Force Commander’s comparison criteria (identified in the previous step) must be relevant to
the major aspects of the Operational Design and Governing Factors from previous COA Analysis
and Gaming actions. Some possible criteria might be:

1.4.1. Related to Lines of Operation themes.

1.4.2. Related to defining aspects of either major combat, crisis response contingencies, HA/DR
factors, or other non-combat missions.

1.4.3. Criteria relative to Force Commander’s Intent (Military End State or operational military
objectives).

1.4.4. Related directly to Governing Factors and/ or mission success criteria.

1.4.5. Principles of War / Range of Military Operations and/or MOOTW.

1.4.6. Elements of Operational Design (risk, speed, security).

1.4.7. Joint / multinational / war-fighting functions (Command and Control, Maneuver, Fires,
Intelligence, Force Protection, and Sustainment).

1.5. Compare each COA separately against the comparison criteria (do not compare each COA against
other COAs at this point in time – critical point). This is an independent comparison process at this
time.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 36 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

1.5.1. Each COA is ranked against the comparison criteria separately.

1.5.2. An overall ranking is established for each COA. This is repeated for each COA.

1.6. Once the COAs are ranked separately, then the COAs rankings are compared.

1.6.1. Figures B-2-B-6-B.15 through B-2-B-6-B.18 provide examples of comparison matrices that
can act as starting points for the various ways COA rankings can be compared. Note that the
Advantage vs Disadvantage comparison method (Figure 19) does not have the list of
comparison criterion on the matrix. Therefore, the Advantage vs Disadvantage comparison
method should be used in conjunction to one of the comparison criteria matrices.

Figure B-2-B-6-B.15: Comparison – Positive / Neutral / Negative

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 37 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

Figure B-2-B-6-B.16: Comparison – Unweighted Scale

Figure B-2-B-6-B.17: Comparison – Weighted Scale

Figure B-2-B-6-B.18: Comparison – Descriptive Advantages / Disadvantages

1.7 The COA rankings are compared and the recommended COA is recorded.

1.8 The Force Commander’s Small Group COA Review Session. Once the CPG has completed their
COA comparisons, it is recommended that the Force Commander, NCEs of contributing nations to
the MNF command, and MNF Component Commanders review the comparison to insert their
perspectives and insights. This can be done formally or informally. This step is optional based upon
the time available and Force Commander’s preference. This action does not represent any

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 38 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

approval of any recommended COA; rather, it is simply the Force Commander’s small group review
with his subordinate multinational commander’s prior to a formal COA recommendation briefing.

1.8.1 This allows for subordinate commander’s input on COA Comparison prior to any formal
briefing to the Force Commander.

i. It also allows the Force Commander, NCEs, and MNF Component Commanders to have
separate sessions after the COA Development, Analysis and Gaming, and Comparison
steps to allow for frank and open discourse on attainment of the MNF Military End State
(e.g. commanders meetings and coordination sessions). This is a key unity of effort building
block within the MNF MDMP Multinational Planning Process.

1.8.2 More importantly, having the commander’s perspectives and insights prior to the COA
Recommendation briefing to allow incorporating inputs from the major stakeholders within the
MNF AO relative to the recommended COA before it is formally reviewed and approved/refined
by the Force Commander. This supports the comprehensive approach to planning.

Comparison Note: The above comparison tools are only one approach for comparing COAs.
These tools can be replaced with other techniques as the Force Commander prefers or the
situation dictates. These tools are really subjective in nature and only serve to provide a means
of discussing and examining the many possible solutions to the problem framework.

It is useful to remember that in addressing complex problems (or contingencies) there really are
no right or wrong solutions; there are simply “better or worse” solutions due to the complexity
and interrelationships present within such situations.

The most important part of COA comparison is communications and discourse (frank, respectful
and open dialogue) among the Force Commander, NCEs, MNF Component Commanders,
interagencies, host nation, and the IHC. This is critical for ensuring that all perspectives, insights,
and viewpoints are considered.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 39 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

STEP #5
COA APPROVAL
1. Starting Conditions: COAs are compared and ranked to arrive at a recommended COA.

