Why do I like the military planning process?

From 2000 to 2008 I served on active duty in the US Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer, and in that capacity, I participated in various planning processes.  In 2009, I transitioned to a civilian position at a 4-star headquarters and continued to plan, but now at the strategic or corporate level.  It was in my civilian capacity that I became familiar with the military planning process.  As shipboard officers, members of the US Navy have not indoctrinated into the military planning process the same way officers of the same rank in the Marine Corps, and Army is.  Marine Corps and Army officers begin using the military planning process during initial officer training and early in their careers while the Navy learns later. So, why do I like this process?  I’ve laid out some bullets below that explain my position.

·      It is a mix of art and science.  There are data driven elements, and there are items that capture the experiences of the planners and leadership. 

·      It clearly defines the problem.  In the military system, the issue at hand is clearly defined, and the developed plan focuses on that matter.  It harnesses the staff to solve one problem, not many.

·      It doesn’t jump to a solution.  One could argue that the system is organized brainstorming with a structure of inputs and outputs that gathers a lot of data, considers multiple options to solve the problem, and then settles on one. 

·      It forces planners to look at various aspects of the problem.  When followed to the letter, this planning process starts with a senior member of the organization calling together the planning team.  The assembled team will then consider the facts, assumptions, constraints (things you can’t do), restraints (things you must do), and develop an initial mission statement to solve the problem.  Following this, the planning team will then develop multiple courses of action which must be unique, feasible, legal, and attainable given the resources available.  The courses of action are then analyzed, compared, and one is chosen.  With the winning course of action approved, the final plan is drafted and put into execution.

·      Links together where you want to be (ends) with the capabilities (ways) and resources (means) into a coherent plan.  I think this is one of the most important aspects of the process since this step allows those working on the scheme and later those that will execute the plan the ability to see how what they are doing fits into the larger intent of the action.

·      Can be done in a deliberate fashion or quickly in reaction to an emergency.  This process isn’t only for long-range, well-predicted events.  Pop up situations or contingencies can be worked using this process as well.  The only thing that changes is the time available. 

In my current job, I work with a collection of law enforcement, State Department, military, and civilians.  We are a military organization, but we struggle with using this process.  I find this struggle unfortunate as this system, if followed, provides a repeatable standardized process that will result in an output that is commonly understood and has considered each option.