html5
1 / 15

Adaptive Planning

Adaptive Planning. Joint Staff, J-7 Joint Operational War Plans Division. Title 10 Authorities for Planning. Strategic Guidance for Planning. National Security Strategy. PRESIDENT. National Defense Strategy National Military Strategy. SECDEF/CJCS.

kreeli
Download Presentation

Adaptive Planning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Adaptive Planning Joint Staff, J-7 Joint Operational War Plans Division

  2. Title 10Authorities for Planning

  3. Strategic Guidance for Planning National Security Strategy PRESIDENT National Defense StrategyNational Military Strategy SECDEF/CJCS Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF) SECDEF Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) CJCS CJCSI 3141.01D Management and Review of Campaign and Contingency Plans Combatant Command (COCOM) Campaign and Contingency Plans COMBATANT COMMANDERS

  4. Ground Forces and SOF Coalition Ground Forces Operation Iraqi Freedom • Options • Civilian leaders wanted multiple options • Civilian leaders wanted relative risk assessments for each option • Assumptions/Assessments • Some wrong or not applicable • Cumbersome planning process and outdated planning technology • Difficult to modify plan quickly and put into execution • Bottom Line: • Extraordinary effort to adapt plan to rapidly changing strategic circumstances Ground Forces and Special Operations Forces (SOF) “Today’s environment demands a system that quickly produces high-quality plans that are adaptive to changing circumstances.” -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Adaptive Planning Roadmap, 13 Dec 2005

  5. Revolution in Planning • Cold War Planning • Assumed forces would be ready and available • Static conventional threats • Forces postured to mitigate time-distance challenges and convey resolve • Assumed little strategic change during a 2-3 year planning cycle • Deliberate plans informed force structure/sizing analysis • Contemporary Planning • Long-term commitment of large portion of forces to Counterinsurgency (COIN) Operations • Force rotations regardless of posture • Dynamic/global unconventional and conventional threats • ~ 6 month planning cycle with continuous assessments – “Living Plans” • Contingency plans relevant and executable within resource constraints Implications for planning Joint Operations: - Need a force management construct that decrements apportioned forces not only for allocated forces but also for forces otherwise not available due to other constraints - Need a mission-based readiness reporting system and a global visibility capability - Need capability to rapidly adapt and assess plans in light of changing guidance and assumptions…and, if necessary, rapidly transition to deployment and execution

  6. Adaptive Planning (AP) The joint capability to create and revise situationally relevant plans rapidly and to a high level of quality, as circumstances require • Department of Defense (DoD) initiative to transform the way we plan and execute Joint Operations: • Better plans, with more options, more quickly; more SECDEF interaction with planning • Keep plans relevant in a rapidly changing environment; easily adapt plans for execution • Leverage technology to maximize planner intellectual effort (art) and minimize the labor intensive effort (science) • AP process provides COCOM planners with better initial guidance, more opportunities to articulate risk: • JSCP directs combatant commands to use AP process for all top-priority contingency plans • Provokes discussion and provides a vehicle for gaining in-depth understanding of strategic and operational problems

  7. …To Here OPLAN 9999A OPLAN 9999B OPLAN 9999C Multiple Courses of Action with Multiple Branches Transforming The Way We Plan Go From Here... Branch Plan 1 Base Plan(1 COA) Operational Plan (OPLAN) 9999 Branch Plan 2 Single Course of Action (COA) with One or Two Branches

  8. Detailed Feasibility Analysis Done Late in Process t t Transforming The Way We Plan Go from here…. • Sequential planning by echelon • Periodic collaboration in physical space To here…. Detailed Feasibility Analysis Done Early in the Process • Process jump-started by detailed, clear guidance – up front • Planning benefits from iterative discussions between SECDEF and combatant commanders • Near-parallel planning across echelons • Continual collaboration in virtual space

