Ch. 6 Decision Making During Execution PDF

Chapter 6 Decision Making During Execution This chapter describes the major activities of execution, to include assessing, decision making, and directing action necessary to support rapid decision making and synchronization. The chapter concludes with a di...

Chapter 6 Decision Making During Execution This chapter describes the major activities of execution, to include assessing, decision making, and directing action necessary to support rapid decision making and synchronization. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the rapid decision-making and synchronization process (RDSP). EXECUTION ACTIVITIES 6-1. Planning and preparation accomplish nothing if the command does not execute effectively. Execution is the act of putting a plan into action by applying combat power to accomplish the mission and adjusting operations based on changes in the situation (ADP 5-0). In execution, commanders, staffs, and subordinate commanders focus their efforts on translating decisions into actions. They direct action to apply combat power at decisive points and times to achieve objectives and accomplish missions. Inherent in execution is deciding whether to execute planned actions, such as changing phases or executing a branch plan. Execution also includes adjusting the plan based on changes in the situation and an assessment of the operation’s progress. (See ADP 5-0 for a discussion of the fundamentals of execution.) 6-2. Throughout execution, commanders, supported by their staffs, assess the operation’s progress, make decisions, and direct the application of combat power to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative or counter threats. Major activities of execution include the following: z Assessment—monitoring current operations and evaluating progress and variances. z Decision making—making decisions to exploit opportunities or counter threats. z Directing action — applying combat power and resources at decisive points and times. ASSESSMENT DURING EXECUTION 6-3. During execution, continuous assessment is essential. Assessment helps commanders visualize probable outcomes and determine whether they need to change the plan to accomplish the mission, take advantage of opportunities, or react to unexpected threats. Monitoring is the continuous observation of those conditions relevant to the current operation (ADP 5-0). It allows commanders and staffs to improve their understanding of the situation. Evaluating is using indicators to judge progress toward desired conditions and determining why the current degree of progress exists (ADP 5-0). It allows commanders to identify the variances, their significance, and if a decision is required to alter the plan. (See Chapter 8 for details on how to build an assessment plan. See ADP 5-0 for fundamentals of assessment). 6-4. A variance is a difference between the actual situation during an operation and what the plan forecasted the situation would be at that time or event. A variance can be categorized as an opportunity or threat as shown on the vertical lines in figure 6-1 on page 6-2. The first form of variance is an opportunity to accomplish the mission more effectively. Opportunities result from forecasted or unexpected success. When commanders recognize an opportunity, and if the change achieves the end state more effectively or efficiently, they alter the order to exploit it. The second form of variance is a threat to mission accomplishment or the survival of the force. When recognizing a threat, commanders adjust the order to eliminate the enemy advantage, restore the friendly advantage, and regain the initiative. 6-5. In some instances, the variance is so extreme that no branch or sequel is available, or the current plan lacks enough flexibility to respond to the variance. In this situation, the commander and staff may have to reframe the problem to better understand an operational environment (OE) as depicted in figure 6-1 on page 6-2. (See Chapter 1 for more information on reframing.) 0D\ FM 5-0 6-1 Chapter 6 Figure 6-1. Decision making during execution DECISION MAKING DURING OPERATIONS 6-6. When operations are progressing satisfactorily, the variances are minor and within acceptable levels. Commanders who make this evaluation—formally or informally—allow operations to continue according to plan. This situation leads to following execution decisions included in the plan. Execution decisions implement a planned action under circumstances anticipated in the order. An execution decision is normally tied to a decision point. 6-7. An assessment may determine that the operation as a whole, or one or more of its major actions, is not progressing according to expectations. At times, the commander determines the variance requires an adjustment decision. An adjustment decision is the selection of a course of action (COA) that modifies the order to respond to unanticipated opportunities or threats. 6-8. When the commander makes or directs an adjustment, the staff pays particular attention to ensuring the operation remains synchronized. The commander may need to describe the visualization that underlies the adjustment decision with guidance on the critical on-going operations. Commanders and staff must also pay particular attention to adjustment decisions on targeting and provide appropriate guidance to continue the targeting process. An adjustment decision may include a decision to reframe the problem and develop an entirely new plan. 6-9. Executing, adjusting, or abandoning the original operation is part of decision making in execution. By fighting the enemy and not the plan, commanders balance the tendency to abandon a well-conceived, rehearsed, and synchronized plan too soon against persisting in a failing effort too long. The issued plan provides the base to start from during an operation. The better developed and rehearsed the plan is with situational understanding gained during planning, preparation, and