2. Description: The staff briefs the Commander on the COA Comparison and the Analysis and Gaming
results, including a review of important supporting information. The staff determines the best COA
to recommend to the commander.

3. Aim: To select and formally recommend to the higher headquarters the Force Commander’s COA
that has the best probability for accomplishing the operational military objectives and Military End
State. The selected COA serves as the basis for the Concept of Operations and other supporting
concepts.

4. Results: The key results of COA Approval are listed below. The Concept of Operations and the
supporting concepts will enable the planners to proceed with the functional and detailed planning
which is essential for the development of the plan or order and implementation of the plan during
execution.

• Commander’s COA Approval.

• Refined Commander’s Intent.

• Commander’s Estimate (if required).

• Warning Order #3.

PROCESS

1. Commander’s COA Approval. The COA Briefing is intended to fully outline the potential COAs and the
recommended COA for achieving the operational military objectives and Military End State. It should
also address the COA assessment and comparison, providing insights on the FORCE COMMANDER’s
Operational Design and problem framework.

1.1. Briefing organization. The briefing presentation should follow the broad structure of the
Commander’s Estimate (refer to Part C, Chapter 5, Annex B, Appendix 3, “Commander’s Estimate
Format”). However, the detailed sequence of the briefing is fully flexible.

1.2. The NCEs of the participating nations within the MNF command and MNF component commanders
should attend this briefing.

1.3. The recommended COA should:

1.3.1. Support the Commander’s Planning Guidance and Intent.

1.3.2. Support the attainment of the operational military objectives and Military End State.

1.3.3. Fully recognize and operate within the Operational Design.

1.3.4. Review and address the problem framework.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 40 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

1.3.5. Support the National/Strategic Objectives and strategic military objectives, and planning
guidance from the Supported Strategic Commander and the Lead or Host Nation national
authorities.

1.3.6. Be adequate, feasible, acceptable, distinguishable, and complete.

1.3.7. Identify required branches and sequels to provide for operational flexibility.

1.3.8. Address the solution using a comprehensive approach (integration of multinational

participants and partners, interagency, IHC, host nation, UN/UN agencies, and other major
stakeholders’ interests and perspectives as applicable).

1.3.9. Identify required forces and resources to include broad timelines required for arrival within
the MNF AO. More detailed identification will occur once the COA is approved.

1.4. Commander’s COA Selection. At the end of the briefing, the FORCE COMMANDER will do one of
the following four actions:

1.4.1. Approve the COA and direct development of the Commander’s Estimate.

1.4.2. Direct refinements to a COA and direct development of the Commander’s Estimate.

1.4.3. Combine the COAs or portions of each COA to form a new COA.

1.4.4. Disapprove the COA/all COAs, and direct that additional COAs (or COA) be developed,
analyzed, gamed, and compared.

1.4.5. Once a COA has been selected, this COA becomes the basis for the Concept of Operations
and all supporting concepts. This will facilitate plan/order development during Step 6 of the
planning process.

2. Refined Commander’s Intent. Upon COA Selection, the Commander can refine his Intent prior to the
start of plan/order development.

3. Commander’s Estimate. This is a formal estimate, but the precise contents may vary widely depending
on the nature of the operation, time available, and applicability of prior planning. This portion of the
COA Approval may not be required, but is recommended. The Commander’s Estimate is forwarded to
the Supported Strategic Commander and Supporting Strategic Commanders for review and approval /
comment.

3.1. It formally analyzes the various COAs that may be used to accomplish the assigned mission and
recommends the best COA.

3.2. The forces and resources will be identified to include broad timelines for their required arrival within
the MNF AO. This allows the strategic planning levels above the MNF level to initiate formal
coordination with participating nations on specific force requirements, capabilities, force flow, and
sustainability coordination.

3.2.1. More detailed force and resource identification will occur once the COA is approved.

3.3. This estimate can provide formal recommendations for refinements to strategic guidance and the
strategic Military End State, the MNF mission, and the operational Military End State.

