Military Decision Making Process
The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is a systematic, iterative methodology employed by the United States Army to enable commanders and their staffs to apply critical and creative thinking, analyze situations, develop courses of action, and produce timely plans and orders for effective mission execution.[1] Established as a core component of Army doctrine, MDMP supports the principles of mission command by integrating staff collaboration, commander guidance, and doctrinal tools to address tactical and operational challenges in both combat and garrison environments.[1] MDMP consists of seven sequential yet adaptable steps: receipt of mission, mission analysis, course of action (COA) development, COA analysis (wargaming), COA comparison, COA approval, and orders production.[1] Key inputs to MDMP include higher headquarters' plans, running staff estimates, and intelligence preparation of the operational environment (IPOE) products, while outputs encompass warning orders, COA sketches, decision support matrices, and fully developed plans that facilitate assessment and adaptation during execution.[1] Effective implementation relies on principles such as commander involvement, staff proficiency, adherence to timelines, and the use of both analog and digital tools, as refined through observations from combat training centers and publications like the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) handbooks.[2] Rooted in Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 5-0 (2019) and Field Manual (FM) 5-0 (updated November 2024), MDMP has evolved to emphasize flexibility in dynamic operational environments, including updates for multinational planning and the Rapid Decision-Making and Synchronization Process (RDSP) for time-constrained scenarios, ensuring units can transition seamlessly from planning to preparation and execution.[1]Overview
Definition and Purpose
The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is a systematic, iterative planning methodology employed primarily by U.S. Army commanders and staffs to understand the operational environment, analyze missions, develop courses of action (COAs), and produce timely, effective operation plans (OPLANs) or operation orders (OPORDs).[3] This seven-step process—encompassing receipt of mission, mission analysis, COA development, COA analysis, COA comparison, COA approval, and orders production—facilitates the application of critical and creative thinking to translate the commander's intent into synchronized, executable actions.[3] The primary purpose of MDMP is to enable informed decision-making amid uncertainty by fostering shared understanding among leaders, enhancing situational awareness, and aligning resources with mission objectives to achieve operational success.[3] It supports mission command principles by integrating ends, ways, and means, thereby synchronizing warfighting functions and promoting adaptability in dynamic environments.[3] Through this structured approach, MDMP minimizes risks associated with incomplete analysis and ensures that plans are both feasible and flexible. MDMP integrates seamlessly with related doctrines, such as Troop Leading Procedures (TLP), which small-unit leaders (company level and below) use for rapid execution without formal staffs, by issuing warning orders (WARNORDs) to enable parallel planning and preparation.[3] Its outputs, particularly OPORDs in a standardized five-paragraph format (situation, mission, execution, sustainment, command and signal), disseminate detailed guidance to subordinates, incorporating elements like COA sketches and decision support tools to facilitate coordinated operations.[3] At its core, MDMP emphasizes commander involvement, where leaders drive the process through guidance, intent articulation, and COA approval to ensure alignment with higher objectives; staff collaboration, enabling integrated analysis and running estimates across warfighting functions under the chief of staff's coordination; and continuous assessment, involving ongoing evaluations and plan refinements via tools like war-gaming to adapt to changing conditions.[3] These principles underscore MDMP's role in building cohesive teams and resilient operations.[3]Scope and Applicability
The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is primarily designed for application at battalion-level units and higher, including brigades, divisions, corps, theater armies, and brigade combat teams, where sufficient staff resources exist to support its analytical demands.[4] At these echelons, particularly above brigade, units typically include all six warfighting functions (or functional cells): mission command, movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, and protection—enabling comprehensive planning.[4] In contrast, smaller units below battalion level often find the full process resource-intensive due to limited staff, such as the absence of dedicated planning officers or cells, making it less ideal without significant adaptations.[4] MDMP operates effectively in both tactical and garrison settings, supporting commanders in developing detailed operations plans and orders. Recent doctrinal developments as of 2025 emphasize the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced digital tools into MDMP steps, such as mission analysis and COA development, to accelerate decision-making in contested multi-domain environments.[5] This process extends to a wide range of operational environments, encompassing both combat and non-combat scenarios. In combat operations, MDMP facilitates planning for high-tempo activities such as offensive and defensive tasks.