U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Felicia Jagdatt

Officers entering the field grade ranks, likely since Caesar made the move, grew up being admonished with the adage “Failure is NOT an option.” The reality is while failure is not a consciously selected option, it is a possible outcome. The challenge for field grade officers is to determine how to capitalize on methods designed to anticipate points of failure and avoiding them while building flexibility into plans and orders. Leaders must seize every opportunity to learn and get better, this includes learning through failure. As Yoda said, “The greatest teacher failure is.” So, what methods exist to anticipate failure in planning and execution?

The Military Decision-Making Process

A key assumption check and a pre-mortem check are two methods easily adapted to the MDMP. These methods, when incorporated into the process, add value and do not take up much time. These two methods also encourage other voices to speak up, and more importantly, be heard and considered. (See the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies Red Team Handbook. Key Assumptions Check is on p. 163 and Pre-Mortem on p. 173.)

The key assumptions check is most useful at the beginning of MDMP, step I, receipt of mission or step II, mission analysis. We all know the pain of developing assumptions and the relief felt once the commander approves the assumptions. When have we ever gone back to question approved assumptions? A team can spend an hour or two articulating and reviewing the key assumptions. Rechecking assumptions also can be valuable at any time prior to finalizing judgments, to ensure that the assessment does not rest on flawed premises. Identifying hidden assumptions can be one of the most difficult challenges a plans team faces, as they are ideas held—often unconsciously—to be true and, therefore, are seldom examined and almost never challenged. At a minimum ask and answer the question, “What happens to the plan if this assumption does not become a fact.?”

The following questions assist in guiding the conduct of the method.

• How much confidence exists that this assumption is correct?
• What explains the degree of confidence in the assumption?
• What circumstances or information might undermine this assumption?
• Is a key assumption more likely a key uncertainty or key factor?
• Could the assumption have been true in the past but less so now?
• If the assumption proves to be wrong, would it significantly alter the plan? How?
• Has this process identified new factors that need further analysis?

Conducting a key assumption check at the start of MDMP broadens the context and base of understanding for the entire team and results in a better overall plan.

The pre-mortem is an equally useful method for enhancing MDMP. The purpose of a Pre-Mortem is to identify key vulnerabilities in a plan and this method is useful at any point during the conduct of MDMP and execution. I suggest using this method prior to MDMP step IV, COA Analysis. At step IV, you and the plans team have likely settled on one COA or the teams are convinced their COA is best. I prefer conducting a pre-mortem prior to war gaming. The result is a richer discourse during the action-reaction-counteraction method of war gaming. This method help decision makers and planners anticipate problems.

There are four steps to the Pre-Mortem exercise:

Step 1. Preparation. All members should be familiar with the base plan, at a minimum. Assume the plan was approved and executed.

Step 2. Imagine a fiasco. Assume the plan failed. Ask, why did this happen? What could have caused this? Specifically, ask what are the reasons the fiasco occurred?

Step 3. Generate the reasons for failure. Participants individually spend no more than 15 minutes writing down all the possible reasons for failure. It is important to do this individually first, so that the insights and experience of each participant are brought to bear. Take no more than 15 minutes to think and write.

Step 4. Consolidate the lists. Go around the room and solicit input from all members of the team, one at a time. Record the ideas on a whiteboard or poster paper. Continue until all ideas are exhausted. Keep the list and periodically review it during execution of the operation or training event.

Incorporating these two methods into your MDMP, for training events or combat operations, will ensure you hear more thoughts from the team (avoiding groupthink) and encourage critical thinking by all team members. As the field grade leader, you must also communicate to the commander how you are enhancing the MDMP and educating the staff in critical thinking. Give the commander the list and tell him/her how the staff is using it to generate indications and warnings to avoid failure and while also developing branch and sequel plans to take advantage of the opportunities problems may afford. You should also share the list with subordinate commanders as a means of building the trust necessary to sustain mission command.

Applying these critical thinking methods is not courting or encouraging failure. These are methods intended to anticipate points of failure and encourage all team members to think and contribute to the process. These methods also encourage team members to continue thinking during execution, reinforcing the conduct of the staff (and commander’s) running estimate. Does the use of these methods require courage, YES. Do these methods guarantee success, NO. But applying these methods does bring nuance to your planning and establishes conditions for thoughtful execution as well as building an atmosphere of trust. These methods work and I hope you consider incorporating them into your planning process.

Col. (R) Kevin C.M. Benson, PhD, had the privilege of commanding 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry from April 1998 to May 2000. He served as the Director, School of Advanced Military Studies and as the Assistant Chief of Staff, C5 (Plans), Combined Forces Land Component Command/Third US Army during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He served in Armor and Cavalry units in the United States and Germany. He also served as the Chief of Plans for the XVIII Airborne Corps. He is a graduate of the US Army Command and General Staff College and the School of Advanced Military Studies and was a War College Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.