MilitaryDecision Making Process
Commandersmay face difficulties at the battlefield when making a strategicdecision. This necessitates the commander to gather substantialinformation and come up with a plan that will lead to a significantoutcome. However, the conditions through which the process takesplace are not favorable since the time required to come up withdetailed plan is limited. This therefore necessitates the use of theMilitary Decision Making Process. The inception of the MilitaryDecision Making Process initiated by General Washington and his MajorGeneral von Steuben.It is a decision making model that aims at aidingthe military men and women to make informed military decisions whilecompiling the operation orders. Principally, it aids both the staffand the commander to come up with estimates and a plan. It also playsa pivotal role in helping the commander to make logical decisionswhile facing a critical situation in the battle field.
MilitaryDecision Making Process
TheMilitary Decision Making Process is a seven step process thatentails: receipt of mission, Mission Analysis, COA Development, COAAnalysis, COA Comparison, COA Approval, and Order production steps(Paul, 2006). Appreciably, it can be utilized in making decisions fordaily routines that are either personal, at the garrison dutystation, mobilization and during the deployment process.Thecommander being the principal decision maker in the MDMP process,there is need for the noncommissioned officer to help the commanderby giving him support and executing the mission effectively (ADP5-0).
Receiptof mission is the first step in the decision making process (Paul,2006). It entails the receiving of mission in the form of orders fromthe higher headquarters. During the time when I served in the SpecialService Group (SSG), in the position of a squad leader, the militarydecision making process aided me in various ways. The next step isthe mission analysis.Themain aim of carrying a mission analysis is to ascertain the salienttasks that are required for one to make a feasible solution (Paul,2006). During this step, the staff holds a discussion concerning theoverall mission and then puts emphasis on the core areas of themission. It is in this step that the staff identifies the forces andassumptions necessary to acquire the required information. As a squadleader, I used this step in identifying the squads’ weapons andequipment that may be used in accomplishing the mission.
Couseof Action Development is the third step, whereby, the forces, factsand assumptions that were determined during mission analysis arereviewed (Colonel, 2001). Moreover, the possibilities that givesupport to the mission are generated. After developing the course ofaction in the third step, its analysis is done in the fourth step.Fundamentally, the step entails developing possible situations thatare likely to happen while executing the mission. Being a squadleader, I used the step in predicting the situations that were likelyto arise in the course of the mission. The fifth step is course ofaction comparison. Essentially, this step is for comparing the Courseof Actions to ascertain the one that supports the intention of thecommander and the mission (Colonel, 2001).It is the role of the staffto evaluate the factors and determine the one that will complete themission. The facets are ascertained depending on the assessmentcarried out by the commander according to their relative importance.
Afteridentifying the best COA, it is the duty of the highest rankingofficer to present them to the commander to accept or reject theadvocated COAs (ADP5-0).If they are rejected, the staff is calledupon to revisit and analyze the mission again in order to come updevelop the required course of actions . If the course of actiondeveloped is approved, it proceeds to the next step.Thepreparation of orders to be delivered to the unit is done in theseventh step. In this case, the staff members are required tocompletely brief their sections of expertise.
Thefactors that helped me to develop effective course of actions insupport of my situationincludestrong leadership skills and having a predictable behavior.Obviously, the behavior of an individual has a significant impact onhow one makes a decision. The behaviors that I utilized during thestep of course of actions development aided me in making informeddecisions. Another factor that helped me is the critical thinkingaspect. The possible outcome that could have hindered the missioninclude the logical and psychological misconceptions.
IfI was the platoon sergeant during that time in the mission, I wouldhave carried out a substantial plan action for the third step of themilitary decision making process that would have matched with thetime constraint, thus giving the mission a chance to brief thesuccess of the mission. In the fourth step that entails course ofaction analysis, I could have analyzed the selected actionsthoroughly and choose the one that best fits the situation. In bothaction comparison and action approval, I would have selected andapproved the course of actions that give chance for the staff tosucceed in the targeted mission.
ColonelChristopher R. Paparone. (August 2001). US Army Decisionmaking: Past,Present andFuture. Retrievedfromhttp://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/pap.pdf
Headquarters,Department of the Army. (May 2012). ADP 5-0. Retrieved fromhttp://www.apd.army.mil/Search/ePubsSearch/ePubsSearchDownloadPage.aspx?docID=0902c8518001217a
PaulP. Reese. (March 15, 2006) Handbook MDMP. Retrieved fromhttp://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/15-06_0.pdf