CHAPTER
IV
Accelerating the Decision-Making Process
The accelerated technique is the most difficult of the three techniques to implement. This process may be used when one or more of the following conditions apply:
- Commander has a staff available to assist him in developing the plan, but little time exists to use a more formal process.
- Commander does not have a staff, or the staff is not accessible.
When these conditions apply, the commander must primarily rely on troop-leading procedures to develop his plan. The accelerated technique will assist the commander in developing a tentative plan. Under extreme circumstances, this may be little more than a mental process, but, nonetheless, the commander can use this process to assist him as he develops his plan. The accelerated technique follows the basic procedures already discussed in the deliberate and abbreviated processes, but the differences are more significant. Many of the techniques already discussed can and should be used when using the accelerated technique. The major differences between the abbreviated and accelerated techniques involve the commander's guidance, and the COA development phase. (See Chart 6.) The accelerated technique is characterized by very active participation by the commander, and development of one COA that is suitable, feasible, and flexible.
In some situations, the products developed using the accelerated technique may be the same as those developed when using the deliberate or abbreviated technique. In extreme situations, time may not be available to develop the same products. The accelerated technique will normally result in the development of FRAGO.
ISSUE: When using the accelerated technique, the commander and staff must be able to rapidly conduct the mission analysis to determine the restated mission.
DISCUSSION: When using the deliberate or abbreviated technique, the staff conducted a detailed mission analysis to develop the restated mission. When using the accelerated technique, time may not be available to use the same procedures. Under the most extreme circumstances, the mission analysis may be nothing more than a mental process conducted by the commander and key staff members (CDR, S2, S3, FSO, XO, and other critical personnel). This should be the exception rather than the norm. The staff may be forced to brief their initial estimates orally, without the use of charts, viewgraphs or other tools. Remember, conduct as formal a mission analysis as time allows. During the mission analysis, there are no major differences between the three techniques. There are no techniques that will significantly reduce the amount of time required to conduct the mission analysis. Anticipation, prior preparation, and experience by the staff are the keys to a timely mission analysis process.
TECHNIQUES:
- Commander must get personally involved by supervising and managing the mission analysis process.
- In extreme situations, the staff must be prepared to brief the commander without the use of visual aids.
ISSUE: When time is severely limited, providing the commander's guidance after the mission analysis may not be the most appropriate time.
DISCUSSION: Instead, the commander may decide to immediately begin personally developing one COA with input from selected staff officers. There is probably not time to seek input from every staff officer, so the commander must determine who is critical and who is not. As a starting point, the commander should consider the S2, S3, FSO, and Executive Officer. This team may vary depending on the type of mission. For example, in the defense, the staff engineer may be included. During stability and support operations, the civil affairs, public affairs, JAG, or psychological operations officer may be included. The commander may also wish to include subordinate commanders, incorporating their experience into the process. This team must then quickly develop a flexible COA that they feel will accomplish the mission. The key to success, when using the accelerated technique, is to rapidly develop a base plan with appropriate branches that is flexible, feasible, suitable, and acceptable. DO NOT WORRY ABOUT DEVELOPING THE PERFECT COA; THERE IS NOT TIME FOR IT. This is the major distinction between the accelerated technique and the others.
Once the COA is developed, the commander might consider conducting a hasty wargame as discussed in Chapter 3. In extreme situations, this may be the only opportunity to conduct the wargame process. Next, the commander should then begin to quickly develop his guidance to the staff. The accelerated technique is characterized by an active role of the commander, and very specific guidance to the staff. (See Chart 6.)
TECHNIQUES:
- Focus on developing one COA with branch plans that is flexible, feasible, suitable, and acceptable.
- The commander plays the central role when developing this COA.
Once the commander has developed the COA, he must issue guidance to his staff so it can refine and war-game the COA. The commander's guidance to the staff must be directive and very specific. The staff's responsibility is to support the commander's plan, not developing the perfect plan. Well-developed and clearly communicated commander's guidance can be a significant timesaver. Poorly communicated or incomplete guidance is a significant time waster. The commander's guidance should serve to keep the staff focused by establishing parameters to work within. Commander's guidance must be constantly reviewed and analyzed. As the situation changes and information becomes available, the commander may have to alter his guidance to the staff.
ISSUE: The commander and staff must rapidly conduct the COA analysis process.
DISCUSSION: Conducting the wargame process using the accelerated technique is the most difficult of the three processes. This process uses some of the same techniques as previously presented. Because only one COA was developed, the purpose of the COA analysis is not to analyze and compare multiple COAs that result in a recommendation to the commander, but to synchronize and integrate the commander's directed COA. This wargame session should focus on refining the branches or contingencies to the base plan. This wargame session should follow the formal wargame process as much as time allows. Once again, focus on the most critical events. You do not have time to war-game the entire operation. When war-gaming using the accelerated technique, involvement of the commander is even more important. The staff should use the box technique, focusing on actions at the objective or the engagement area (EA). If time permits, war-game other critical events as well. (See Chart 6.) The staff must work to support the commander's plan. However, as the staff works to refine the plan, it cannot become so biased that it develops a plan that is infeasible and insupportable. If the staff determines that it cannot support the commander's plan, then a new COA must be developed.
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES:
- If time permits, conduct a hasty wargame session during the COA development step. Ensure you identify and develop branches to the base plan.
- The commander must get involved. He must supervise the wargame session, actively participate, make decisions, and provide guidance as required.
- Use the box technique, focusing on the most critical event first.
When using the accelerated technique, a decision brief is not required because only one COA was developed. The only decision that may be required is if the developed COA becomes unsuitable, infeasible, or unacceptable. If this occurs, another COA must be developed.
The advantages of the accelerated technique are:
- Requires less time.
- Facilitates adaptation to a rapidly changing situation.
- Allows commander to compensate for lack of a staff or an experienced staff.
The disadvantages are:
- Significantly limits staff initiative and flexibility.
- Very directive; explores only one friendly COA.
- May result in only an oral order or fragmentary order.
Chapter
III - Abbreviating the MDMP
Chapter
V - Refining the Plan
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
