Tag: mdmp

  • Step 2: Mission Analysis — Turning Information Into Understanding

    “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.”
    — W. Edwards Deming

    I first encountered the second step of the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) as a staff officer with a Michigan National Guard cavalry squadron preparing to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I shared in my previous post on Step 1: Receipt of Mission, I didn’t take it seriously at first, and my inattention to detail showed. It was a lesson I took to heart—and one that I’ve shared often in my work at the community college: researching a problem and paying attention to detail early in the decision-making process matters as much, or more, than anything else you will do.

    In the military, the second step of MDMP is called Mission Analysis (MA). We call it that because in Step 1 we receive a mission from higher headquarters. In higher education, what usually happens in Step 1 is that a problem—or opportunity—is identified. What some of us have been practicing at my college is something similar: problem analysis.

    We conclude this step with a mission statement that we craft from our analysis and the problem statement we were given in Step 1. In the Army, Mission Analysis begins with inputs such as the higher headquarters’ order, any initial guidance from the commander, details about the area of operations, relevant higher-level information, and current data about your unit (often called “running estimates”).

    These inputs can be voluminous. With this information, the commander’s team goes to work. That team includes personnel, intelligence, operations, communications, and logistics staff—as well as the chaplain, engineers, civil affairs, and anyone else with relevant expertise. Under the leadership of the battalion (or squadron) executive officer, this group prepares a formal briefing for the commander.

    Leaving the commander out of the room at this stage is intentional. The goal is to allow the staff to analyze freely and prepare an organized presentation so that, when briefed, the commander receives the best information possible—and can ask informed, targeted questions of a well-prepared team.

    When the time allotted for Mission Analysis ends, the staff conducts the Mission Analysis Briefing. When I served on that cavalry squadron staff, this was the most comprehensive briefing in the entire MDMP process—and one we constantly referred back to during later stages. It included the area of operations and interest, anticipated weather, enemy forces, civil considerations, and the friendly forces situation, among many other factors. We also briefed key facts and assumptions, critical information requirements, potential risks, constraints, and finally a proposed mission statement and timeline from the present moment through mission execution.

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    Adapting the Framework to Higher Education

    At my community college, we’ve adapted this military model to our own context while keeping its core strengths: disciplined analysis and a shared understanding before moving forward. We call ours a Problem Analysis Briefing. It’s not yet a formal procedure, but more and more teams are beginning to use it.

    Our current Problem Analysis Briefing format includes:

    • Mission Statement of the College
    • The problem statement we’ve been assigned to solve
    • Constraints from leadership
    • Leadership’s criteria for evaluating proposed solutions
    • A proposed decision matrix or rubric for leadership’s use
    • Implied tasks
    • Available resources internally and externally
    • Research and case studies showing how other institutions addressed similar challenges
    • Critical facts related to the problem
    • Assumptions being made as we frame solutions
    • Risks and potential second- and third-order effects of our proposed solutions
    • A proposed mission statement to guide us in developing those solutions

    Leadership is seated for this briefing and asked to approve the proposed mission statement. As in the Army, approval is not guaranteed—they may ask for more data, modify our language, or even rewrite the statement themselves. Once approved, they may issue updated intent, constraints, or priorities.

    Why the Leader Should Stay “Out of the Room”

    Just as the commander remains out of the room during Mission Analysis, it’s often wise for the leader to remain out during the Problem Analysis phase. This isn’t about exclusion—it’s about clarity.

    When the leader steps back, it allows the team to examine the issue honestly, without shaping their findings around what they think the leader wants to hear. It encourages creative thinking, balanced critique, and a full airing of data and perspectives. When the leader later reenters the process, they encounter a cohesive, prepared team—one that has wrestled with the complexity, organized its findings, and can now brief the leader confidently and clearly.

    In both the Army and higher education, that separation builds trust. The leader demonstrates confidence in their team’s analytical ability, and the team, in turn, delivers sharper, more objective insights. The result is the same in both worlds: better understanding leads to better decisions.

    And then, just like in the field, we move on to Step 3: Course of Action Development—where artistry and creativity meet the discipline of analysis.
    That’s where ideas begin to take shape, built on the firm foundation of shared understanding.

  • Step 1: Receipt of Mission — When Awareness Becomes Action

    “The first duty of any commander is to understand what he is being asked to do.”
     — Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery

    “The first step of MDMP is never taken alone — it starts with people, purpose, and a problem to solve.”

    When a U.S. Army unit of battalion size or larger receives an order—or even an alert that an order is coming—the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) begins.

    In early 2007, the Michigan National Guard unit I belonged to (1-126 Cavalry, 37th Infantry Brigade Combat Team) was alerted that we should expect to be mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2008. Thus began nearly a year of preparation. Much of it focused on individual and small-unit readiness: M4 carbine qualification, crew-served weapons training, maintenance, new equipment fielding, and a plethora of administrative tasks that accompany deployment. Security clearance renewals, medical screenings, paperwork, life-insurance updates—the list felt endless.

