Adaptive Planning & Execution (APEX)

1. Adaptive Planning & Execution (APEX)

2. The Problem Traditional deliberate planning is insufficiently responsive and relevant to the demands of today’s dynamic security environment • The 24-month deliberate planning cycle – too long (think speed) • Plans “static” and difficult to adapt – need flexibility and periodic updating to stay relevant (think flexibility) • Plans one-dimensional – need multiple options • Too little SECDEF influence, too late in planning cycle • Feasibility analysis time consuming and too late in the process • No technology to support ongoing collaboration – horizontally and vertically

3. Adaptive Planning and Execution The joint capability to create and revise situationally relevant plans rapidly and to a high level of quality, as circumstances require • DoD initiative to transform the way we plan and execute Joint Operations : • Better plans, with more options, more quickly; more SecDef interaction with planning • Keep plans relevant in a rapidly changing environment; adapt plans for execution • Leverage technology to maximize planner intellectual effort (art) and minimize the labor intensive effort (science)

4. Detailed Feasibility Analysis Done Late in Process t t Transforming The Way We Plan (speed) Go from here…. • Sequential planning by echelon • Periodic collaboration in physical space To here…. Detailed Feasibility Analysis Done Early in the Process • Process jump-started by detailed, clear guidance – up front • Planning benefits from iterative discussions between SECDEF and combatant commanders • Near-parallel planning across echelons • Continual collaboration in virtual space

5. …To Here OPLAN 9999A OPLAN 9999B OPLAN 9999C Multiple Courses of Action with Multiple Branches Transforming The Way We Plan (flexibility) Go From Here... Branch Plan 1 Base Plan(1 COA) OPLAN 9999 Branch Plan 2 Single Course of Action with One or Two Branches Threat/Forces-Based Capabilities-Based

6. Past Deliberate Planning Crisis Action Planning E X E C U T I O N Contingency Planning Crisis Action Planning Today Common AP process and collaborative tools Near Crisis Action Planning Contingency Planning Common AP process, collaborative tools, databases, and info grid Future Adaptive Planning Seamless, “End-to-End” Planning & Execution Future Transform Operational Planning

7. Background ADAPTIVE PLANNING ROADMAP II (Focused on implementation was issued Feb 2008)

8. CJCSM 3122.01 • J3 Publishes CJCSM 3122.01A, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) Volume I (Planning Policies and Procedures, 29 September 2006 • Introduces Adaptive Planning • Changes Deliberate Planning to Contingency Planning • Outlines Process and Procedures

9. Strategic Concept Plan Plan Assessment Guidance Development Development (Refine, Adapt, Terminate, Execute) IPR IPR IPR Contingency and Crisis Action Planning Situational Awareness Situational Awareness Operational Operational Planning Planning Activities Activities Execution Execution Strategic Strategic Concept Concept Plan Plan Plan Assessment Plan Assessment Planning Planning Guidance Guidance Development Development Development Development (Refine, Adapt, Terminate, Execute) (Refine, Adapt, Terminate, Execute) Functions Functions Six Month Review Cycle Six Month Review Cycle Base Plan (BPLAN) Base Plan (BPLAN) Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Concept Plan (CONPLAN) Concept Plan (CONPLAN) Concept Concept Plan Plan Mission Mission Operation Plan (OPLAN) Operation Plan (OPLAN) Products Products Execute Execute Order Order Warning Warning Planning Planning Operation Operation Alert Alert Order Order Order Order Order Order Order Order Deployment Deployment Order Order