[4] For non-combat operations, it applies to stability tasks, which may involve civil affairs integration to achieve end states like restored governance, as well as defense support missions aiding civil authorities during disasters or emergencies.[4] Across these contexts, MDMP promotes collaborative planning among commanders and staffs to address complex problems systematically.[4] Time is a key constraint in MDMP's applicability, with the full process requiring hours to days depending on mission complexity, making it best suited for deliberate planning horizons.[4] In urgent situations, such as time-constrained environments during high-tempo operations, abridged versions streamline steps—for instance, developing a single course of action rather than multiple—to enable rapid decision-making.[4] However, MDMP is not a universal template; it must be tailored to the specific mission's complexity, available staff expertise, and unit resources, as no standard timeline or structure fits all scenarios.[4] This adaptability ensures effectiveness but underscores limitations for under-resourced or rapidly evolving contexts.[2]Historical Development
Origins in Military Doctrine
The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) traces its foundational roots to the Prussian General Staff's efforts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to systematize military thought and decision-making. Following defeats in the Napoleonic Wars, Prussian reformers, including Gerhard von Scharnhorst and later Helmuth von Moltke, developed the "applicatory system" as a deductive method for training officers in tactical problem-solving. This system emphasized a structured "estimate of the situation," which involved analyzing missions, enemy dispositions, friendly forces, and environmental factors to derive logical decisions, moving beyond reliance on individual genius to foster consistent, analytical leadership across the staff. The approach proved instrumental in Prussian victories, such as the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871, and became a model for professionalizing military planning.[6][7] The United States Army adopted elements of this Prussian framework in the early 20th century, incorporating the estimate of the situation into its doctrinal training around 1910. Influenced by observations of European military education, U.S. officers at institutions like Fort Leavenworth's Infantry and Cavalry School adapted the applicatory system to American needs, formalizing it in the 1910 Field Service Regulations. This marked the first official doctrinal inclusion, stating that "to frame a suitable field order the commander must make an estimate of the situation," which required systematic consideration of all relevant factors to inform orders. The adoption reflected broader reforms to build a general staff capable of modern warfare, drawing directly from Prussian processes to enhance staff estimates and operational planning.[8][7] During World War I, the estimate process evolved further as a core planning method, with increased emphasis on integrating intelligence from emerging sources like the newly established Military Intelligence Division in 1917 and evaluating multiple courses of action (COAs) under time constraints. U.S. Expeditionary Forces applied it in operations such as the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, where staff estimates facilitated coordinated intelligence analysis and COA assessment to adapt to fluid trench warfare conditions. Key doctrinal precursors included pre-war field manuals on operations and estimates, which laid the groundwork for this integration without yet codifying the full MDMP structure. This era solidified the process's role in linking intelligence to decision-making, setting the stage for post-war refinements.[8][9]Evolution and Key Updates
The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) underwent significant formalization in the post-World War II era as the U.S. Army shifted toward structured staff procedures amid Cold War demands for deliberate planning against symmetric threats. By the 1980s, FM 101-5, Staff Organization and Operations (1984), established MDMP as a standardized, seven-step analytical framework, emphasizing sequential staff actions to develop courses of action (COAs) and integrate commander input, moving away from the more subjective approaches of earlier manuals.[10] This version reinforced a deliberate, linear process suited to conventional warfare but was critiqued for its rigidity and time intensity, prompting subsequent doctrinal refinements.[10] Key doctrinal milestones marked MDMP's adaptation to evolving operational environments. The 1997 revision of FM 101-5 formalized MDMP as a seven-step process—receipt of mission, mission analysis, COA development, COA analysis, COA comparison, COA approval, and orders production—while incorporating greater alignment with joint operations to support interoperability in multinational and multi-service contexts.[11] In 2005, FM 5-0, Army Planning and Orders Production, superseded the planning sections of FM 101-5, introducing iterative planning techniques such as enhanced wargaming to address non-linear battlefields and full-spectrum operations, including asymmetric threats. Further updates in ADP 5-0, The Operations Process (initially 2012, revised 2019), emphasized mission command principles to enable faster, more flexible execution, with running estimates and continuous assessment to cope with uncertainty in complex environments.[12] Lessons from major conflicts drove these evolutions toward greater agility. The 1991 Gulf War exposed vulnerabilities in force projection and the need for rapid decision-making in time-constrained scenarios, influencing proposals for abbreviated MDMP variants, such as focusing on a single COA to accelerate planning.