3.4. It is critical that this estimate integrates and includes all inputs, perspectives, and insights of the
NCEs of the participating nations, MNF component commanders, governmental agencies, IHC,
host nation, UN/UN agencies and other major stakeholders within the MNF AO, as applicable.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 41 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

3.5. This estimate serves as the formal foundation for maintaining unity of effort within the MNF
Command and supports the shared understanding / knowledge of the recommended COA that will
ensure attainment of the Military End State.

3.6. Refer to Part C, Chapter 5, Annex B, Appendix 3, “Commander’s Estimate Format” – MNF SOP
Ver. 2.4 for a starting point for this estimate. This format can be adjusted to meet specific Lead
Nation planning formats as required by a specific situation.

4. Warning Order #3. Once a COA has been selected, Warning Order #3 will be issued. It may contain the
following updated information based on the Commander’s approval of a COA:

4.1. Mission.

4.2. Commander’s Intent.

4.3. Updated CCIRs and EEFIs.

4.4. Concept of Operations.

4.5. AO.

4.6. Principal tasks assigned to subordinate units.

4.7. Preparation and rehearsal instructions.

4.8. A final timeline for the operations.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 42 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

STEP #6
PLAN / ORDER DEVELOPMENT
1. Starting Conditions: COA has been selected and Commander’s Estimate submitted.

2. Description: A plan or order is developed based upon the approved COA. There are four types of plans.
The most basic is the Commander’s Estimate, the other types of plans are: a Basic Plan, a CONPLAN,
and a OPLAN. In addition to plans, an Operation Order (OPORD) is a directive issued by a commander
to subordinate commanders for the purpose of effecting the coordinated execution of an operation

3. Aim: To prepare and write the plan or order, if required, based upon the approved COA.

4. Results: The key results of Plan and Order Development are listed below.

• MNF plan or order is developed.

• MNF plan and order, if required, is forwarded to the higher headquarters.

PROCESS

1. Plan or Order Development. The purpose of this step is to translate the Commander’s decision into
oral, written, and/or graphic communication sufficient to guide implementation and promote initiative by
subordinates.

1.1. The CPG is the focal for the development of the plans and orders. Liaison teams to the CPG from
the MNF components are required.

1.2. Refer to Part C, Chapter 5, Annex B, Appendix 6, “OPORD Format” and Appendix 6A, “OPLAN /
OPORD Annex Template” – MNF SOP Ver. 2.4 for details on the OPORD format and supporting
Annex templates.

1.3. Concept of Operations (CONOPS). Before the staff can develop a plan or order, the Commander
and staff must develop a CONOPS. The Commander and staff, in collaboration with subordinate
and supporting components and organizations, expands the approved COA into an executable
CONOPS—the eventual centerpiece of the plan or order.

1.3.1. Concept of Operations Development: The Commander and staff, in collaboration with
component commands and supporting commands will develop a CONOPS based upon the
approved COA. The CONOPS clearly and concisely expresses what the commander intends
to accomplish and how it will be done using available resources. It describes how the actions
of the force components and supporting organizations will be integrated, synchronized, and
phased to accomplish the mission, including potential branches and sequels.

1.3.2. Operational design planning elements that were used within previous planning steps assist
in this development process. The CONOPS should address the following:

i. Commander’s intent.

ii. Actions of the MNF components and supporting organizations, and how they will be
integrated, synchronized, and phased to accomplish the mission.

iii. Addresses friendly and threat strategic and operational COGs and their associated
vulnerabilities.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 43 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

iv. Actions to control the tempo of the operation.

v. Relates the operational military objectives, lines of operations, decision points, and
supporting effects for the decision points.

1.3.3. The CONOPS is developed in sufficient detail with supporting graphics so that the MNF
component commanders understand their mission, tasks, and other requirements and can
develop their supporting plans respectively.

1.3.4. The CPG develops the recommended CONOPS with support of the MNF staff and staff
estimates as required.

1.3.5. A small group briefing is presented to the force commander for approval of the CONOPS, if
required.

1.4. Plans. There are four separate types of plans. Development of any of the following types of plans
will be dependent upon the time available prior to execution and/or direction by higher headquarters
on the extent of planning required.

