MOST Analysis

Mission Statement

Here we’ll introduce the theory of the EAGLE planning process. Outcome: the team understands how to tactically plan IAW EAGLE. Desired Learning Objectives: We understand the 5-Part EAGLE planning process. We understand how to apply the theory to planning examples.

---

Objectives

01. Tactical Planning: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
02. Planning Limitations: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
03. Self-Assesment: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
04. Execution & Debrief: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
05. Eagle Methodology: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
-5.1. Setting Expectations: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
-5.2. Apply Lessons: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. 1 Month
-5.3. Generate Backwards: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
-5.4. Lay Out Contingencies: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
-5.5. Evaluate: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
6. Red Teaming: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month
7. Mindset: departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development. Time Allocated: 1 Month

---

Strategies

01. Tactical Planning: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
02. Planning Limitations: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
03. Self-Assesment: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
04. Execution & Debrief: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
05. Eagle Methodology: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
-5.1. Setting Expectations: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
-5.2. Apply Lessons: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
-5.3. Generate Backwards: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
-5.4. Lay Out Contingencies: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
-5.5. Evaluate: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
6. Red Teaming: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.
7. Mindset: Each individual department head to undertake departmental SWOT analysis; strategy research & development.

---

Tasks

01. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Tactical Planning.
02. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Planning Limitations.
03. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Self-Assesment.
04. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Execution & Debrief.
05. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Eagle Methodology.
-5.1. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Setting Expectations.
-5.2. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Apply Lessons.
-5.3. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Generate Backwards.
-5.4. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Lay Out Contingencies.
-5.5. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Evaluate.
6. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Red Teaming.
7.. Create a task on your calendar, to be completed within the next month, to analyze Mindset..

---

Introduction

The significance of planning is frequently underestimated. We get it. Planning is boring. It’s far more thrilling to do things rather than plan them. It’s also a financial waste. All of these folks sit about making plans when they could be working!

Why can’t we just figure things out as we go? That sounds fantastic. But consider why that might not be such a good idea. Why Do People Undervalue the Importance of Planning? Everyone understands the significance of planning. The issue is that leaders are well aware that they must plan. They’ve heard remarks like “Failing to plan, is intending to fail”.

Unfortunately, it does not stick.

Today, workplaces are abuzz with talk about innovation. Sometimes, getting started and attempting new things is all that is required for innovation. There will be no lengthy approval processes; simply get started and see how things go. That’s okay some of the time. However, not for everything you do.

Many leaders want to check the box that they have a plan. However, they do not make advantage of it. They let someone else worry about the plan while they go about their business. This is equivalent to having no plan at all.

The desire to act is frequently too strong. Unfortunately, it’s a waste of money. Money and time saved by not planning are spent afterwards, when people are confused and things aren’t going smoothly.

How Planning Aids Leaders in Execution

1. Planning Assists Leaders Establish Expectations

One of the primary advantages of a plan is that it serves as a tool for communication. People are aware of when they should begin and when they should complete a task.

People know when things are going to happen, so they know what to expect. It often doesn’t matter whether your plan says something would happen in two weeks or two months. So long as people are aware of what is going on.

A plan also makes a management appear to have given some thought to what they are doing. When done correctly, this has the added benefit of garnering them respect and credibility.

2. Planning Aids Leaders in Resource Allocation

Many reforms and projects fail because the correct individuals are not available to execute the work. You’ll never know how many people you’ll need or when you’ll need them if you don’t have a strategy.

This means you’ll be locked in a never ending circle of “We’ll know the solution when we get there”. But…you never arrive. So plan ahead of time and think about it.

You don’t have to be operating a project to be concerned about resources. If any additional work will necessitate the assistance of your team, you must first determine how much effort is required so that you can recruit more support to complete your regular tasks.

In other words, a plan is for everyone, not just the one who created it!

3. Planning Assists Leaders Hold Individuals Accountable

Without a plan and deadlines, work simply continues until someone completes it. However, if you have leaders that understand the value of planning and keep individuals accountable to deadlines, people will suddenly start to appreciate the plan.

People’s behavior alters when they follow the strategy. The work is no longer elective; it is now time-sensitive. This is how you start delivering things on time rather than dragging them out over long periods of time.

Remember that in order to hold employees accountable, clear expectations and repercussions for missing deadlines must be established. The consequences do not have to be harsh, but they must exist. Nobody improves or learns anything if everyone just shrugs and goes about their business.

4. Planning Aids in the Reduction of Uncertainty

When confronted with a large problem or assignment, it might be intimidating. Building a bridge, adopting a new software system, and giving a training session to your entire firm are all significant endeavors.

So, how long does it take? You can guess without a plan, but you won’t have a decent notion. This ambiguity might be stressful for you and your team.

A strategy can assist you determine whether or not you’re in trouble. You’re flying blind without it!

Why Can’t We Just Figure Things Out As We Go?

Leaders may be tempted to merely figure things out as they go. “We won’t know till we arrive.” This is not always the case. You can sort out a lot of the answers and establish a strategy if the correct people are involved in the planning process. It doesn’t have to be flawless, but it’s a start.

When you merely figure things out as you go, you run into problems.

1. Future work has been postponed. There is a ripple effect when things take longer than intended. You don’t know if this will happen unless you plan for it.
2. Expenses mount. It takes money to keep things dragging on. Even if you use personnel who have already been paid, you are wasting money. Why? Because they might be doing something else.
3. Uncertainty grows. Nobody knows when things will happen if there is no plan. It’s a game of chance that adds to workplace stress and discomfort. —

The significance of planning cannot be overstated. Make a strategy today to take charge of your destiny. Your employees and colleagues will appreciate it.