[13] Experiences in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars further highlighted the limitations of rigid processes in asymmetric and stability operations, leading to doctrinal shifts in FM 5-0 and subsequent publications that prioritized adaptive, iterative methods to integrate irregular threats, cultural factors, and prolonged engagements.[14] In the 2020s, MDMP has begun incorporating advanced technologies to enhance efficiency amid great-power competition. Army publications, such as a 2025 Military Review article, outline the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into MDMP steps, using machine learning for data processing in mission analysis, COA generation, and risk assessment to reduce planning time and bias while aligning with the 2023 Department of Defense AI Adoption Strategy.[15] These trends, guided by updates in FM 5-0 (2022), leverage tools like the Command Post Computing Environment to support edge computing in contested domains, ensuring MDMP remains viable for high-tempo operations.[15] While rooted in 19th-century Prussian staff traditions of systematic analysis, modern MDMP reflects a continuous adaptation to technological and doctrinal imperatives.[13]The MDMP Steps
Receipt of Mission
The Receipt of Mission step initiates the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) when a commander and staff receive or anticipate a new mission from higher headquarters, typically through an operations order or fragmentary order. This phase emphasizes rapid alerting and initial preparation to enable timely planning, with the commander and staff immediately assessing the higher headquarters' order to understand the mission's scope, intent, and timelines. Key activities include alerting the staff and key participants, such as subordinate units and supporting elements, to mobilize resources; gathering essential tools like maps, intelligence products, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and copies of the higher order; updating running estimates with current facts, assumptions, and force status reports; and conducting an initial assessment of available time, staff readiness, and resource constraints.[2] The commander plays a pivotal role by providing initial guidance on planning priorities, such as emphasis on certain warfighting functions or key assumptions about the operational environment, which shapes the staff's subsequent efforts. This guidance is issued promptly to focus the team and may include directives on the planning approach, such as deliberate versus rapid MDMP. Additionally, the commander determines time allocations for the overall process, following the one-third/two-thirds rule as a guide—allocating approximately one-third of the available time to headquarters planning and two-thirds to subordinate preparation—to ensure alignment with execution deadlines.[2] Outputs from this step include the initial warning order (WARNORD) disseminated to subordinates, which outlines the operation's type, location, and preliminary timelines to allow parallel preparation; a time schedule for staff planning activities; and updated running estimates to inform immediate decisions. These products facilitate collaboration with higher headquarters for synchronized efforts and set the foundation for transitioning into mission analysis, where deeper problem framing occurs. The emphasis on speed in Receipt of Mission ensures units avoid delays in a time-constrained operational environment.[2]Mission Analysis
Mission analysis is the second step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), where the commander and staff assess the higher headquarters' order or plan to gain a comprehensive understanding of the operational environment and frame the problem to be solved. This step builds directly on the receipt of mission by deepening the analysis of available information, identifying gaps, and providing the foundation for subsequent planning activities. The primary goal is to clarify the unit's tasks, constraints, and risks, enabling the commander to issue initial guidance that shapes course of action development.[2] Key activities during mission analysis include analyzing the higher headquarters' plan or order, conducting an initial intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB), and identifying specified, implied, and essential tasks. Specified tasks are those explicitly assigned in the order, while implied tasks are those necessary for mission accomplishment but not directly stated, and essential tasks are the critical actions that must be performed to achieve the mission's purpose. The staff also reviews available assets, determines constraints (such as rules of engagement or resource limitations), and begins developing initial commander’s critical information requirements (CCIRs) and an information collection plan. These activities ensure a shared understanding among the staff and highlight any assumptions needed to proceed with incomplete information.[16][2] A central tool in mission analysis is the METT-TC framework, which systematically evaluates mission variables to assess the operational context:- Mission: The unit's purpose and tasks derived from higher headquarters.
- Enemy: Capabilities, dispositions, and likely courses of action.
- Terrain and Weather: Effects on mobility, visibility, and operations.
- Troops and Support Available: Organic and attached forces, logistics, and enablers.
- Time Available: Planning and execution timelines, including synchronization needs.
- Civil Considerations: Impact of populations, infrastructure, and host nation factors.
