Skip to main content

7 thoughts on “Doctrine – LWD 5-0 Planning (Draft): Request for comment

  1. Can you advise what the subordinate procedural level doctrine publications underneath this title will be?

  2. The subordinate publication to the new LWD 5-0 Planning, at the application (LWD) level, will be LWD 5-1-4 The Military Appreciation Process. LWD 5-1-1 Staff Officers Guide and LWD 5-1-2 Staff Officers Aide-Memoire will be re-designated as LWP-G 0-5-1 and LWP-G 0-5-2 respectively as these publications are procedural in nature.

    1. Thanks Dudley, so I have it clear. LWD 5-0 Planning is conceptual level and LWD 5-1-4 The MAP and LWD 5-1-2 SO Aide Memoir are both subordinate and application level. Correct?

    1. LWD 5-0 Planning is at the conceptual / philosophical level. LWD 5-1-4 The Military Appreciation Process is the subordinate publication on the hierarchy. LWD 5-1-4 MAP contains the Staff MAP, the Individual MAP and the Combat MAP. LWP-G 0-5-1 The Staff Officers Guide is a procedural level publication and resides under the Command and Control BOS in the doctrine hierarchy. LWD 5-1-2 The Staff Officers Aide Memoire is currently being re-written and is likely to be published later this year. Once published it will be redesignated as LWP-G 0-5-2 and will also reside under the Command and Control BOS in the doctrine hierarchy.

  3. Comments on the utility of the publication itself:

    The current draft is a relatively short document which appears to largely ‘set the scene’ for the subordinate LWD on the Military Appreciation Process.

    As such, while it discusses planning at the philosophical level and briefly describes other planning methods the fact that there is only one subordinate procedural level publication the merits of a separate publication must be reviewed. The contents of the current draft may simply form an introductory chapter to the MAP publication.

    Comments with the draft:

    • In addition to the benefits of planning the limitations of planning should be identified/articulated. Although I acknowledge that some of these are articulated in the ‘common planning errors’ section.
    • Chap 1 – Planning also enables an organisation to be better prepared or ‘postured’ to respond to potential events – so it’s not always driving towards an objective.
    • Chap 1 – Is there a difference between a mental and a cognitive process?
    • Chap 1 – At the end of the section about what is planning it states that the MAP is the Army’s planning process. Making this statement would seem to make any discussion about other planning processes or methodologies in chapter 4. It would also imply that the contents of chapters 2 and 3 have been incorporated into the MAP.
    • I think there would be merit in describing how one might identify or confirm the requirement to plan. I have some views on this that I would be happy to share.
    • I think there would be merit in describing how one develops a plan to plan. I have some views on this that I would be happy to share.
    • The terms ‘end states’ and objectives imply backward planning. Forward planning should also be considered and this ties in with planning horizons.
    • I’m not sure I agree with the characterization of deliberate and immediate planning and by extension the utility of Fig 2-1. This may be an inherited issue from ADDP 5.0 but if not it warrants review.
    • In the common planning errors section it may be worth including possible ways to avoid these errors – particularly as one might apply the MAP.
    • Design…I have witnessed the introduction of Design into the US Army curriculum ten years ago and now in Australia. I firmly believe that ‘Design’ brings more confusion to planning than benefit. There is nothing in Design that having an understanding of your operating environment won’t achieve. I’m not sure why Design is something that is now under the commander’s section. I have never met a commander who doesn’t automatically strive to understand his or her operating environment and what is trying to be achieved – we used to call this the commander’s appreciation. Additionally, Design is probably not relevant to the tactical level. I recommend that all references to Design be dropped. I fear that they have already been incorporated into the MAP. This comment applies to Chapter 3 and 4.
    • I think the section about commander’s guidance is too prescriptive but at the same time doesn’t address the topic of risk appetite or timings. The battlespace analysis section would appear to be similar to the design section creating redundancy.
    • I have never come across ‘description’ or ‘direction’ as methods of planning. The two paragraphs for each are largely non-sensical generalities and only applicable to the full comd and staff MAP. These two ‘methods’ seem to be a ‘throw away COAs’ or filler paragraphs to pad out the section that essentially states that the only available methods are the MAP and the JMAP (which are essentially the same thing).
    • There seems little benefit in outlining the JMAP here.
    • Despite being a philosophical level publication I think more examples throughout the text would be helpful.

    My qualifications to comment: primary tactical planner for INTERFET intervention in Sep 99, taught joint planning at US Army Command and Staff College for two years, completed US Joint Interagency and Multi-national Planners Course, developed plans for Border Protection Command, developed operational plans for Multi-National Forces Iraq.

  4. Thank you for your comments regarding LWD 5-0 Planning. Your suggestions will be forwarded to the publication Sponsor for consideration prior to final production.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

The Cove is a professional development site for the Australian Profession of Arms. The views expressed within individual blog posts and videos are those of the author, and do not reflect any official position or that of the author's employers' - see more here. Any concerns regarding this blog post, video or resource should be directed in the first instance to