1.4.1. Commander’s Estimate. This product, if required, is generated at the end of the previous
step-COA Approval. This level of planning involves the least amount of detail and focuses on
producing multiple COAs to address a crisis or contingency. The product for this level can be
a COA briefing, command directive, commander’s estimate, or a memorandum. The
Commander’s Estimate provides higher headquarters with military COAs to meet a potential
contingency. The estimate reflects the supported commander’s analysis of the various COAs
available to accomplish an assigned mission and contains a recommended COA.

1.4.2. Basic Plan (BPLAN). A BPLAN describes the CONOPS, major forces, concepts of support,
and anticipated timelines for completing the mission. It normally does not include annexes or
force deployment data.

1.4.3. Concept Plan (CONPLAN). A CONPLAN is an OPLAN in an abbreviated format that may
require considerable expansion or alteration to convert it into an OPLAN or OPORD. It includes
a plan summary, a BPLAN, and usually includes the following annexes: A (Task Organization),
B (Intelligence), C (Operations), D (Logistics), J (Command Relations), K (Communications),
S (Special Technical Operations), V (Interagency Coordination), and Z (Distribution). It may
also produce force deployment data, if applicable. (This is referred to as a level 3- plan.) A
troop list and force deployment would also require that an annex E (Personnel) be prepared.

1.4.4. Operation Plan (OPLAN). An OPLAN is a complete and detailed plan containing a full
description of the CONOPS, all annexes applicable to the plan, and force deployment data. It
identifies the specific forces, functional support, and resources required to execute the plan
and provide closure estimates for their flow into the theater. OPLANs can be quickly developed
into an OPORD.

1.5. Operation Order (OPORD). A directive issued by a commander to subordinate commanders for
the purpose of effecting the coordinated execution of an operation. If a Commander’s Estimate was
already approved by higher headquarters and a decision is made by higher headquarters to
execute the mission, the MNF will transmit the OPORD describing the plan contained in the
Commander’s Estimate. If a more detailed plan (BPLAN, CONPLAN, OPLAN), has been
developed, these plans must be approved by higher headquarters prior to transmitting an OPORD.

1.6. Plan or Order Coordination. If not already accomplished, the MNF component commands finalize
their plans and are synchronized with the MNF plan and appropriate plans briefings are conducted.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 44 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

1.6.1. The Force Commander and staff coordination with the MNF components continues. Focused
coordination is conducted during this step in the planning process to synchronize efforts and
operations.

i. Crosswalks. The MNF and component staffs may conduct a comparison between the MNF
plan and the MNF component plans. This is termed as an orders crosswalk. Each portion
of the order is cross-walked with other parts of the order and with the components’ orders
to ensure consistency.

ii. MNF Component Briefs. There usually are two types of briefs.

ii-i. Initial Brief. This is a component brief to the MNF Commander and staff that occurs
immediately after the issuance of a plan or order to ensure subordinate component
planners understand the plan.

ii-ii. Backbriefs by Subordinate Commanders. This form of brief is used to allow subordinate
commands to back-brief how they will accomplish the mission/tasks assigned to them.
This is also referred to as a component plans briefing.

1.7. Rehearsals. Conduct rehearsals as time permits.

1.7.1. Rehearsals assist in identifying risk, confirming lines of operation, decisive points, supporting
effects for decisive point attainment, commander’s decision points and synchronizing actions
among the MNF components and MNF headquarters.

1.7.2. Rehearsal of Concept (ROC) Drill. A ROC drill is an informal review and gaming / Backbrief
if the plan or order. It uses the CONOPS as the central basis for these reviews and will include
the NCEs for the participating nations within the MNF command and the MNF component
commanders. This can be a staff or commander driven process. The ROC Drill is used to
exercise and refine the plan or order.

1.7.3. A Red Cell can be used, if desired, similar to the COA Gaming step.

2. Higher headquarters review and approval of plans/orders. The Force Commander forwards the
completed plan or order to the higher headquarters for review and approval.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 45 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

STEP #7
EXECUTION PLANNING
1. Starting Conditions: The higher headquarters commander issues an execution order (EXORD).