Course of Action Development
Course of action (COA) development is the third step in the military decision-making process (MDMP), where the staff collaboratively generates a set of alternative solutions to accomplish the assigned mission. This step transitions from the problem identification of mission analysis to solution generation, producing broad potential COAs for subsequent evaluation. The purpose is to provide the commander with distinct, viable options that align with the commander's intent and planning guidance, ensuring flexibility in addressing operational challenges. Typically, the staff develops 2–5 COAs to balance thoroughness with time constraints, drawing directly from mission analysis outputs such as the restated mission, commander's intent, intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB), and initial staff estimates.[2] Key activities in COA development begin with assessing the operational situation and relative combat power using factors from the mission variables (METT-TC: mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available, time available, and civil considerations). The staff then brainstorms options, focusing on identifying the decisive operation—the critical action that accomplishes the mission—along with supporting shaping operations and sustaining efforts. Forces are arrayed by allocating initial units and capabilities to these operations, refining the task organization as needed. The broad concept of operations is developed by integrating schemes across warfighting functions, such as movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, protection, command and control, and engagement. Headquarters are assigned, and the COAs are documented through statements and sketches, followed by a briefing to the commander and staff for initial feedback. These activities emphasize creative thinking and collaboration to ensure comprehensive coverage without delving into detailed simulation.[2][16] Each COA must meet specific criteria to ensure quality and utility: it must be suitable, accomplishing the mission within the commander's guidance and intent; feasible, executable with available resources in the allocated time; acceptable, balancing costs in personnel, equipment, and time against the benefits; distinguishable, differing significantly from other COAs in scheme of maneuver, lines of effort, or task organization to provide meaningful choices; and complete, incorporating all necessary warfighting functions, main effort, and supporting efforts. For instance, in a defensive operation, one COA might emphasize a forward counterattack while another focuses on delaying actions to preserve combat power, ensuring each offers a unique approach. The number of COAs is often limited to 2–5 based on planning time and complexity, with the staff avoiding overly similar options that would not aid later decision-making.[2][16] The commander's input is integral throughout, shaping the COAs through initial planning guidance issued after mission analysis. This guidance typically specifies the desired scheme of maneuver—broad concepts for employing forces—and the end state, including conditions for mission success across military, political, and strategic dimensions. The commander may direct focus on certain elements, such as prioritizing speed or minimizing risk, or limit the COAs to a specific number or type, ensuring alignment with higher intent. During the COA briefing, the commander provides additional feedback, potentially modifying or selecting preliminary options to refine the set before analysis.[2][16] Techniques employed include the array of forces, a visual method to initially assign units to tasks and phases, often using a matrix to match capabilities against requirements derived from IPB and mission analysis. Decision support tools, such as event templates or initial synchronization matrices, aid in visualizing task relationships and timelines without full wargaming. Best practices recommend inclusive brainstorming sessions involving diverse staff sections and external partners to generate innovative options, such as incorporating sustainment early to avoid later gaps. These tools enhance clarity and ensure the COAs are operationally sound.[2][16] The primary outputs are draft COA statements and sketches for each option. A COA statement is a concise narrative (typically one paragraph) describing the commander's intent, scheme of maneuver, main and supporting efforts, lines of effort, key tasks, end state, and reserves, answering who, what, when, where, and why. For example, the main effort might be specified as "1st Brigade conducts the decisive operation by seizing Objective Alpha," with supporting efforts detailed for shaping actions. The accompanying sketch is a graphical overlay on a map or situational template, depicting scheme of maneuver, boundaries, control measures, and phase lines to illustrate the operation's flow. Updated assumptions and a refined task organization may also result, providing a foundation for further steps. These outputs are briefed to validate completeness and receive commander approval before proceeding.[2][16]Course of Action Analysis
