ATTP 5-0.1 Commander and Staff Officer Guide - Army Electronic ...

Chapter 4
out any COAs the commander will not accept. That clear guidance allows the staff to develop several
COAs without wasting effort on things that the commander will not consider. It reflects how the
commander sees the operation unfolding. It broadly describes when, where, and how the commander
intends to employ combat power to accomplish the mission within the higher commander’s intent.
4-74. Commanders use their experience and judgment to add depth and clarity to their planning guidance.
They ensure staffs understand the broad outline of their visualization while allowing the latitude necessary
to explore different options. This guidance provides the basis for a detailed concept of operations without
dictating the specifics of the final plan. As with their intent, commanders may modify planning guidance
based on staff and subordinate input and changing conditions.
4-75. Commanders issue planning guidance when conducting design and at specific points during the MDMP:
� Upon receipt of or in anticipation of a mission (initial planning guidance).
� Following mission analysis (planning guidance for COA development).
� Following COA development (revised planning guidance for COA improvements).
� COA approval (revised planning guidance to complete the plan).
4-76. Table 4-1 lists the commander’s planning guidance by warfighting function. This list is not intended
to meet the needs of all situations. Commanders tailor planning guidance to meet specific needs based on
the situation rather than address each item.
Develop Course of Action Evaluation Criteria
4-77. Evaluation criteria are standards the commander and staff will later use to measure the relative
effectiveness and efficiency of one COA relative to other COAs. Developing these criteria during mission
analysis or as part of commander’s planning guidance helps to eliminate a source of bias prior to COA
analysis and comparison. Evaluation criteria address factors that affect success and those that can cause
failure. Criteria change from mission to mission and must be clearly defined and understood by all staff
members before starting the war game to test the proposed COAs. Normally, the COS (XO) initially
determines each proposed criterion with weights based on the assessment of its relative importance and the
commander’s guidance. Commanders adjust criterion selection and weighting according to their own
experience and vision. The staff member responsible for a functional area scores each COA using those
criteria. The staff presents the proposed evaluation criteria to the commander at the mission analysis brief
for approval.
Issue a Warning Order
4-78. Immediately after the commander gives the planning guidance, the staff sends subordinate and
supporting units a WARNO. (See Chapter 12 for example.) It contains, at a minimum—
� The approved mission statement.
� The commander’s intent.
� Changes to task organization.
� The unit AO (sketch, overlay, or some other description).
� CCIRs and EEFIs.
� Risk guidance.
� Priorities by warfighting functions.
� Military deception guidance.
� Essential stability tasks.
� Specific priorities.
STEP 3 – COURSE OF ACTION DEVELOPMENT
4-79. A COA is a broad potential solution to an identified problem. The COA development step generates
options for follow-on analysis and comparison that satisfy the commander’s intent and planning guidance.
During COA development, planners use the problem statement, mission statement, commander’s intent,
planning guidance, and various knowledge products developed during mission analysis.
4-14 ATTP 5-0.1 14 September 2011