Military Decision Making Process: What to Know About MDMP

Last updated on July 3rd, 2026 at 08:37 am

If you’ve ever worked on a Battalion level staff (or higher echelon) there’s a good chance you participated in the Military Decision Making Process. And if you haven’t served at the Battalion level or higher, you should educate yourself on the topic so you can be prepared.

In the paragraphs below, I will provide an overview of the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), so you understand what it is and how it works.

Things You Should Know About MDMP

Here are some basic things you should know about MDMP:

• Used by Battalion level staffs and higher; smaller sized units use the Troop Leading Procedures.
• It is a single, established and analytical process.
• It is a tool that assists the commander and staff in developing a plan.
• It is used in tactical and garrison environments.
• The MDMP helps the commander and his staff examine a battlefield situation and reach logical decisions.
• The process helps them apply thoroughness, clarity, sound judgment, logic, and professional knowledge to reach a decision.
• It is a continuous process throughout the duration of the operation (before, during and after).
• It is command driven, involves all staff sections and is normally led by the Plans Officer, Chief of Staff, XO or S3.

Commanders initiate the MDMP upon receipt of or in anticipation of a mission. Commanders and staffs often begin planning in the absence of a complete and approved higher headquarters’ operation plan (OPLAN) or operation order (OPORD). In these instances, the headquarters begins a new planning effort based on a WARNORD and other directives, such as a planning order or an alert order from their higher headquarters. This requires active collaboration with the higher headquarters and parallel planning among echelons as the plan or order is developed. ~ The Lightning Press

Advantages & Disadvantages

The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) offers several advantages that contribute to effective planning and mission execution. One of its primary strengths is its structured and systematic approach, which ensures that commanders and staff thoroughly analyze all aspects of a mission before making decisions.

The MDMP fosters collaboration among the staff, which allows for diverse expertise to be brought into the decision-making process. This team-oriented approach helps to identify potential risks, gaps in resources, and alternative courses of action that may not be immediately apparent to the commander.

Additionally, the MDMP emphasizes careful mission analysis, which reduces the likelihood of overlooking critical details, helping commanders make informed, well-reasoned decisions. The process also encourages the consideration of contingencies and alternate plans, which enhances flexibility and adaptability in complex operational environments.

However, the MDMP also has its disadvantages, particularly in terms of time and complexity. The structured nature of the process requires significant time and effort to complete, which can be a disadvantage in fast-paced or time-sensitive situations.

In high-pressure environments where rapid decision-making is necessary, the detailed and multi-step approach of the MDMP may hinder the speed with which decisions are made. The time-consuming nature of the process can lead to delays in execution, especially if there is a need for continual revisions or reassessments as the situation evolves. This becomes especially challenging for commanders in environments that require agile responses, such as in tactical operations or when unexpected changes occur on the battlefield.

Another drawback of the MDMP is that it may sometimes lead to analysis paralysis, where the sheer volume of information gathered and analyzed causes delays in making final decisions. This happens when the staff becomes so focused on collecting data, examining different options, and perfecting the plan that it delays moving forward with execution.

In some cases, the process can also lead to a heavy reliance on staff work, which may create bottlenecks if key personnel are unavailable or overwhelmed with other tasks. Additionally, if the MDMP is not carefully managed, it can become a rigid and bureaucratic process that lacks the flexibility needed for dynamic and rapidly changing operational environments.

While the MDMP provides a thorough and organized framework for decision-making, its disadvantages may be mitigated with effective time management and flexibility to allow for quicker decision-making when required.

The Military Decision Making Process: 7 Steps

The seven basic steps in the Military Decision Making Process are:

1. Receipt of Mission
2. Mission Analysis
3. Course of action (COA) Development
4. COA Analysis (aka Wargaming)
5. COA Comparison
6. COA Approval
7. Orders Production

Let’s cover each of these seven steps of the Military Decision Making Process in more detail below.

# 1: Receipt of Mission

The Receipt of Mission is the first step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) and serves as the foundation for planning and executing operations. It begins when the commander and staff receive a mission from higher headquarters, typically in the form of a warning order or operation order (OPORD).

This phase involves the initial analysis of the mission to ensure that the team understands what is being asked of them, the timeline for completion, and the higher commander’s intent. The Receipt of Mission stage is critical because it ensures that everyone is aligned on the task at hand and sets the conditions for a successful planning process.

For example, when a company commander receives a mission to conduct a battalion-level air assault, the first step is to understand the key objectives: secure landing zones, eliminate enemy resistance, and establish a defensive perimeter. These essential tasks set the stage for more detailed planning in subsequent steps.

During the Receipt of Mission phase, the commander and staff must also assess the commander’s intent and mission variables such as terrain, enemy capabilities, and available resources. This allows the team to begin forming initial assumptions and questions that will guide the planning process.

For instance, if the mission involves defending a critical position, the commander would need to evaluate the available forces, the terrain, and the time to prepare, along with potential constraints or risks such as adverse weather conditions or limited logistical support.

As part of this process, the commander may issue initial guidance to the staff, prioritize tasks, and begin coordinating the necessary resources. While the Receipt of Mission is not the time for in-depth analysis, it sets the stage for the more detailed mission analysis that will follow, ensuring that everyone has a common understanding of the task and the intent behind it.

