SCHOOL THESIS

V. COURSES OF ACTION ANALYSIS
A. METHODOLOGY
Three general courses of action (COAs) were identified regarding possible roles
NORAD might play in future military cyber attack warning. These COAs were arranged
by increasing levels of responsibilities being placed upon NORAD. Advantages were
listed to allow the reader a broad appreciation of the operational benefits each COA
might offer.
Next, in order to gauge to what extent a proposed COA was practical to
implement, disadvantages were listed with corresponding proposed solutions. These
proposed solutions were then standardized across all COAs to allow for uniform
comparison. 108
Using inputs from cyberspace subject matter experts, each proposed solution was
then weighted for its general difficulty in implementation, with a score of either:
“1” (Routine; requires normal NORAD internal staff actions.)
“2” (Challenging; requires detailed, U.S. government-wide staff actions.)
“3” (Difficult; requires politically sensitive binational staff actions.)
Finally, all weighted factors were then summed to present a total score for
consideration. The COA which presented the greatest apparent advantages and the lowest
disadvantages score was presumed to be the best COA for NORAD to pursue.
Overall, this methodology (while not strictly scientific) provides the reader a
general measure of the effectiveness and cost of implementation for each proposed COA.
(Before any COA might be adopted, it is suggested a full military COA analysis be
conducted, to include surveys and/or interviews with cyberspace practitioners.)
This chapter concludes with a summary table identifying all COAs, their proposed
solutions and weights, and their specific scorings.
108 Morgan D. Jones, The Thinker’s Toolkit, New York, NY, Crown Publishing Group, 30 Jun 1998,
chapters 4 and 10.
63