An introduction to a new, design based way to visualize, and thus more effectively use, the Navy Planning Process as articulated in NWP 5-01.

1. Originally published in
MOC Warfighter

2. Introduction
Welcome to this slidedoc, a
combination of article and slide
presentation.
This slidedoc contains material
from an article originally published
in MOC Warfighter, a US Naval
War College publication.

3. Planning
The military planning system
provides a structured process
through which contributions
from the staff, as well as
superiors and subordinate units,
enable the Commander’s intent
to unfold and become effective.
Visual displays, in the form of
diagrams explaining the steps in
the process as well as serving
as the resulting plans (often in
the form of Power Point
presentations) play an important
role. As the Naval Warfare
Publication 5-01 Navy Planning
puts it, “Military planning, and
by extension, Navy planning, is
the process by which a
commander (CDR) visualizes an
end state as well as the
arrangement of potential actions
in time and space that will allow
the realization of that future.”
Checklists, decision support
matrixes, tables articulating
risks and other tools visually
displaying planning process
elements are central to planning
process execution. In addition,
visual tools concerning the
process itself can facilitate
education, training and
execution of the Navy Planning
Process (NPP).

4. Military planning is both complicated, with many
different parts, and complex, consisting of parts
interacting in multivalent ways. However, these
diagrams often portray the planning process as
linear, which fails to communicate the complexity
of the process. This linear bias appears not only
in descriptions of the planning process itself, but
in the plans that the process generates. For
example, plans proceed along “Lines of
operations” visually represented in Figure II-13 of
JP 5-0 and “Lines of Effort” shown in Figure III-14
of JP 5-0. Some processes are represented as
circular lines, (such as in Figure III-17 Phasing
Model). As an alternative, the following NPP
charts are examples of what Herbert Simon in his
Science of the Artificial referred to as “external
memory structures” to assist planners in
producing effective plans dealing with complex,
unstructured problems in highly dynamic
environments. Planners are like the architects
Simon describes as the prototypical designers
“in a semantically rich task domain”. For
architects, Simon explains, “The emerging
design is itself incorporated in a set of external
memory structures: sketches, floorplans,
drawings of utility systems, and so on. At each
stage in the design process, the partial design
reflected in these documents serves as a major
stimulus for suggesting to the designer what he
should attend to next. This direction to new
subgoals permits in turn new information to be
extracted from memory and reference sources
and another step to be taken toward the
development of the design.” Put in the language
of the Navy Planning Process, the diagrams
serve as planning process charts, on which the
significance of the orders, decision matrixes,
command and control diagrams, wargaming
result templates, briefs and others products
(external memory aids) are indicated as
navigation aids guiding the planning group
through the process. The process, unfolding
along a spiral, in which inputs, outputs, planning
team tasks and feedback continuously influence
and are influenced by activities and products
taking place above and below the level at which
the team is currently focused is respected on the
charts.
Complex and Complicated

5. Thangka as model
The diagrams thus function like the
thangka, ornate paintings of Buddhist
iconography from Nepal and Tibet.
Thangkas serve as references to guide
contemplative experience. (See figure
1). Similarly, the NPP charts are concept
maps of the planning process,
reminding Operational Planning Team
(OPT) members of the activities they
must accomplish, the inputs and
outputs associated with those activities,
feedback required and the steps above
and below each level of the process
which they must inform and be informed
by.

6. Two different functions
These charts function
differently for different
users. For those new to
the planning process
they can provide a
synoptic vision of each
step, informing detailed
study of the NWP 5-01.
Experienced planning
team members can use
the charts in two ways.
One, they can use the
charts to provide an
initial bearing
accelerating the
development of their
individual mental models
as they work together to
help the commander
unfold his or her
understanding in a way
that will enable the
dispersed units to
internalize the
Commander’s intent.
Two, the charts can serve the
planning team as an
awareness and
synchronization tool. The
charts, placed on the walls in
the planning space, enable
quick checks on the step in
the planning process that is
the current focus of
discussion, allow for
indication of taskings to
specific individuals, and chart
annotations indicate, for
example, potential
development of, completion of
or the need to re-examine a
specific activity. They also
provide the commander a
rapid insight into the status of
the planning effort – with a
glance the commander can
see where the OPT is in the
process and where his or her
immediate input is required.
Summary vision of each step Synchronization tool

7. The Navy Planning Process as
an exercise in sense making
Figure 2 portrays the
Navy Planning Process as
an exercise in
sensemaking through
cultivating understanding
among the commander,
the staff, and the
superiors and
subordinates of that staff
in order to enable
effective command in
highly dynamic
environments. The chart
portrays the steps of the
planning process
(Mission Analysis, Course
of Action Development,
Course of Action Analysis
(wargaming), Course of
Action Comparison and
Decision, Plan or Order
Development, and
Transition) as ascending
in a conical helix. Gains in
understanding appear as
increases in elevation and
the expanding diameter
of the spiral indicates a
broader and broader
grasp of the dynamic
environment and actors
within that environment.