  9. Campaign Planning Construct • DoD began to address shortcomings of “contingency-centric” planning … • Introduced “Phase 0” to address pre-conflict “shaping” activities • Increased emphasis on security cooperation … with an interagency perspective • Introduced “transition-to-stability” objectives to set conditions for lasting peace • Expanded contingency planning collaboration with other agencies / international partners • e.g. recent collaboration w/State & USAID on Concept Plan (CONPLAN) guidance • While these initiatives took steps in the right direction, they required an overarching strategyto ensure proper prioritization, integration, and balance of effort A strategy-centric approach requires a new planning construct

  10. The Paradigm Shift The campaign plan becomes the mechanism for organizing, integrating and prioritizing security cooperation and shaping activities Security cooperation activities nested within the larger set of shaping activities Security Cooperation/shaping activities should be designed to create effects that support the achievement of regional endstates Regional objectives, in turn, support the global objectives of the National Defense and Military Strategies Security Cooperation/ Shaping Activity Security Cooperation/ Shaping Effect Regional or Functional Endstate Supports Supports Supports Global Endstate Key Linkages

  11. Campaign Plan Summary New Planning Construct • Strategy. A COCOM comprehensively integrates its steady-state, peacetime activities via the framework of a regional or functional strategy • Campaign Plan. The COCOM “operationalizes” its strategy by means of a campaign plan that: • Integrates and synchronizes its steady-state activities and operations to achieve its strategic endstates. • Ensures its various Phase 0 activities do not work at cross purposes with each other or shaping / security cooperation activities • Provides a mechanism for interagency collaboration in a region or functional area • Contingency Plans. Under this construct contingency plans become branches to the overarching campaign plan • Account for the possibility that broader campaign endstates cannot be achieved peacefully

  12. 6-Phase Planning Construct: Activities and Phases UNCLASSIFIED OPLAN Activation Enabling Civil Authority Activities Stabilizing Activities Dominating Activities Level of Military Effort OPLAN xxxx Shaping OPLAN xxxx Shaping Trigger Event Seizing the Initiative Activities Deterring Activities Shaping Activities Theater Shaping Campaign Plan Global Shaping Shape Deter Phase I Seize the Initiative Phase II Dominate Phase III Stabilize Phase IV Enable Civil Authority Phase V Shape Phase 0 Phase 0 Phases OPLAN termination UNCLASSIFIED

  13. Legacy Planning Process • The 24-month deliberate planning cycle – too long • Too little SECDEF influence, too late in planning cycle • Feasibility analysis time consuming and too late in the process • Plans one-dimensional – need multiple options • Plans “static” and difficult to adapt – need flexibility and periodic updating to stay relevant • No technology to support ongoing collaboration – horizontally and vertically Traditional deliberate planning is insufficiently responsive and relevant to the demands of a dynamic security environment

  14. AnalyzeMission Develop Concept Develop Plan Refine, Adapt, Terminate or Execute Plan Planning Guidance GEF/JSCP 9 mo 6 Months to 1 Year IPR-A (Assumptions) IPR-C (Concept) IPR-R (Review) IPR-F (Final) In Progress Reviews (IPR) IPRs are central to AP and offer multiple opportunities to ensure plans are relevant, feasible, & politically acceptable Plan Development Process Strategic Guidance Guidance Guidance PlanApproval Guidance,as required Requires regular COCOM involvement with Joint Staff, Office of Secretary of Defense, and SECDEF

  15. Networked System of Systems At full maturity, Adaptive Planning will integrate situation monitoring, readiness, global force management, intelligence, planning, and execution POTUS Wholesale Systems National Security Strategy Defense Strategy Automatic Triggers Theater Intel Automatic Triggers SECDEF Strategic Direction Services Logistics Systems Nat’l Intel Defense Logistics Systems Defense Intelligence System Retail Systems Allied Intel P E Air Mobility Command COCOM “Living Plans” X A US Army Defense Transportation System Defense Readiness System Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) US Navy Global Force Mgmt Military Sealift Command US Marine Corps Surface Deployment and Distribution Command US Air Force US Coast Guard Networked on the Global Information Grid

More Related