2. Description: This step begins when the Lead/Host Nation’s national authorities determine that military
action is required based upon strategic consultation and coordination with participating nations, and
with applicable actors/stakeholders. This step focuses on the execution, assessment, and planning that
occurs during operations. This step has the following items.

2.1. MNF Execute Order (EXORD) published and operations commence.

2.2. Assessment of operations.

2.3. Execution Planning.

3. Aim: Execute, assess, and adapt.

Results. In practice, this is a continuous cycle. The overall MDMP-Multinational planning process is
completed once the Military End State is achieved and the National/Strategic and Higher Headquarter
Commander direct the cessation of MNF military operations.

PROCESS

1. Execute Order (EXORD). An EXORD is published and the execution of operations commences.

1.1. The Higher Headquarters issues an EXORD.

1.2. The MNF plan is updated and revised as required by the higher headquarters guidance.

2. Assessment of operations. Assessment is the continuous monitoring and evaluation of the current
situation and progress of an operation toward mission accomplishment. It involves deliberately
comparing forecasted outcomes to actual events to determine the overall effectiveness of force
employment. In general, assessments should answer two questions: 1) Is the MNF doing things right?
2) Is the MNF doing the right things? The Assessment process helps the Commander determine
progress toward achieving objectives and whether the current tasks and objectives are relevant to
reaching the end state. It helps identify opportunities, counter threats, and any needs for course
correction, thus resulting in modifications to plans and orders. This process of continuous assessment
occurs throughout the planning process. It is an essential tool that allows planners to monitor
performance of operations. The two major components of this process are Measures of Performance
(MOPs) and Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). Refer to Part B, Chapter 2, Annex B, Appendix 4, Tab
A: “MNF Assessment of Operations” – MNF SOP Ver. 2.4 for the details of the assessment processes.

3. Execution Planning. Planning is an ongoing process. Once the operations commence, it will be
necessary for the MNF to refine and adjust plans. To support this process, the MNF headquarters uses
the PLANS, FOPS, and COPS organizational framework.

3.1. C5 PLANS. During execution, the emphasis of C5 PLANS is on refining the next phase of
operations, and planning sequels.

3.2. C3 FOPS. During execution, C3 FOPS focuses on the next major action and prepares branch
plans to current operations or to the current phase.

3.3. C3 COPS. During execution, C3 COPS focuses on current operations (battle / operations tracking)
and reports on the progress of the operation so that plan refinement may occur if required.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 46 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

3.4. Refer to Part C, Chapter 5, Annex A, “MNF C5 Plans (PLANS)”, for details on PLANS. Refer to
Part C, Chapter 3, Annex B, “Current Operations” and Annex C, “Future Operations (FOPS), for
details on COPS and FOPS, MNF SOP Ver. 2.9

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 47 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

TAB C
MNF ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONS
1. Overview. This annex describes the process within an MNF for assessing the effectiveness of
operations. The assessment process described in this annex is intended to be used by planners at the
operational level. The framework is intended to be flexible in execution to support the requirements of
the force commander and the staff based upon their respective planning and execution requirements.
It must also be emphasized that this assessment process is meant to inform the commander’s decision
making process. It is not a substitute for the force commander’s intuition, experience, and judgment.

2. Operational Assessment. The assessment of operations is continuous and informs the commander’s
decision making throughout planning and execution. Figure B-2-B-6-C.1 depicts a general framework
for assessing MNF operations.

Figure: B-2-B-6-C.1: MNF Operational Assessment

2.1. Assessment Framework. This framework involves two parallel assessment processes that
together can provide a comprehensive operational assessment for the commander.