Course of Action Analysis, the fourth step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), involves systematically evaluating developed courses of action (COAs) through wargaming to visualize operations, synchronize forces, and identify potential challenges.[4] This step refines COAs by testing them against anticipated enemy responses, ensuring they are feasible, acceptable, and suitable for mission accomplishment.[4] Commanders and staffs use COA sketches from the previous step as starting points to initiate the analysis.[17] The primary method employed is wargaming, a structured simulation that employs an action-reaction-counteraction sequence to mimic the flow of combat.[4] In this approach, friendly forces execute an action, the enemy responds with a reaction, and friendly forces then perform a counteraction, allowing the staff to assess interactions across warfighting functions such as movement, fires, and intelligence.[17] Wargaming typically proceeds in iterative turns, beginning with an orientation phase where the staff reviews COAs and establishes rules, followed by recording outcomes on tools like event templates.[17] This process helps uncover coordination issues, resource shortfalls, and risks, enabling adjustments to enhance synchronization.[4] Several techniques guide the wargaming effort, selected based on the operation's scope, time available, and terrain. The avenue-in-depth technique analyzes a single avenue of approach from start to objective, ideal for operations in canalizing terrain like urban or mountainous areas.[17] The belt technique divides the area of operations into sequential phases or belts, progressing from assembly areas to the objective, which suits deliberate attacks or defensive preparations.[17] For time-constrained scenarios, the box technique focuses on critical events or decision points within a defined area, allowing rapid evaluation of high-impact moments without full operational coverage.[17] Key outputs from COA analysis include refined COAs with detailed critical events, risks, and asset requirements, as well as supporting products for execution. The synchronization matrix records the sequence of actions, reactions, and counteractions over time, space, and purpose, ensuring alignment of units, fires, and logistics.[4] Additionally, the modified combined obstacle overlay (MCOO) is updated to depict terrain effects, enemy obstacles, and friendly movements, providing a visual foundation for further planning.[4] A central focus of wargaming is identifying branches, sequels, and decision points to build operational flexibility. Branches represent contingency options for unexpected enemy actions or friendly shortfalls, while sequels outline follow-on missions such as exploitation or stabilization.[4] Decision points are specific triggers—linked to commander's critical information requirements—where the commander must choose between branches or adjust the plan, often marked on the synchronization matrix for real-time reference.[17] These elements emerge during adjudication of wargame turns, where staffs assess probable outcomes and mitigate identified vulnerabilities.[17]Course of Action Comparison
In the Course of Action (COA) comparison step of the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), the staff objectively evaluates multiple COAs developed and analyzed in prior steps to determine which offers the highest probability of successful mission accomplishment. This phase involves a systematic assessment using predefined evaluation criteria, drawing on the results of wargaming to highlight strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs among options. The process ensures that comparisons remain distinct from subjective commander preferences, focusing instead on logical, data-driven analysis to support informed decision-making.[18] Key activities center on comparing COAs against established criteria, typically including suitability (alignment with the mission and commander's intent), feasibility (availability of resources and support), acceptability (balance of risks versus benefits, such as potential casualties or political implications), completeness (integration across warfighting functions like maneuver, intelligence, and sustainment), and distinguishability (clear differences between options to avoid redundancy). Staff sections, such as operations, intelligence, and logistics, provide input from their functional perspectives, evaluating how each COA performs under anticipated enemy actions and environmental variables outlined in METT-TC (mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available, time, and civil considerations). This comparison identifies advantages and disadvantages for each COA, often quantifying elements like time requirements, resource demands, or risk levels to facilitate ranking.[18][4] Techniques for comparison vary based on mission complexity and time constraints, ranging from simple qualitative methods to more structured quantitative approaches. A basic pros/cons list uses narrative bullets to outline strengths (e.g., a COA's speed in seizing key terrain) and weaknesses (e.g., high sustainment demands in contested logistics environments) for each option. For greater precision, a decision matrix employs weighted scoring, where criteria are assigned relative importance (e.g., risk weighted at 40% if prioritized by the commander) and COAs rated on a scale (such as 1-10) against benchmarks like "acceptable risk under 10% casualties." Other methods include the plus/minus technique, tallying favorable (+) and unfavorable (-) attributes per criterion, or relative value scoring, normalizing scores to 0-100 for overall totals. These tools ensure measurable, repeatable evaluations, with weights often approved by the chief of staff or executive officer during mission analysis.[18][2]| Technique | Description | Example Application |
|---|---|---|
| Pros/Cons List | Qualitative summary of advantages and disadvantages per COA and criterion. | COA 1: + Rapid advance; - Vulnerable flanks. COA 2: + Secure logistics; - Slower tempo.[18] |
| Decision Matrix (Weighted) | Scores COAs against weighted criteria, summing for rankings. | Suitability (weight: 0.3): COA 1 scores 8/10; total weighted score determines top option.[2] |
| Plus/Minus Method | Counts positive/negative attributes per criterion for net assessment. | COA 1: 5+ / 2-; net +3, indicating preference over COA 2's +2 net.[18] |