Development and Evaluation of an Intuitive Operational Planning Process

Abstract

Although formal planning procedures are key parts of military doctrine, they may not be well suited to highly dynamic, time-pressured environments. The authors describe an intuitive planning process developed as an alternative to the procedure used by the Canadian Forces (CF). The Intuitive Operational Planning Process (IOPP) treats planning as a highly iterative process of incremental refinement in which a single course of action is elaborated and continually evaluated for its suitability. To examine the effectiveness of the IOPP, 12 members of a reserve CF Civil Military Cooperation unit of Land Force Central Area acted as planning staffs and created plans for two simulated planning exercises. Participants employed the IOPP for one scenario and the existing CF Operational Planning Process (OPP) for another. The teams were able to successfully employ the IOPP to develop acceptable plans; however, it was not possible to determine statistically that the quality of these plans surpassed that of plans generated with the OPP because of limitations of the data set. The IOPP was judged to be very easy to use, but teams expressed less trust in it than the existing OPP. The IOPP may foster greater collaboration and commander involvement in planning than the OPP.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Bruyn

Houde

Angelopolous

(2003). Trust in automation: Literature review (DRDC Toronto Contractor Report CR-2003–096). Toronto, Ontario: Defence R&D Canada, Department of National Defence.

Bruyn

Lamoureux

Vokac

(2004). Function flow analysis of the land force operations planning process (DRDC Toronto Contractor Report CR-2004–065). Toronto, Ontario: Defence R&D Canada, Department of National Defence.

Bruyn

Rehak

Vokac

Lamoureux

(2005). Function flow analysis and comparison of doctrinal and applied operations planning process (DRDC Toronto Contractor Report CR-2005–144). Toronto, Ontario: Defence R&D Canada, Department of National Defence.

Department of National Defence. (1996). Land force: Volume 3: Command (B-GL-300–003/FP-000). Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Department of National Defence. (2002). Joint doctrine manual: CF operational planning process (B-GL-005–500/FP-00). Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Fallesen

J. J.

(1994). Decision matrices and time in tactical course of action analysis. Military Psychology, 7, 39–51.

Fallesen

J. J.

(1995). Overview of practical thinking instruction for battle command (Research Report 1685). Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Social and Behavioral Sciences.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock

P. A.

Meshkati

(Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Kievenaar

H. A.

(1997). Accelerated decision making at the task force level. Ft. Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

10.

Klein

Calderwood

(1996). Investigations of naturalistic decision making and the recognition-primed decision model (ARI Research Note 96–43). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

11.

Klein

G. A.

(1997). An overview of naturalistic decision making applications. In Zsambok

C. E.

Klein

(Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 49–59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

12.

Klein

G. A.

Zsambok

C. E.

(1991). Models of skilled decision making. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 1363–1366). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.

13.

Ross

K. G.

Klein

Thunholm

Schmitt

J. F.

Baxter

H. C.

(2004, July—August). The recognition-primed decision model. Military Review, pp. 6–10.

14.

Russell

(2003). In support of decision making. Fort Leavenworth, KS: School for Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College.

15.

Schmitt

J. F.

Klein

G. A.

(1999). A recognitional planning model. Proceedings of the Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (pp. 510–521). Newport, RI: U.S. Department of Defense Command and Control Research Program.

16.

Spiker

V. A.

Nullmeyer

R. T.

Tourville

S. J.

(2001, November). Relationship between mission preparation and performance during combat mission training. Proceedings of the 22nd Interservice/Industry Training Systems and Education Conference, Orlando, FL.

17.

Thunholm

(2005). Planning under time pressure: An attempt toward a prescriptive model of military tactical decision making. In Montgomery

Lipshitz

Brehmer

(Eds.), How experts make decisions (pp. 43–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

18.

Thunholm

(2007). Military decision making under time-pressure: To evaluate or not to evaluate three options before the decision is made? Unpublished manuscript. Available http://www.militaryscience.org/public/media/publications/Thunholm,%20P.%20(2003)%20DECISION%20MAKING%20UNDER%20TIME%20PRESSURE.pdf.

19.

U.S. Government (Department of the Army). (1997). FM 101–5: Staff organization and operations. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.

20.

Whitehurst

(2002). Reducing the fog of war: Linking tactical war-gaming to critical thinking. Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

21.

Zsambok

C. E.

(1997). Naturalistic decision making: Where are we now? In Zsambok

C. E.

Klein

(Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 3–16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.