2.1.1. Task Assessment. A task is a discreet event or action that enables a mission or function to
be accomplished. Tasks are developed during mission analysis, refined during course of action
(COA) development, and approved at COA selection. Tasks are assessed during execution
using Measures of Performance (MOPs). As tasks are executed, MNF components, supporting
units, and designated agencies report the status of task execution using MOP metrics
(developed during planning) via reporting to the MNF Command Center (M-CmdC) and then
to the MNF Assessment Cell (MAC). This assessment provides the status of specific actions
that have been taken to achieve a desired effect and help answer the question: Are we doing
things right?

i. Measures of Performance (MOP). MOPs are criteria for measuring task performance or
accomplishment. MOPs are generally quantitative, but can include qualitative measures.
Regardless of the criteria used MOP focus on the status of task accomplishment.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 48 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

2.1.2. Effects Assessment. An effect is the physical or behavioral state of a system that results
from an action, a set of actions, or another effect. Effects are derived from objectives and are
approved by the commander. Effects help bridge the gap between objectives and tasks by
describing conditions that need to be established (or avoided) in the OE in order to achieve the
desired end state. Effects are assessed during execution using Measures of Effectiveness
(MOEs) and are reported to the MAC by designated MNF C-codes, components, supporting
units and designated agencies.

Note: When assessing objectives, some nations may use “conditions” verses “effects” which
are essentially synonymous in usage. In working with civilians, the concept of “conditions”
translates better for what is used internationally in terms of what one is trying to achieve in a
given situation. “Achieving these condition should result in our success overall”, such
statements translates well and is understood better than using “effects” terminology.

i. Measure of Effectiveness (MOEs). An MOE gives more precision to an effect and lessens
the opportunity for subordinates to misinterpret the commander's intent. MOEs assess
changes in system behavior, capability, or operational environment and help answer the
question: “Are we doing the right things?” At the operational level MOEs tend to be
qualitative and subjective in nature. Whenever possible, MOEs should use quantitative
measures that can show a trend, as well as progress relative to a numerical threshold.

ii. The MAC reviews the MOE indicators, assesses them as they relate to specific MOEs,
determines the current status of effects attainment, and produces an effects summary.

iii. In addition to MOE assessment, the MAC also considers other relevant
intelligence/information that may fall outside the scope of the applicable MOEs, but which
directly impacts on effect(s) attainment.

2.1.3. Integration of Commander Critical Information Requirements (CCIR). The assessment

of tasks and effects is directly supported by the CCIR process. During planning MOPs and
MOEs are developed with the commander’s CCIRs in mind in order to ensure that the
operational assessment is focused on critical information needed to ensure mission
accomplishment. Refer to Part C, Chapter 2: MNF C2 Intelligence Procedures for details on
the CCIR.

2.2. Operations and Plan Review and Recommendations (OPRR). The results of the task and
effects assessments are sent to the MNF Assessment Working Group (MAWG). This stage of the
operational assessment process seeks to answer the questions "how effective is the operation"
and "are the assigned missions, objectives, and desired effects being achieved."

2.2.1. The goal of conducting OPRR is to provide a range of potential options that are executable
and are in keeping with commander's intent and limitations (constraints and restraints).

2.2.2. Recommendations should be directed at all three planning horizons in the headquarters
(current operations, future operations, and future plans) as well as all levels of assessment
(task, effects, and objectives).

2.2.3. The OPRR helps the MNF identify potential gaps between actual mission accomplishment
and the achievement of desired objectives and end states.

2.2.4. The OPRR can lead to the adjustment of current operations, refinement/development of
sequels/branch plans, and the modification of assessment criteria in accordance with guidance
received from the MNF.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 49 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

2.3. MNF Assessment Board (MAB). The recommendations prepared by the MAWG are sent to the
MAB. During this final step in the operational assessment process the force commander considers
and/or approves the recommendations and issues guidance to the MNF staff.

2.4. Assessment Duties and Responsibilities. The assessment activities described in this section
are conducted in appropriate Cross-Functional Elements (CFEs). (Refer to Part B, Chapter 2:
Multinational Staff Coordination Process Cross-Functional Elements (CFEs)).

3. Commander’s Decision Cycle. Figure B-2-B-6-C.2 portrays the Commander’s Decision Cycle that the
MNF assessment process supports. The Decision Cycle is the foundation upon which all planning,
directing, monitoring, and assessment of MNF operations are based. (Refer to Part B, Chapter 2:
Commander’s Decision Cycle.)

3.1. A continual MNF learning process that is continually assessing the effectiveness of MNF plans and
operations is fundamental to this decision cycle. As such, the MNF assessment process is
fundamental to supporting the Commander’s Decision Cycle and a key aspect of the decision cycle.
The assessment contributes to the commander’s situational awareness and provides focus to staff
planning in order to shape the OE in accordance with operational objectives and end states.