10. JOINT APEX PROCESS RAT – E R efine A dapt T erminate E xecute

11. Goal • Joint Staff J-3 oversight (in concert with JS J-7 and coordination with Joint Planning and Execution Community (JPEC) ) of Adaptive Planning Roadmap 2007 • Adaptive Planning (AP) Roadmap (Version 2 ~ 2007) defines Adaptive Planning Implementation Stage • Based on Contingency Planning achieving “Living Plan” vision outlined in AP Roadmap 2005 {AP Roadmap 2005 defines the Initiation Stage} • Implementation Stage “. . . focuses on achieving seamless transition between deliberate Contingency Planning (CP) and Crisis Planning” • “This transition will establish processes, procedures, and doctrine to facilitate the hand-off between deliberate contingency and crisis planning.” * • “As a goal of the Implementation Stage, Military Departments and Joint schools will begin producing a steady stream of officers, trained and educated in AP.” * • “The revised Roadmap will describe modifications and changes to P3T {Process, Products, People and Tools} identified in Initiation Stage.” * In course of transition, Crisis Action Planning (CAP) with no plan initiation must be addressed * Source document: Adaptive Planning Roadmap 2005, page 10, subparagraph 3.3, “The Implementation Stage”

12. What’s Been Done (from Log AP perspective) • Formal standup of APEX Logistics Working Group • Logistics Governance Structure • APEX POAM complete • Planning Joint Logistics Support Pub • Documents agreed upon process • Tools in development • Joint Force Toolkit (demo videotaped and on the CoP) • Joint Medical Analysis Tool • Joint Engineering Planning and Execution System • Joint Logistics Analysis Tool (demo later in conference) • Way-ahead is for tools to reside in GCSS-J Logistics Planning Module

13. IPR A IPR C IPR F Step III – Plan Development Step I – Strategic Guidance Step II – Concept Development GEF / GDF JSCP Mob + Log Anx Infrastructure HNS Agreements PLANORD Apportioned Forces Theater Log Overview / Preferred Forces Draft Dist Network JOA-Focused Msn Analysis / Modeling Log C2 Integrated Estimate Force Flow Matrix Frameworks Sourced Forces Theater Logistics Analysis Concept of Logistics Support (COLS) Development COA COLS Refinement Plan COLS Validation LSA Framework LSA Theater Log Overview Log Sync Matrix Log C2 Laydown Log Sync Matrix Framework Draft Distro Network TDP Integrated Functional Est Log Capability Shortfalls Logistics CCIR CSA Spt Plans Draft RFF CON Spt Plans Force Flow Strawman TPFDD Development TPFDD Refinement J2 / 3 / 5 J2 / 3 / 5 / 7 J2 / 3 / 5 AOR Situational Awareness Inform Execution Integrated Estimate of Concept of Logistics Support Planning Detail Level (2 / 4 / 6) Increases as Planning Level Increases (1-4) APEX Joint Logistics Planning Process JOA-Focused Msn Analysis Initial Modeling SUP CON ENG FHP DIST MAINT L-SVC

14. Still to be done • Complete Planning Joint Logistics Support (PJLS) Pub • All 6 Logistics JCAs incorporated/integrated in order to develop a Joint Concept of Logistics Support • Theater Distribution Plan • Theater Logistics Overview • Logistics Supportability Analysis • Logistics Synchronization Matrix • Contractor Support Plan • Conduct Gap Analysis/Implementation Plan • Develop an objective matrix to rate tools • Align Doctrine-process-tasks

16. Readiness as a Central Logistics Metric Freedom of Actionfor the Joint Force Commander • Sustained Logistics Readiness • Required resources at the right time & place • Integrated Logistics Capabilities • Logistics expanding operational opportunities • Shared Resources • Most effective delivery of logistics at best value

17. What is Readiness? Readiness is having the capability to do something! Assigned Mission or METL ---------as viewed from-------- COCOM-Level JTF-Level Service-Level Unit-Level Platform-Level USA USAF USN USMC

18. APEX Envisions a Continual Readiness Assessment POTUS Wholesale Systems National Security Stragy Defense Strategy Theater Intel SecDef Strategic Direction Services Logistics Systems Nat’l Intel Defense Logistics Systems Defense Intelligence System Retail Systems Allied Intel COCOM “Living Plans” AMC US Army Defense Transportation System Defense Readiness System TRANSCOM US Navy Global Force Mgmt MSC SDDC OCS US Marine Corps US Air Force GCSS - ? Process Investigation Not Initiated Process Investigation Initiated Process Investigated