execution, the faster and more effective 6-2 FM 5-0 0D\  Decision Making During Execution the identification, dissemination, and execution of necessary adjustments becomes. Effective decision making during execution— z Relates all actions to the commander’s intent and concept of operations. z Is comprehensive, maintaining integration of combined arms rather than dealing with separate functions. z Relies heavily on intuitive decision making by commanders and staffs to make rapid adjustments. DIRECTING ACTION 6-10. To implement execution or adjustment decisions, commanders direct actions that often reapply resources and combat power. Based on the commander’s decision and guidance, the staff resynchronizes the operation to mass the maximum effects of combat power to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. This involves synchronizing the operations in time, space, and purpose and issuing directives to subordinates. (See table 6-1 for a summary of a range of possible actions with respect to decisions made during execution.) When modifying the plan, commanders and staffs seek to— z Make the fewest changes possible. z Facilitate future operations. 6-11. Commanders only make those changes to the plan needed to correct variances. As much as possible, they keep the current plan the same to present subordinates with the fewest possible changes. Whenever possible, commanders ensure that changes do not preclude options for future operations. This is especially important for echelons above brigade. Table 6-1. Decision types and related actions Decision types Actions Minor variances from Execute planned actions the plan Commander or designee decides which planned actions best Operation proceeding meet the situation and directs their execution. Execution decisions according to plan. Variances Staff issues fragmentary order. are within acceptable limits. Staff completes follow-up actions. Anticipated situation Execute a branch or sequel Operation encountering Commander or staff review branch or sequel plan. variances within the limits for Commander receives assessments and recommendations for one or more branches or modifications to the plan, determines the time available to refine it, sequels anticipated in the plan. and either issues guidance for further actions or directs execution of a branch or sequel. Staff issues fragmentary order. Staff completes follow-up actions. Unanticipated situation— Make an adjustment decision friendly success Commander recognizes the opportunity or threat and determines Significant, unanticipated time available for decision making. Adjustment decisions positive variances result in Commander selects a decision-making method. If there is not opportunities to achieve the end enough time for a complete military decision-making process, the state in ways that differ commander may direct a single course of action or conduct rapid significantly from the plan. decision-making and synchronization process with select staff Unanticipated situation— members. enemy threat Depending on time available, commanders may issue verbal Significant, unanticipated fragmentary orders to subordinates followed by a written negative variances impede fragmentary order to counter the threat or exploit an opportunity. mission accomplishment. In rare situations commanders may reframe the problem, change the mission, and develop an entirely new plan to address significant changes in the situation. 0D\ FM 5-0 6-3 Chapter 6 RAPID DECISION-MAKING AND SYNCHRONIZATION PROCESS 6-12. The RDSP is a technique that commanders and their staffs commonly use during execution. While identified here with a specific name and method, the approach is not new; its use in the Army is well established and tested. Commanders and staffs develop this capability through training. When using this technique, the following considerations apply: z Rapid analysis is often more important than detailed analysis. z Much of the analysis may be mental rather than written. z The current operations integration cells, future operations cells, or both, should often conduct rapid analysis drills. 6-13. While the military decision-making process (MDMP) seeks the optimal solution, the RDSP seeks a timely and effective solution within the commander’s intent. Using the RDSP lets leaders avoid the time-consuming requirements of developing decision criteria and comparing COAs. Under the RDSP, leaders combine their experience and intuition to quickly reach situational understanding. Based on this, they develop and refine acceptable COAs. 6-14. The RDSP facilitates continuously integrating and synchronizing the warfighting functions to address ever-changing situations. It meets the following criteria for making effective decisions during execution: z It is comprehensive, integrating all warfighting functions. z It ensures all actions support the decisive operation by relating them to the commander’s intent and concept of operations. z It allows rapid changes to the order or mission. z It is continuous, allowing commanders to react immediately to opportunities and threats. 6-15. The RDSP is based on an existing order and the commander’s priorities as expressed in that order. The RDSP includes five steps. The first two may be performed in any order, including concurrently. The last three are performed interactively until commanders identify and decide on a course of action. (See figure 6-2 for a depiction of the rapid decision-making and synchronization process.) Figure 6-2. Rapid decision-making and synchronization process COMPARE THE CURRENT SITUATION TO THE ORDER 6-16. Commanders and staffs identify likely variances during planning and identify potential options and actions that will likely be available when each variance occurs. During execution, commanders and staffs monitor the situation to identify changes in conditions. They then identify if the changed conditions represent variances from the order—especially opportunities, threats, and risks they present. Staff members use running estimates to look for indicators of variances that affect their areas of expertise. (See table 6-2 on page 6-6 through 6-7 for examples of change indicators.) 