Figure B-2-B-6-C.2: The Role of Assessment in the Decision Cycle

3.2. The MNF staff communicates throughout this cycle, both within the headquarters and with higher,
adjacent and supporting commands to achieve integrated operations within the MNF AO. This
requires the integration of key stakeholders in this decision cycle.

3.2.1. Integrated operations are defined as: Synchronized, coordinated, and/or cooperative
activities among nation’s governments, militaries, humanitarian community (HC), and other key
stakeholders to achieve unity of effort during multinational operations.

3.2.2. Refer to Part B, Chapter 2: MNF Planning Process and Organization and Part B, Chapter 2:
MNF Headquarters Organization, for the organizations and process by which these elements
are integrated into the planning and execution process of the MNF headquarters.

4. Operational Assessment Considerations.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 50 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

4.1. Incorporating Effects into Assessments. An effects assessment allows the force commander’s
view of the operating environment to expand beyond the military perspective to include all aspects
of the environment that can be influenced by harmonizing military operations with the actions of
other instruments of power (e.g., diplomatic, information, military, economic and socio-cultural).

4.2. Planning for Assessment. Commanders and their staffs develop and refine assessment
measures and criteria throughout the planning and execution process.

4.2.1. This process begins during mission analysis, and results in clear, concise assessment
guidance in the commander and staff estimates.

4.2.2. Commanders and their staffs develop assessment criteria during planning to enable the
assessment of the effectiveness of operations during execution. In this way the operational
design is shaped to ensure that friendly, adversary, and neutral diplomatic, informational,
military and economic actions in the operational environment are considered to ensure that
objectives and end states are achieved.

4.2.3. To the maximum extent possible, commanders and their staffs must plan to assess not only
the performance of tasks in support of operational objectives, but also their effectiveness in
achieving the desired end state.

4.2.4. Assessments conducted at every echelon (different levels of planning and execution –
strategic, operational and tactical) can contribute to the force commander’s overall
understanding of the operational environment.

4.2.5. Active participation by the staff, MNF component commands, supporting commands,
multinational partners, relevant governmental agencies, and IHC are essential to an accurate
and comprehensive assessment of the operational environment.

4.3. Assessment Balance. Assessments are prepared for the commander by his staff using various
inputs such as; statistical analysis, expert opinion, and content analysis. A balance is needed
between a quantitative and qualitative approach to assessment.

4.3.1. Because of the difficulty in measuring progress on attainment of operational level objectives
(and the many “unknowns in a crisis”) assessments should focus on mission objectives and
the desired effects the operation is trying to achieve. Assessments too often focus on
measuring activity versus progress toward achieving the commander' objectives.

4.3.2. A balance of quantitative and qualitative input to assessment with the commander using
numerous venues (including crisis area visits and circulation – with discussion between
commanders and stakeholders on the ground level) are critical to adequately providing a
credible assessment of the OE. Quantitative indicators should only serve as an initial point of
departure for commanders’ and staffs’ subjective assessments based on observation and
experience.

4.4. Assessment Frequency. Commanders continuously assess the operational environment and the
progress of operations, and compare them to their initial vision and intent. However, the formal
reporting of assessments should be based on the echelon and tempo of operations.

4.4.1. It must be resisted to automatically make an assessment report a DAILY requirement – this
is “reporting just to report” in many cases. Assessment reporting must be planned and
managed to support the decision making process of the participating nations in order to refine
operational actions to improve unity of effort.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 51 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

5. Assessment CFEs. Outlined below are possible CFEs that can be established and used to conduct
assessments. The frequency with which these boards and cells meet depend on the operational tempo
and the FORCE COMMANDER’s desires.

5.1. Multinational Forces Command Center (M-CmdC). While not an assessment body, the MCmdC
does play a role in the assessment process. As actions are executed, designated agencies,
components, and other subordinates report the status of task accomplishment using MOP metrics
(designated during the planning process) to the M-CmdC and then to the MAC in a format
designated by the force commander.