8. 1. Mission Analysis
3. Course of Action Analysis (Wargaming)
6.Transition
4. Course of Action Comparison and Decision
5. Plan or Order Development
2. Course of Action Development
Understanding
N a v y P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s

9. 0
3
2
1
FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t s
N a v y P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s
+ Progress
+Time+ Products
+ Understanding
Missio
n
Analys
is
Design
Course of
Action
Development
Course of
Action
Comparison
and Decision Wargaming
Plan or Order
Development Transition
4
5 6
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.CourseofAction
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of
Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.Planor
Order
Development
6. Transition

10. The Hermeneutic Spiral
Figure 3 is a simplification
of Figure 2. The conical
helix becomes an
Archimedean spiral to
better show the
relationships between the
inputs, tasks, outputs and
feedback components of
the process, and the
production costs in time
and attention as compared
to the products and
understanding the process
yields. This view illustrates
that, for example, the
application of design
pushes the understanding
curve to the left, providing a
jump start in understanding
at a low cost in time and
attention. The charts also
help make planners aware
of the potential tradeoffs
among time, attention,
products and
understanding by offering a
visual way to think through
alternatives that can
generate the required
outputs while
compensating for an
externally imposed
reduction in, for example,
the time available to
produce the plans, as often
happens in crisis action
planning.

11. 0
3
2
1
FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t s
N a v y P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s
+Progress
+Time
+
Products
+ Understanding
Mission
Analysis
Design
Course of
Action
Development
Course of
Action
Comparison
and Decision Wargaming
Plan or Order
Development Transition
4
5 6
1. Mission Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition

12. Reading the External
Memory Structures
Figure 4 provides guidance on how to
read the following charts. The charts are
divided into four sectors and flow
clockwise, starting from the upper left
Inputs section, through the Tasks, to
Outputs to Feedback. The Outputs are
enriched by Feedback, from both the
commander and staff elements like the
Assessment cell, prior to become Inputs
for the next higher phase of the
planning cycle. Each chart sector is
read from top to bottom. This entails that
products at the lower left hand corner of
the chart are the product of both the
Output and Feedback processes.

13. FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t s
Mission Analysis
Briefing
WARNORD
Design products
Environmental understanding
Wicked, complex problem definition
Operational approach
Commander
Initial Planning
Guidance
Initial Commander’s
intent
Design products
Understand Commander’s mind
Review commander’s initial planning guidance
Analyze higher commander’s mission and intent
Develop proposed updates to commander’s intent and
critical information requirements
Understand Self (own forces and partners)
Identify command relationships
Analyze available forces and assets
Determine friendly COG and decisive points
Conduct initial risk assessment
Understand Mission
Identify sources of mission
Determine specified, implied, essential tasks
State operation purpose
Identify facts and develop planning assumptions
Develop proposed mission statement
Commander’s comments on Mission Analysis Briefing
Mission statement
Commander's intent
Commander’s planning guidance
Updated initial staff estimates
M i s s i o n A n a l y s i s
+
Attention
Understand Environment
Receive IPOE brief
Identify externally imposed limitations
Determine critical factors and decisive points
Conduct initial risk assessment
+Time
+
Products
+ Understanding
Staff
Initial staff
estimates
Higher
Headquarters
Plans, orders and
guidance
Intelligence
products
Staff Estimates
Commander’s
Critical Information Requirements
Subordinate’s and superior’s feedback on WARNORD
Assessment Team input on fit
between WARNORD and environment
1. Mission Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof
Action
Development
3.CourseofAction
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition
Start Here
Read Down

14. Uroboros
The stylized uroboros (placed at an
angle to show the gain in understanding
elevation) in the upper right corner
indicates the step of the planning
process the chart portrays, and the
uroboros in the lower left indicates the
next step to which the planning team
transitions after incorporating the
feedback into that step’s products.
These smaller diagrams within the chart
serve as reminders that the planning
process is a dynamical system step
function, in which outputs become
inputs for the next step, leading to an
ascent of the conical planning process
helix.
1. Mission Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.CourseofAction
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition

15. The Charts
The following charts expand each of the
six planning process steps in order to
better display the relationship between
the various planning team activities.

16. FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t s
Mission Analysis
Briefing
WARNORD
Design products
Environmental understanding
Wicked, complex problem definition
Operational approach
Commander
Initial Planning
Guidance
Initial Commander’s
intent
Design products
Understand Commander’s mind
Review commander’s initial planning guidance
Analyze higher commander’s mission and intent
Develop proposed updates to commander’s intent and
critical information requirements
Understand Self (own forces and partners)
Identify command relationships
Analyze available forces and assets
Determine friendly COG and decisive points
Conduct initial risk assessment
Understand Mission
Identify sources of mission
Determine specified, implied, essential tasks
State operation purpose
Identify facts and develop planning assumptions
Develop proposed mission statement
Commander’s comments on Mission Analysis Briefing
Mission statement
Commander's intent
Commander’s planning guidance
Updated initial staff estimates
M i s s i o n A n a l y s i s
Understand Environment
Receive IPOE brief
Identify externally imposed limitations
Determine critical factors and decisive points
Conduct initial risk assessment
Staff
Initial staff
estimates
Higher
Headquarters
Plans, orders and
guidance
Intelligence
products
Staff Estimates
Commander’s
Critical Information Requirements
Subordinate’s and superior’s feedback on WARNORD
Assessment Team input on fit
between WARNORD and environment
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof
Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition
1. Mission Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.CourseofAction
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6.
Transition

17. FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t s
COA Briefing
Update
IPOE
Staff Estimates
Commander
Mission statement and
commander’s intent
Commander’s planning
guidance and
governing
factors
Compare self and other
Analyze relative combat power
Recommend Command and Control Relationships
COA analysis and
evaluation
criteria
(to inform
wargaming)
COA Sketches and
Statements
Commander’s approval of
COAs or direction to revise
C o u r s e o f A c t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t
Create Options for Commander
Formulate COA options
Staff
Adversary COAs
Higher
Headquarters
WARNORD
OPORD
Initial Operational
Assessment
Commander’s Intent
Staff Estimates
Risk Assessment
Refine
RFF/FRCs
Supplemental
ROE
1. Mission Analysis
2.Courseof
Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.Planor
Order
Development
6. Transition
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof
Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition
TestforValidity
COA 1
COA 2
COA 3

18. FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t s
Wargame refined
COAs
Commander
Refined commander’s intent
Wargaming guidance
Approved COAs
Refined Adversary COAs
Evaluation criteria and
critical events
Update
IPOE
Staff
Estimates
Wargame Preparation
Organize for wargame
List all friendly forces
Review assumptions
List known critical events
Select wargame method
Select method to record and display results
Initial Decision Support
Template/Decision
Support Matrix
Conduct Wargame
C o u r s e o f A c t i o n A n a l y s i s ( Wa r g a m i n g )
Wargame
records
(draft synch
matrix)Assess results
Conduct risk assessment
and mitigation
Refine
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition
Critical events
and decision
points
Branches and
sequels for
development
Evaluation Criteria
Wargame Staff
Estimates
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof
Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition
Most Dangerous
Most Likely
COA 1
COA 2
COA 3
COA 1
COA 2
COA 3

19. FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t s
WARNORD
CONOPS
Update
IPOE
Staff
Estimates
Present
Staff estimates, risk, assessments
Final validity
test
COA Decision
Course of Action Comparison and Decision
COA Review
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.CourseofAction
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition
DST/DSM
Synch matrix
Staff
COA Wargame
worksheet
COA sketch and
narrative
Decision Support Matrix
Evaluation Criteria
-Governing Factors
-Weighting criteria
Proposed risk
controls
Perform
COA Comparison
Summarize
Advantages & Disadvantages
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.CourseofAction
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition

20. FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t sIssued Plan or Order
Prepare
Plan or Order
Planning
Support Tools
Commander Approves
Order
Plan or Order Development
Updated
OPGENs,
OPTASKs,
Supplements
1. Mission Analysis 2.Courseof
Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of
Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.Planor
Order
Development
6.
Transition
Operational
Assessment
Guidance
Staff
Task organization
CONOPS
Staff Estimates
Synchronization matrix
Operational Assessment
OPGENs
OPTASKs
supplements
Reconcile
Plan or
Order
Crosswalk and Update
supporting operational directives(OPGENs, OPTASKs, and supplements)
Commander
Mission
Statement
Commander’s
Intent
Crosswalk
Plan or
Order
Refine
IPOE
Staff Estimates
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.CourseofAction
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition

21. FeedbackInputs
Tasks
O u t p u t s
Prepare
Transition Briefing
Transition Drills
Confirmation briefing
Subordinate commanders and
staff prepared to:
Execute the order and possible
branches
Plan sequels
Confirmation Briefing
T r a n s i t i o n
1. Mission
Analysis
2.Courseof Action
Development
3.Courseof
Action
Analysis
(Wargaming)
4. Course of Action
Comparison and
Decision
5.PlanorOrder
Development
6. Transition
Running
estimates
developed
Staff
Refined IPOE
Outline FRAGORDs for branches
Information for future missions/sequels
Staff Estimates
Assessment Framework
OPGENs, OPTASKs, supplements
CONOPS
Synchronization matrix
Decision Support Matrix
Decision Support Template
Commander
Approved
OPORD/OPLAN
Refine
Operational
Assessment
Guidance
Transition Briefing
Shared
Understanding

22. ”Naval Planning NWP 5-01." edited by
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.
Norfolk, VA: Navy Warfare Development
Command, 2013.
Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the
Artificial. Third ed. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1996.
Staff, The Joint. Joint Publication (JP)
5-0 Joint Operation Planning.
Washington DC, 2011.
References

23. Michael Hallett
Website Email
For more information about applications of the Navy Planning Process to military or
business issues, please contact me.
Thank you