    But while soldiers trained, our commander and his staff began planning how we would execute the mission once we hit the ground. Initially, this planning was broad and conceptual since the specific mission was not yet defined. Over time, it grew sharper: we would provide convoy security to ensure the safe delivery of logistical supplies moving north from Kuwait into Iraq. And all of it began with a single alert order.

    Readiness is built in the details — repetition, feedback, and the willingness to learn before it counts.

    Receiving a mission initiates MDMP. The unit’s current status is updated, available information is gathered, and subordinate units are alerted. The battalion (or, in my case, squadron) commander issues initial guidance to company and troop-level leaders. It’s the start of deliberate, coordinated thought.

    At our community college, this step most closely resembles the identification of a problem. Kalamazoo Valley Community College’s mission—

    “Kalamazoo Valley Community College creates innovative and equitable opportunities that empower all to learn, grow, and thrive.”

    —serves as our equivalent to a higher-headquarters order. It defines the purpose and intent of all we do. When challenges emerge that inhibit that mission, a deliberate decision-making process becomes valuable in identifying courses of action and determining the best path forward.

    As I’ve shared in earlier posts, MDMP offers more than a military planning tool—it provides a framework for disciplined, inclusive problem solving. Step 1, Receipt of Mission, reminds us that the moment a problem or directive is identified, the clock starts ticking. How we process that initial alert determines the tempo, clarity, and success of everything that follows.

    Looking Ahead: Step 2 — Mission Analysis

    Once the mission is received, the real work of understanding begins. Step 2, Mission Analysis, is where we dissect the problem, clarify assumptions, identify constraints, and define success. It’s the bridge between awareness and action—the point where good leaders transform orders into understanding. That will be the focus of my next post: how the discipline of Mission Analysis applies not just to combat operations, but to our classrooms, campuses, and communities.

  • Introduction to the Military Decision-Making Process — “If Everyone Is Thinking Alike…”

    Introduction to the Military Decision-Making Process — “If Everyone Is Thinking Alike…”

    “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” — Gen. George S. Patton

    In 2008, when my Cavalry squadron mobilized at then–Fort Hood, Texas, I was pretty cocky about the kind of intelligence officer I’d be downrange. I’d spent five years overseas as an intelligence collector for another agency, and I’d completed the Reserve Component Military Intelligence Officer Course at Fort Huachuca. I figured I’d be fine.

    Then pre-deployment training introduced me to the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP). As the Squadron S2, my job was to know everything available about the threat to our troopers. Our first training exercise packet—enemy order of battle, weapons systems, terrain, local communities—ran to hundreds of pages. I didn’t read it all, assuming I could wing it or look up facts on the fly.

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    When my squadron commander (who I suspect is reading this) asked for details I couldn’t answer, then asked if I’d read all the material, I admitted I hadn’t. He made it clear, in his own special way, that this was unacceptable. We were preparing to deploy to Iraq—hardly the time for cockiness, a lackadaisical attitude, or anything less than my best. I learned a lot that day.

    From Combat Operations to Campus Operations

    In higher education, I often talk about deliberate decision-making, and since 2008 my model has been MDMP. I define college deliberate decision making as a structured, intentional process for making choices that align actions with clearly defined outcomes—and with the institution’s mission and strategic plan.

    MDMP itself is a deliberate, collaborative framework Army leaders use to make informed, coordinated decisions in complex conditions. It’s a seven-step process that I’ll cover across several posts. It’s structured yet flexible (I rarely executed all seven steps in perfect sequence). And it demands input from every member of the commander’s staff.

    In the Army that includes personnel, logistics, operations, communications, intelligence, civil affairs, and more. In higher ed it often includes Counseling & Advising, Financial Services, Recruitment & Outreach, Development, Events, Wellness, and others.

    Why It Matters in Higher Education

    Colleges aren’t facing hostile fire, but our challenges are often complex, fast-moving, and nuanced—the exact environment where a deliberate decision-making model helps. Think student persistence and academic success, degree and certificate completion, cross-department coordination, and shifting federal and state priorities for different student populations.

    MDMP gives us a common language and method to move from operations to outcomes—on purpose.

    The Seven Steps of MDMP

    1. Receipt of Mission
    2. Mission Analysis
    3. Course of Action (COA) Development
    4. COA Analysis
    5. COA Comparison
    6. COA Approval
    7. Orders Production, Dissemination, and Transition

    At its heart, MDMP isn’t just about decisions—it’s about trust and collaboration. Patrick Lencioni, in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, reminds us that trust allows teams to engage in healthy conflict, commit to a plan, and hold each other accountable. Without that foundation, even the best process falters.

    The military understood that long ago, and higher education can learn from it today: when people trust each other enough to debate, challenge, and commit, that’s when we start thinking together instead of alike.

    Next Up

    In my next post, I’ll explore Step 1: Receipt of Mission—how deliberate decision-making begins with clarity of purpose and a shared understanding before the planning ever begins.