6-17. Staff members are particularly alert for answers to commander’s critical information requirements (CCIRs) that support anticipated decisions. They also watch for exceptional information—information that would have answered one of the CCIRs if the requirement for it had been foreseen and stated as one of the CCIRs. Exceptional information usually reveals a need for an adjustment decision. 6-4 FM 5-0 0D\  Decision Making During Execution 6-18. When performing the RDSP, the current operations integration cell first compares the current situation to the one envisioned in the order. Where authorized, it may obtain assistance from the assessment section or the red team section in this analysis. The section or team would provide the most accurate and current assessment to inform the current operations integration cell recommendation on a proposed COA or solution. If the situation requires greater analysis, the chief of staff (COS) or executive officer (XO) may task the future operations cell (where authorized) or the plans cell to perform this analysis. At echelons with no future operations cell, the plans cell or the current operations integration cell performs this function, and this likely falls outside of the RDSP. 0D\ FM 5-0 6-5 Chapter 6 Table 6-2. Examples of change indicators Types Indicators x Answer to a commander’s critical x Change of area of operations. information requirement. x Change in role of host-nation military x Identification of an information force. requirement. x Climate changes or natural disasters x Change in mission. impacting on the population, agriculture, General x Change in organization of unit. industry. x Change in unit leaders. x Upcoming local election or change of key civilian leadership. x Change in capabilities of subordinate unit. x Signing or implementation of peace treaty or other key political arrangement. x Significant unplanned opportunity. x Change to planned resources or capabilities. x Identification of enemy main effort. x Identification of unplanned chemical, x Identification of enemy reserves or biological, radiological, nuclear or counterattack. explosive capabilities. x Indications of unexpected enemy action x Indicators of illicit economic activity. or preparation. x Identification of threats from within the Intelligence x Identification of an information population. requirement. x Increased unemployment within the x Insertion of manned surveillance teams. population. x Identification of high-value targets. x Interference with freedom of religious worship. x Answer to a priority intelligence requirement. x Increase in enemy solicitation of civilians for intelligence operations. x Enemy electronic attack use. x Action that impacts or desynchronizes x Modification of an airspace coordinating planned decisive operation. measure. x Unexpected success or failure in x Numbers of dislocated civilians sufficient Movement and breaching or gap crossing operations. to affect friendly operations. Maneuver x Capture of significant numbers of enemy x Damages to civilian infrastructure prisoners of war, enemy command posts, affecting friendly mobility. supply points, or artillery units. x Loss of one or more critical x Establishment of unplanned obstacles transportation systems. along major routes. x Unexplained displacement of civilian x Success or failure of a subordinate unit personnel within a given area of task. operations. x Receipt of an air tasking order. x Execution of planned fires. x Battle damage assessment results. x Modification of a fire support x coordination measure. Fires Unplanned repositioning of firing units. x Identification of high-payoff targets. x Effective enemy counterfire. x Identification of an information x Destruction of any place of worship by requirement. friendly fire. 6-6 FM 5-0 0D\  Decision Making During Execution Table 6-2. Examples of change indicators (continued) Types Indicators x Chemical, biological, radiological, x Critical host-nation infrastructure nuclear report. destroyed. x Indicators of enemy chemical, biological, x Identification of threat to base or radiological, nuclear use. sustainment facilities. x Identification of threats to x Escalation of force incidents. Protection communications or computer systems. x Loss of border security. x Loss of friendly air defense capability x Increase in organized demonstrations or resulting in loss of support. civil disturbances. x Indicators of coordinated enemy actions against friendly forces or civilians. x Significant loss of capability in any class x Changes in availability of host-nation of supply. support. x Mass casualties. x Degradations to essential civilian x Contact on a supply route. infrastructure by threat actions. x Identification of significant shortage in x Civilian mass casualty event. Sustainment any class of supply. x Outbreak of epidemic or famine within x Mass detainees. the civilian population. x Disruption of key logistics lines of x Dislocated civilian event impacting communication. operations. x Identification of significant incidences of x Disruption of essential civil services disease and non-battle injury casualties. (such as water or electricity). x Receipt of significant resupply. x Closing of major host-nation financial institutions. x Answer to a friendly force information requirement. x Loss of communications nodes. x Effective adversary information efforts on Command and x Loss of contact with a command post or civilians. key leader. x Impending changes in key military or Control x Receipt of a fragmentary order or civilian leaders. warning order from higher headquarters. x Interference with freedom of the press or x Prolonged jamming or network news media. interference. DETERMINE THE DECISION REQUIRED 6-19. When a variance is identified, the commander directs action while the chief of operations leads the current operations integration cell and selected functional cells in quickly comparing the current situation to the expected situation. This assessment accomplishes the following: z Describes the variance. z Determines if the variance provides a significant opportunity or threat and examines the potential of either. z Determines if a decision is needed by identifying if the variance— ƒ Indicates an opportunity that can be exploited to accomplish the mission faster or with fewer resources. ƒ Directly threatens the decisive operation’s success. 