9-199. Staffs can use the time saved on any step of the MDMP to—

5-37. Developing an assessment plan occurs concurrently within the steps of the MDMP. The resulting assessment plan should support the command’s battle rhythm. The frequency with which the assessment working group meets depends on the situation. Additionally, the assessment working group may present its findings and recommendations to the commander for decision. Subordinate commanders may participate and provide their assessments of operations and recommendations along with the staff. Commanders combine these assessments with their personal assessment, consider recommendations, and then direct changes to improve performance and better accomplish the mission.

14-10. While the military decisionmaking process (MDMP) seeks the optimal solution (see chapter 9), the rapid decisionmaking and synchronization process seeks a timely and effective solution within the commander’s intent, mission, and concept of operations. Using the rapid decisionmaking and synchronization process lets leaders avoid the time-consuming requirements of developing decision criteria and comparing courses of action (COAs). Operational and mission variables continually change during execution. This often invalidates or weakens COAs and decision criteria before leaders can make a decision. Under the rapid decisionmaking and synchronization process, leaders combine their experience and intuition to quickly reach situational understanding. Based on this, they develop and refine workable COAs.

9-14. The remainder of this chapter describes the methods for conducting each step of the MDMP. It describes the key inputs and expected key outputs for each step. It also describes how the staff integrates intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB), targeting, risk management, and information collection throughout the MDMP.

10-1. Troop leading procedures (TLP) extend the MDMP to the small-unit level. The MDMP and TLP are similar but not identical. They are both linked by the basic Army problem-solving process (see chapter 4). Commanders with a coordinating staff use the MDMP as their primary planning process. Company-level and smaller units lack formal staffs and use TLP to plan and prepare for operations. This places the responsibility for planning primarily on the commander or small-unit leader.

3-51. During the planning process, the protection cell provides input to the commander’s MDMP by integrating the threat and hazard assessment with the commander’s EEFI and the protection prioritization list. While the planning cell develops plans, the protection cell and working group attempt to minimize vulnerability based on the developing COA. The intent is to identify and recommend refinements to the COA that are necessary to reduce vulnerability and ensure mission success. The protection cell and working group provide vulnerability mitigation measures to help reduce risks associated with a particular COA and conduct planning and oversight for unified land operations.

10-7. Ideally, a battalion headquarters issues at least three WARNORDs to subordinates when conducting the MDMP as depicted in figure 10-1. WARNORDs are issued upon receipt of mission, completion of mission analysis, and when the commander approves a COA. However, the number of WARNORDs is not fixed. WARNORDs serve a function in planning similar to that of fragmentary orders (FRAGORDs) during execution. Commanders may issue a WARNORD whenever they need to disseminate additional planning information or initiate necessary preparatory action, such as movement or reconnaissance.

15-18. Commanders and staffs integrate and develop an assessment plan within the military decisionmaking process (MDMP). As the commander and staff begin mission analysis, they also need to determine how to measure progress towards the operation’s end state.

9-78. Commanders issue planning guidance initially after mission analysis. They continue to consider additional guidance throughout the MDMP including, but not limited, to the following:

9-112. Based on the commander’s planning guidance (informed by the Army design methodology concept if this preceded the MDMP), planners develop lines of effort by—

9-5. Depending on the situation’s complexity, commanders can initiate the Army design methodology before or in parallel with the MDMP. If the problem is hard to identify or the operation’s end state is unclear, commanders may initiate Army design methodology before engaging in detailed planning. Army design methodology can assist the commander and staff in understanding the operational environment, framing the problem, and considering an operational approach to solve or manage the problem. The understanding and products resulting from Army design methodology guide more detailed planning during the MDMP. When used in parallel, the commander may direct some staff members to conduct mission analysis while engaging others in Army design methodology activities prior to course of action development. Results of both mission analysis and Army design methodology inform commanders in development of their commander’s intent and planning guidance. In time-constrained conditions, or when the problem is not complex, commanders may conduct the MDMP without incorporating formal Army design methodology efforts. During execution, the commander can use Army design methodology to help refine understanding and visualization as well as assessing and adjusting the plan as required.

4-36. The RDSP is a decision-making and planning technique that commanders and staffs commonly use during execution. While the MDMP seeks the optimal solution, the RDSP seeks a timely and effective solution within the commander’s intent, mission, and concept of operations. Using the RDSP lets leaders avoid the time-consuming requirements of developing decision criteria and multiple COAs. Under the RDSP, leaders combine their experiences and intuition to quickly understand the situation, develop a viable option, and direct adjustments to the current order. When using this technique, the following considerations apply:

9-197. Before a unit can effectively conduct planning in a time-constrained environment, it must master the steps in the full MDMP. A unit can only shorten the process if it fully understands the role of each and every step of the process and the requirements to produce the necessary products. Training on these steps must be thorough and result in a series of staff battle drills that can be tailored to the time available.

9-26. Since no amount of subsequent planning can solve an insufficiently understood problem, mission analysis is the most important step in the MDMP. This understanding of the situation and the problem allows commanders to visualize and describe how the operation may unfold in their initial commander’s intent and planning guidance. During mission analysis, the commander and staff perform the process actions and produce the outputs shown in figure 9-3.

5-7. The G-2/S-2 supports the commander's ability to understand the operational environment and visualize operations by leading the IPB process and portraying the enemy throughout the MDMP, developing the information collection plan, updating the intelligence running estimate, and developing intelligence products and reports. The commander's role is to direct the intelligence warfighting function through this relationship with the G-2/S-2. Commanders must stay constantly engaged with their G-2 or S-2; close interaction between them is essential as the intelligence staff supports unit planning and preparation through the integrating processes.

9-27. Commanders and staffs also begin the development of evaluation criteria during this step. These evaluation criteria are continually developed and refined throughout the MDMP and become a key input during Step 5—Course of Action Comparison.

10-20. Once they have issued the initial WARNORD, leaders develop a tentative plan. This step combines the MDMP steps 2 through 6: mission analysis, COA development, COA analysis, COA comparison, and COA approval. At levels below battalion, these steps are less structured than for units with staffs. Often, leaders perform them mentally. They may include their principal subordinates—especially during COA development, analysis, and comparison. However, leaders—not their subordinates—select the COA on which to base the tentative plan.

3-55. The protection cell ensures the integration of protection equities throughout the operations process via integrating processes, continuing activities, the MDMP, working groups, planning sessions, and coordination between warfighting functions. This develops and refines a scheme of protection and a protection plan that are comprehensive, integrated, layered, redundant, and enduring. All members of the protection cell and working group provide input and conduct actions (see table 3-3) that have beneficial output, which develops the scheme of protection and enhances the overall protection plan. The agenda, frequency, composition, input, and expected output for the working group are determined by the lead protection working group officer and are based on mission variables and MDMP integration.

9-23. Once time is allocated, the commander determines whether to initiate Army design methodology, perform Army design methodology in parallel with the MDMP, or proceed directly into the MDMP without the benefits of formal Army design methodology activities. In time-sensitive situations where commanders decide to proceed directly into the MDMP, they may also issue guidance on how to abbreviate the process. Having determined the time available together with the scope and scale of the planning effort, commanders issue initial planning guidance. Although brief, the initial guidance includes, but is not limited to—

5-21. By supporting the integrating processes, the intelligence warfighting function supports the commander's decisions, situational understanding, MDMP, targeting, and force protection considerations. During all operations, both friendly and enemy forces will endeavor to set conditions to develop a position of relative advantage.