---

Case Study: Having Right Leaders To Execute Plans

The army appeared to have lost its versatility just five years after World War II ended, when it found itself fighting in Korea. The same force that had defeated the Nazis and the Japanese empire was forced down the Korean peninsula twice in 1950 by poorly equipped peasant forces. It was harried south by North Korean forces in the summer, and then surprised by the Chinese army in late October.

Lieutenant General Matthew Ridgway was sent to try to turn the war around at the end of 1950. On his first morning in Korea, Ridgway got into the bombardier’s compartment of a B-17 to fly over and study the peninsula’s rough topography. Later that day, he paid a visit to South Korea’s president. Following that, and most importantly, he spent the majority of three days visiting his combat commanders. He was astounded to see that the leadership of American troops was frequently as bad as their morale. The commanders had not researched the terrain on which they were fighting. They had kept their forces on the roadways rather than stationing them on peaks. They had also failed to coordinate with flanking battalions. “The troops were perplexed,” said Ridgway in Military Review in 1990. “They had been handled poorly tactically and logistically.”

How did mediocrity permeate an officer corps famed for its excellence so quickly? The emphasis on a single clear purpose and who was best qualified to pursue it was lost, and the criteria for evaluating leadership became confused by other concerns. One of the issues in Korea was that the army was seeking to offer officers who had been stuck on staff in WWII an opportunity to command in battle, partly out of fairness and partly to help season the officer corps in case of a confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Ridgway took decisive action. When he discovered that the army’s headquarters in Korea were 180 miles south of the front lines, he ordered that it be relocated closer to the combat. He also opted to fire a few of his top commanders. “Can’t execute my future plans with present leaders,” he wrote to the army chief of staff. He would remove one corps commander, five of his six division commanders, and 14 of his 19 regimental commanders during the next three months. Ridgway quickly succeeded in turning the war around; it was an example of transformative leadership that would have gone unnoticed if it hadn’t happened in a little, unpopular conflict on the other side of the world.

---

Tactical vs Operational Planning

When opposed to operational and joint level planning, tactical and service level planning, such as the army’s military decision-making process (MDMP), is relatively simple. Before delving into the specifics of managing and comprehending operational planning teams (OPTs), it is important to distinguish between tactical or service level planning and operational level of war planning.

Despite the hype of mission command, tactical planning requires clear guidance from higher levels of command. Indeed, the MDMP requires commanders and staffs to do a two-level analysis of the mission and objective. Battalions, Brigades, and even divisions can copy and paste their higher headquarters’ mission statement into their own mission analysis and subsequent orders. Planners at the joint staff and combatant commanders do not have this luxury. At the operational level of conflict, planners must decipher frequently ambiguous strategic direction. This direction could come in the form of presidential speeches, Secretary of Defense remarks, tweets and other social media postings, or publications like the National Security or National Defense Strategy. The last two may be two or three years old and say nothing about the current problem set, or they may be from a former presidential administration that considers them irrelevant. Strategic direction is not static, but rather changing.

---

---

Tactical planning is usually directive in character. When the commander decides on a course of action, the staff and subordinate units salute and move out. Planning and guidance are two-way conversations at the operational level. Officers working at the operational and joint levels quickly understand that they are rarely the expert on any given problem set. Planners at all levels must be comfortable picking up the phone and calling planners at higher levels to discuss published instructions in order to ascertain the intent or meaning of language in such orders. This demand exists because operational and strategic planners may be inexperienced and unfamiliar with joint level operations and processes.

At the tactical level, planners usually have the support of experienced key leaders who have dealt with comparable issue sets in the past. Indeed, within a battalion and a brigade, the operations officer (S3) and commander are often the most senior and experienced officers in the command. Junior officers have the comfort of assuming that the commander will steer planners in the correct direction. Life is a little more challenging for operational level planners. Officers working on the joint staff or inside combatant commands may be performing their first tour of duty above brigade level, away from their ship, or outside the cockpit. The possibility to phone higher headquarters or ask top ranking officers for exam answers is rarely an option.

When everyone in the room reports to the same boss, life is simple. At the tactical level, planners frequently congregate in a room, and the head planner commands the entire planning team. At the operational level, planners frequently seek consensus among personnel in the room. Members of the planning team may represent other combatant commands, government agencies, or other ally and partner nations in addition to the command. The directive method of “the commander said” does not work well at this level.

Not only must operational level commanders engage in communication with neighboring and higher level organizations, but that dialogue may result in non-doctrinal solutions or responses. Civilians working for the Department of Defense are not bound by short and simple mission statements. Indeed, at the operational level, mission statements of a combatant command or multi-national task force are a type of strategic communication to the rest of the globe.

Knowing and comprehending capabilities is another crucial distinction between tactical and operational planning. Naval commanders, air force wing commanders, and army and marine battalion and brigade commanders, along with their respective staffs, have in-depth understanding of the capabilities under their command. Furthermore, these commanders and staffs typically have intimate knowledge of where these capabilities are located on the battlefield and when they are accessible for use. When developing combat plans, operational planners must be comfortable with unpredictability. At the operational level, planners request capabilities, and when such capabilities are given to the command, the timing of their arrival and employability is frequently unknown. Indeed, operational level planning necessitates the use of capability requirements rather than naming the particular unit as is done at the tactical level.

---