0D\ FM 5-0 6-7 Chapter 6 ƒ Threatens a shaping operation such that it may impact the decisive operation. ƒ Remains within the scope of the commander’s intent and concept of operations. (If so, it determines what execution decision is needed.) ƒ Requires changing the concept of operations substantially. (If so, it determines what adjustment decision or new approach will best suit the circumstances.) 6-20. For minor variances, the chief of operations works with other cell chiefs to determine whether changes to control measures are needed. If so, they determine how those changes affect other warfighting functions. They direct changes within their authority (execution decisions) and notify the COS or XO and the affected command post cells and staff elements. 6-21. Commanders intervene directly in cases that affect the overall direction of the unit. They describe the situation, direct subordinates to provide any additional information they need, and order either implementation of planned responses or development of an order to redirect the force. DEVELOP A COURSE OF ACTION 6-22. If the variance requires an adjustment decision, the designated integrating cell and affected command post cell chiefs recommend implementation of a COA or obtain the commander’s guidance for developing one. They use the following conditions to develop possible COAs: z Mission. z Commander’s intent. z Current dispositions and freedom of action. z CCIRs. z Limiting factors, such as supply constraints, boundaries, and combat strength. 6-23. The new options must conform to the commander’s intent. Possible COAs may alter the concept of operations and CCIRs, if they remain within the commander’s intent. When necessary, the commander reviews and approves changes to the CCIRs. Functional cell chiefs and other staff leaders identify areas that may be affected within their areas of expertise by proposed changes to the order or mission. Course of action considerations include, but are not limited to, those shown in table 6-3. 6-24. When reallocating resources or priorities, commanders assign only minimum essential assets to shaping operations. They weight the decisive operation with necessary assets. This applies when allocating resources for the overall operation or within a warfighting function. 6-25. The commander is as likely as anyone to detect the need for change and to sketch out the options. Whether the commander, COS, XO, or chief of operations does this, the future operations cell is often directed to further develop the concept and draft the order. The chief of operations and the current operations integration cell normally lead this effort, especially if the response is needed promptly or the situation is not complex. The commander, COS, or XO is usually the decision-making authority, depending on the commander’s delegation of authority. The commander, however, remains responsible for implementing and executing those decisions. 6-26. Commanders normally direct the future operations cell or the current operations integration cell to prepare a fragmentary order (FRAGORD) setting conditions for executing a new COA. When speed of action is necessary or desirable, commanders make an immediate adjustment decision—using intuitive decision making—in the form of a focused COA. Developing the focused COA often occurs after mental war gaming by commanders until they reach an acceptable COA. When time is available, commanders direct the plans cell to develop a new COA using the MDMP. Staff members look for considerations in their areas of expertise when developing the COA. (See table 6-3 for a list of COA considerations.) 6-8 FM 5-0 0D\  Decision Making During Execution Table 6-3. Course of action considerations Types Actions x Modifying intelligence x Updating the enemy situation template Intelligence requirements. and enemy course of action x Modifying the information collection statements. plan. x Updating the intelligence estimate. x Updating named areas of interest x Confirming or denying threat course of and target areas of interest. action. x Assigning new objectives. x Modifying information collection plan. x Assigning new tasks to subordinate x Modifying airspace coordinating Movement Maneuver units. measures. and x Adjusting terrain management. x Making unit boundary changes. x Employing obscurants. x Clearing obstacles. x Emplacing obstacles. x Establishing and enforcing movement priority. x Updating fires against targets or x Modifying radar zones. target sets. x Fires Modifying the priority of fires. x Modifying the high-payoff target list x Modifying fire support coordination and the attack guidance matrix. measures. x Moving air defense weapons x Changing air defense weapons control systems. status. x Establishing decontamination sites. x Enhancing survivability through Protection x Conducting chemical, biological, engineer support. radiological, and nuclear x Revising and updating personnel reconnaissance. recovery coordination. x Establish movement corridors on x Reassigning or repositioning response critical lines of communications. forces. x Prioritizing medical evacuation x Repositioning and prioritizing general Sustainment assets. engineering assets. x Repositioning logistics assets. x Modifying priorities. x Positioning and prioritizing detainee x Modifying distribution. and