NATO OPERATIONS PLANNING PROCESS

– AN OVERVIEW

KIEV, UKRAINE
18-22 APRIL 2016

Lieutenant Colonel René Orellana, US Marines

Director, Joint Plans Department
NATO School Oberammergau, Germany

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP

AIM and FOCUS

The aim of this presentation is to provide introduction to NATO’s Operations Planning

Process (NATO OPP).

This briefing will cover:

•Planning Categories
•Purpose of Planning
•Different Levels of Military Operations
•NATO’s Operations Planning Process – 6 Phases
•Summary

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 2

PURPOSE OF PLANNING

Pol

Info Mil

Unacceptable Acceptable
Conditions ‘The Plan’ Conditions

Infra Econ

Social

Two Planning Categories

 Advance (deliberate) Planning – Future Tasks
 Crisis Response Planning (CRP) – Current Tasks

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 3

THE NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL

NAC is the highest authority Decisions by consensus Only

NORTH ATLANTIC
COUNCIL

CMC
CMC SG
SG DSG
DSG
PERMREPs represent all elements Political control of the military
of sovereign government at all times

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 4

 NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS (NCMP)

PHASE 1 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 6

PHASE PHASE
2 3
Indications Response
& Assessment Options Planning Execution Transition
Warning Development

POLITICAL-MILITARY
ESTIMATE PROCESS NID NED PMRs

NAC
Decision

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 5

LEVELS OF MILITARY OPERATIONS

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 6

THE NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS (NCMP)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 7

PHASE 1

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 8

NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

PHASE 1
To develop and maintain a level of understanding to support
INDICATIONS &
operational assessments and decision-making in the provision of
WARNINGS
POTENTIAL/
operational advice to SACEUR during the planning for and conduct of
ACTUAL CRISIS operations.

Understanding

Knowledge
Situation Awareness

Intel/Information

Data
In cial ic
In stru
M ical
Po

Ec ary
So om
fra
fo c
ilit
on
lit

rm tu
at re
io
n

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 9

PHASE 1 DESIRED OUTCOMES

• Appropriate indications and warnings and initial appreciation of emerging crises.

• An initial shared understanding of an emerging crisis is developed.

• Appropriate preparation, guided by the Commander, is conducted to position the

HQ and support SACEUR’s development of military advice.

• Prompt return to horizon scanning activities as necessary.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 10

PHASE 2

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 11

NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Political Military Estimate (PME)

PHASE 2

ASSESSMENT
OF THE CRISIS

• To understand the strategic situation and the nature of the problem.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 12

NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Political Military Estimate (PME)

PHASE 3

DEVELOPMENT
0F RESPONSE
OPTIONS

• to understand NATO’s (draft)

desired End State and provisional
NATO (draft) strategic objectives;
• to assess the operational viability of
strategic response options.

Ultimately, the MROs outline how the

Military Alliance could use the Military
Civil
Instrument of Power by highlighting
Economic what its role could be in resolving a
Political
given crisis.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 13

PHASE 2 PURPOSE

• To understand the strategic situation and the nature of the problem

• To understand NATO’s desired End State and provisional NATO strategic objectives

• To develop and analyse strategic response options.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 14

PHASE 3

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 15

 NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Phase 3a–‘Mission Analysis’ determines

the “WHAT”:
Phase 4 Planning
• The operational-level problem;
• The specific operational conditions to
be created;
• The key operational factors that will
influence the achievement of those
conditions;
• The Centers of Gravity of Key Actors;
• The Operational Framework along
which the Campaign/Mission should be
executed;
• Any limitations and operational risks on
the Commander’s freedom of action
for the development of the
Campaign/Mission.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 16

 FACTOR ANALYSIS

Fact Deduction Conclusion

A significant factual The implications, issues or The outcome or result
statement of information considerations, derived reached that requires
known to be true that has from fact(s) that have action in planning or
operational implication. operational significance. further analysis.
What is the current state So what is the significance So, what can or should be
of affairs or trends? of the factor to our done?
operations? (Actions, CV, CR,
Forces…)

SO WHAT? WHAT DO WE DO?

Still requires valuable judgment by staff in
differentiating facts from opinion, and relevance
from interest.

FACT

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 17

 ELEMENTS OF THE MISSION TO BE ANALYSED

Operational
Risks

Operational Operational
Actions Effects

Factor Critical
Limitations
Capabilities
Analysis

Crisis Preconditions
Response for
Measures Success
Critical
Information
Requirements

While each element must be analysed individually, Factor Analysis and its CONCLUSIONS contributes
directly to the other elements and provides the foundation for early analytical work of the JOPG.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 18

 CENTRES OF GRAVITY

“ One must keep the dominant characteristics of both belligerents in mind. Out of these
characteristics a certain centre of gravity develops, the hub of all power and movement,
on which everything depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be
directed.”

…”The first task, then, in planning for a war is to identify the enemy’s centres of gravity,
and if possible trace them back to a single one.”