5.2. MNF Assessment Cell (MAC). The assessment function is normally conducted by the C-3 or the
C-5, with participation by other staff codes, components, agencies, and other stakeholders. The
MAC assesses reports and analysis from all available sources to determine if desired effects are
being achieved. The MAC receives inputs based on the assessment collection plan, analyzes the
inputs and develops an assessment of the operational environment, and submits a report to the
MAWG.

5.3. MNF Assessment Working Group (MAWG). During execution, the CAWG analyzes the results
of the CAC assessment and provides recommendations to the FORCE COMMANDER via the
Campaign Assessment Board (CAB). The MAWG is chaired by a senior planner from either the C-
3 or C-5. The MAWG membership includes senior representatives from the combined staff
directorates, CPG, FOPS, components and interagency organizations, dedicated assessment
personnel, and other stakeholders. In sum, the MAWG provides the primary venue for developing
recommendations for the force commander. Specific responsibilities include:

5.3.1. Supporting the development of the Prioritized Effects List during mission analysis.

5.3.2. Recommending changes to effects, MOEs, and related indicators during execution.

5.3.3. Conducting operational plan review and recommendations to determine why actions either
contributed, or failed to contribute to the attainment of desired objectives.

5.3.4. Assisting planners in preparing recommendations to force commander to address

deficiencies in current operations, future operations, or future plans.

5.4. MNF Assessment Board (MAB). The MAB is the senior level decision-making forum where
recommendations to adjust operations and plans in order to achieve objectives are presented to
the force commander. MAB memberships include the Chief of Staff, Directors of C-Codes, and
select special staff. In some MNF’s, it may be advantageous to present these recommendations at
a scheduled Commander’s Decision Brief in lieu of forming an additional Board. In that case, the
C-code responsible for the MAWG schedule and present the brief.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 52 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

TAB D
Multinational Decision Making Process – Multinational
(MDMP-M)
Abbreviated Planning Process Template
1. Overview. This tab outlines the abbreviated planning process template for the MDMP-M planning
process. This planning process is focused upon the operational level of planning and execution (task
force level – not strategic level). This template is designed to support time sensitive crisis response
planning by providing a concise and focused process.

2. MDMP-M Foundations. Underscoring the MDMP-M foundations are two major conceptual factors.
These are summarized below:

2.1.1. MDMP-M is an End State focused and a Learning-Adaptive process.

i. MDMP-M is focused on the FORCE COMMANDER identifying, assessing and understanding

the situation, identifying the problem framework for the crisis situation and developing an
Operational Design that allows the attainment of the assigned multinational mission.

ii. MDMP-M also is based upon a clearly identified national/strategic end state and Military End
State for a multinational operation. In turn, the supporting operational military objectives for
the Military End State are key cornerstones of the MNF Command’s planning process.

iii. These planning constructs are continually revisited during MNF planning and execution as
the command learns and adapts to the evolving situational conditions that change over
time. Refer to the previous Appendix 6 and Figure B-2-C-6.1 for a visualization of this
ongoing central process within the MDMP-M planning process.

2.1.2. Integrated Operations and Planning Approach. The MDMP-M planning process stresses
the need for approaching operational planning using an integrated operations approach.
Integrated Operations are defined as synchronized, coordinated, and/or cooperative activities
among nations’ governments, militaries, humanitarian community (HC), and other key
stakeholders to achieve unity of effort during multinational operations. Refer to Part B, Chapter
1: Operational Factors for details on MNF Integrated Operations.

i. Planners must counter the “go it alone” type of military planning of the past that only focused
on the military element of national power and did not integrate other elements of national
power (diplomatic, information, military, economic and socio-cultural) into operational
planning. Additionally, in the past, military planning did not recognize the other key
stakeholders nationally and internationally.

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 53 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 54 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 55 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 56 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 57 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 58 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 59 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 60 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 61 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 62 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 63 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 64 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 65 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 66 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 67 of 68
 Part B - Chapter 2 - Annex B: MNF Planning Process and Organization

014 - B2B_PlanProcOrgr_Ver3.0 FINAL(20 Oct 2015) B2B

Page 68 of 68