resettlement assets. x Moving communications nodes. x Adjusting measures for minimizing x civilian interference with operations. Command and Moving command posts. x Command post survivability. x Revising recommended protected Control targets. x Impacts to target audiences x Modifying stability tasks. x Adjusting themes and messages to support the new decision. REFINE AND VALIDATE THE COURSE OF ACTION 6-27. Once commanders describe the new COA, the current operations integration cell conducts an analysis to validate its feasibility, suitability, and acceptability. If acceptable, the COA is refined to resynchronize the warfighting functions enough to generate and apply the needed combat power. Staffs with a future operations cell may assign that cell responsibility for developing the details of the new COA and drafting a FRAGORD to implement it. The commander, COS, or XO may direct a hasty operations synchronization meeting to perform this task and ensure rapid resynchronization. 6-28. Validation and refinement are done quickly. Normally, the commander and staff officers conduct a mental war game of the new COA. They consider potential enemy reactions, the unit’s counteractions, and 0D\ FM 5-0 6-9 Chapter 6 secondary effects that might impact the force’s synchronization. Each staff member considers the following items: z Is the new COA feasible in terms of my warfighting function or area of expertise? z How will this new action affect my warfighting function or area of expertise? z Does it require changing my information requirements? For example,— ƒ Should any of the information requirements be nominated as a CCIR? ƒ Should we add or modify essential elements of friendly information (EEFIs)? z What other command post cells and elements does this action affect? z What actions within my warfighting function or area of expertise does this change require? z Will this COA require changing objectives or targets nominated by staff members? z What are potential enemy reactions? z What are the possible friendly counteractions? ƒ Does this counteraction affect my area of expertise? ƒ Will it require changing my information requirements? ƒ Are any of my information requirements potential CCIRs? ƒ What actions within my area of expertise does this counteraction require? ƒ Will it require changing objectives or targets nominated by staff members? ƒ What other command post cells and elements does this counteraction affect? 6-29. The validation and refinement will show if the COA will solve the problem adequately. If it does not, the COS or chief of operations modifies it through additional analysis or develops a new COA. The COS or XO informs the commander of any changes made to the COA. IMPLEMENT 6-30. When a COA is acceptable, the COS or XO recommends implementation to the commander or implements it directly, if the commander has delegated that authority. Implementation normally requires a FRAGORD; in exceptional circumstances, it may require a new operation order (OPORD). That order changes the concept of operations (in adjustment decisions), resynchronizes the warfighting functions, and disseminates changes to control measures. The staff uses warning orders (WARNORDs) to alert subordinates to a pending change. The staff also establishes sufficient time for the unit to implement the change without losing integration or being exposed to unnecessary tactical risk. 6-31. Commanders often issue orders to subordinates verbally in situations requiring quick reactions. At battalion and higher echelons, written FRAGORDs confirm verbal orders to ensure synchronization, integration, and notification of all parts of the force. Common revisions to products needed to affect adjustments include the following: z Updated enemy situation, including the situation template. z Revised CCIRs. z Updated information collection plan. z Updated scheme of maneuver and tasks to maneuver units, including an execution matrix, decision support matrix, or template. z Updated scheme of fires, including the fire support execution matrix, high payoff target list, and attack guidance matrix. z Updated information tasks. 6-32. Leaders typically verify that subordinates understand critical tasks. Verification methods include conducting a confirmation brief or backbrief. These are conducted both between commanders and within staff elements to ensure mutual understanding. 6-33. After the analysis is complete, the current operations integration cell and command post cell chiefs update decision support templates and synchronization matrixes. Staff members begin the synchronization needed to implement the decision. This synchronization involves collaboration with other command post cells and subordinate staffs. Staff members coordinate those actions needed to eliminate undesired effects 6-10 FM 5-0 0D\  Decision Making During Execution that might cause friction. These cells provide results of this synchronization to the current operations integration cell and the common operational picture. 6-34. During implementation of the RDSP, the current operations integration cell keeps the warfighting functions synchronized as the situation changes. Anticipating certain outcomes allows commanders to mass the effects of combat power at decisive times and places. When making synchronization decisions or allowing others’ synchronization in collaboration to proceed, the following outcomes are considered: z Combined arms integration. z Responsiveness. z Timeliness. 6-35. Commanders also synchronize collaboratively. Coordination among higher, adjacent, supporting, and subordinate commanders facilitates execution by improving interaction between units as they anticipate and solve problems. Cross talk among subordinate commanders can provide synchronizations and lead to rapid decision-making. Such synchronization occurs without the higher echelon commander becoming involved, except to affirm, the decisions or agreements of subordinates. 0D\ FM 5-0 6-11