The conclusions drawn from the COG analysis should highlight:

 Changes in the critical capabilities and;

 Influences of specific actors that would be decisive to our success on a given Line of
Operations (LoO). Carl von Clausewitz
(1780 - 1831)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 19

 NATO OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK

CoG BP
MSO 1
Effect Effect
THE OPERATIONAL PROBLEM
TO BE SOLVED. GIVEN TO
LoO1 DC DC OO1 JOPG

DIRECTED MSO 2
CoG
Effect DC Effect
DESIGN OF THE
LoO2 CRISIS DC OO2
NATO
FACTOR
MSO 3 End
CoG ANALYSIS
Effect State
CENTRE OF
LoO3 GRAVITY DC OO3
ANALYSIS
MSO 4
ACTOR INTER- CoG
Effect DC
RELATIONSHIP
DIAGRAM
Effect/MOE
LoO4 OO4
System(s)
OTHER
Actions
ELEMENTS DETERMINED MSO 5
BP Actors OF
MISSION BY JOPG
CoG ANALYSIS
Decision point (CCIR)
| Slide 20
NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP
MISSION ANALYSIS BRIEF TO THE COMMANDER

1. Validate the mission analysis, including

confirming the mission and its
operational objectives and the
operational framework

2. Seek the Commander’s initial intent

and guidance for the development of
COAs and the orientation of
subordinate HQs.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED | Slide 21

 NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Strategic Political
Military Plan
(SPMP) Development
Phase 4 Planning

Phase 3b–‘Courses of Action Development’

determines the “HOW”:
•Analyse Opposing COAs and factors influencing
the COA’s;
•Develop own Courses of Action;
•Test Courses of Action for their viability;
• Evaluate Courses of Action during War-gaming;
• Compare Courses of Action using Commander’s Selection Criteria;
• COA Decision Brief, CONOPS, OPLAN, SORs, ROEREQ.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 22

COURSE(S) OF ACTION DEVELOPMENT
Who will conduct the operation?
(i.e., capabilities required)

Who?
Who?
How? What actions
What?
What? must be
performed?

How will the operation

be conducted? Course
Course
Of
Action
Action
Why? When?
When?
When does the action
Why is the operation
being conducted (e.g., Where? begin and/or when
must it be completed
in order to defeat the (i.e., sequencing,
enemy)? phasing)?
Where will these actions be
performed?

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 23

COURSE(S) OF ACTION DECISION BRIEF TO THE COMMANDER

 Wargaming
 COA Comparison and Analysis
 COM’s Selection Criteria

1. Clear expression of the Commander’s

Intent for the conduct of the operation

2. Clear Direction on the COA to be

developed, as well as required
branches and sequels, as the basis for
the development of the operational
CONOPs.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 24

PHASE 4

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 25

NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Phase 4A – Operational CONOPS Development

• Desired Outcomes:
• Draft Operational CONOPS
• Essential Annexes
• Illustrative CJSOR, TCSOR, Manpower SOR, ROEREQ

Phase 4B – Operational OPLAN Development

• Desired Outcomes: An OPLAN that is

• Timely
• Complete
• Adequate – not perfect – Adequate

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 26

PHASE 5

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 27

NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Strategic Political Military Plan Review

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 28

PHASE 6

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 29

NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Strategic Political Military Plan Review

The purpose is to develop and coordinate OPLAN for the

handover of responsibility to the UN, other international
organisations (e.g. EU) or indigenous actor in the crisis
area and withdraw NATO forces in a controlled manner so
as to avoid this action being a destabilising influence in the
region.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 30

 PHASE 6 - TAKEAWAYS

• Desired Outcomes:
• Coordinated transition and termination of the mission
• Stability

• This will overlap with Phase 5

• A complete planning process in own right
• Likely increased levels of:
• Political sensitivity
• Commander Involvement
• Collaboration
• Coordination with external actors

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 31

THE NATO PLANNER’S CHALLENGE

• To establish a comprehensive and common

understanding of the situation.

• To develop military options that are agreeable

to all members.

• To design a military plan that is complementary

to the other Instruments of Power.

• To direct military actions with timely and

clearly written plans.

….. and that in a nutshell is the

SHAPE Plan, Secretary General

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 32

SUMMARY

 NATO’s planning process and the COPD are fit for purpose.

 It mandates collaboration across commands and it encourages concurrency of

planning effort at all levels; it is Commander driven.

 Conducted properly, it is comprehensive in both spirit and effect.

 It relies on an honest relationship between Commander and the Staff

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 33

Questions?

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP | Slide 34

YOUR BRIEFER
• Lieutenant Colonel René A. Orellana, United States Marine Corps
• Commissioned in 1990
• Military Specialization(s)
• Marine Aviation Command and Control Systems Officer
• Marine Foreign Area Officer (Latin America)
• Marine Attaché
• Current posting: Director, Joint Plans Department, NSO
• Previous NATO Posting: Team Leader/Planner, J5 Plans, JFC Brunssum
• Other Operational Level experience: Marine Expeditionary Force (2x)
• Operational Tours
• Marine Expeditionary Unit Western Pacific Deployments (3x)
• Operation Iraqi Freedom (2x)
• RC-S/RC-SW AFG (2x)
• Office of the Defense Representative – Pakistan
• Formal Education
• Marine Corps Command and Staff College
• Peruvian National Center for Advanced Studies (CAEN), Policy and Strategy

NATO UNCLASSIFIED rel PfP 35