# 2: Mission Analysis

Mission Analysis is the second step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) and is crucial for ensuring that the mission is fully understood and that all necessary factors are considered before moving forward with the planning phase. During this stage, the commander and staff focus on analyzing the mission received from higher headquarters in detail.

The goal is to break down the task at hand, identify the required resources, assess potential challenges, and ensure that all essential components are clearly understood. This includes understanding the commander’s intent, specified tasks, implied tasks, and constraints.

For example, if a company is tasked with conducting a raid on a target location, mission analysis would involve not only the primary task (seizing the target) but also any supporting tasks such as securing routes, preventing enemy reinforcements, and ensuring civilian protection. It’s also a time to clarify priorities and ensure that all team members are clear on their roles in achieving the overall mission.

A key aspect of mission analysis is the use of tools such as war-gaming, the use of intelligence reports, and terrain analysis to develop an accurate understanding of the operational environment. This is where the staff identifies critical factors such as enemy capabilities, likely courses of action, and any assumptions that need to be tested as planning progresses.

In addition to the military aspects, the mission analysis phase should take into account factors such as logistics, communications, and coordination with adjacent units. For example, in a convoy protection mission, this step would include assessing potential ambush points along the route, the number of vehicles involved, fuel requirements, and potential support needed for casualty evacuation.

By the end of the mission analysis, the commander and staff should have a comprehensive understanding of the situation and a clear outline of the tasks and resources required, which will form the foundation for developing detailed courses of action in the next phase of the MDMP.

# 3: Course of Action Development

Course of Action (COA) Development is the third step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), where the commander and staff generate multiple potential solutions to the mission based on the information gathered during the mission analysis phase. In this step, the focus is on brainstorming and creating different ways to accomplish the mission objectives while considering the operational environment, available resources, and constraints.

The staff will typically propose several COAs, each representing a distinct approach to achieving the mission. For example, if a company is tasked with securing a town, the staff might develop three COAs: one focusing on a direct assault, another involving a deception operation to divert enemy attention, and a third based on a flanking maneuver that uses terrain to advantage. Each COA is crafted to exploit different strengths and minimize risks, allowing the commander to choose the best approach.

Each COA is developed with a clear emphasis on the commander’s intent and must be feasible, acceptable, and suitable for the mission. The COAs are designed with the key mission variables—such as time, space, enemy capabilities, and resources—in mind. Additionally, the staff will consider potential contingencies and risk mitigation measures, as well as logistical requirements and supporting elements.

For instance, in a mission to disrupt enemy supply lines, one COA might involve rapid air insertion to strike at key choke points, while another COA might rely on ground reconnaissance to identify vulnerabilities. As each COA is developed, it is crucial that it remains flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances, such as enemy movements or unexpected environmental factors.

Once the COAs are fully developed, the staff will present them for analysis and comparison in the next phase of the MDMP, allowing the commander to make an informed decision about the best course of action to take.

# 4: COA Analysis (Wargaming)

Course of Action (COA) Analysis: War-gaming is the fourth step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), where the staff systematically evaluates and tests each COA to determine its feasibility, effectiveness, and potential risks. During war-gaming, the team simulates the execution of each proposed COA to understand how it would unfold under various conditions, including enemy actions, terrain considerations, and other operational factors.

The goal of war-gaming is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each COA, anticipate challenges, and refine the plan to increase its chances of success. For example, in a COA for an attack, the staff may simulate enemy responses to various tactics, such as a counterattack or ambush, and assess how the attacking force would respond to these threats. The results of this analysis help to determine which COA offers the best balance of risk and reward, and which one is most likely to achieve the mission objectives with the least amount of loss or disruption.

War-gaming typically involves a “what if” approach, where the staff explores various scenarios and contingencies that could arise during the mission. The analysis includes assessing not only enemy responses but also the availability of resources, the effectiveness of logistical support, and the potential impact of external factors such as weather or terrain.

Each COA is tested through different “phases” of the operation, allowing the staff to identify potential bottlenecks, vulnerabilities, or logistical shortfalls. For instance, if one COA involves a rapid assault on a fortified enemy position, the war-game might reveal weaknesses in supply routes, communications, or the timing of reinforcements, prompting adjustments to the original plan.

Ultimately, war-gaming enables the staff to refine the COAs by evaluating them from all angles, ensuring that the commander is equipped with a comprehensive understanding of the possible outcomes before selecting the best course of action.

# 5: COA Comparison

Course of Action (COA) Comparison is the fifth step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), where the commander and staff evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and feasibility of each proposed COA based on established criteria. The primary objective of this phase is to objectively compare the different COAs side by side, considering factors such as mission accomplishment, risk, resource requirements, and potential outcomes.

During COA comparison, each COA is assessed using a set of predetermined criteria—often including feasibility, suitability, and acceptability—designed to identify which course of action offers the best chance for success. For example, if a company is tasked with clearing a hostile village, COAs might include a direct assault, a covert infiltration, or a psychological operations (PSYOPS) approach.

By comparing the COAs, the staff can evaluate how well each one aligns with the commander’s intent, and identify which approach is most likely to achieve the mission objectives with minimal risk.

To facilitate this comparison, staff often use a decision matrix or COA evaluation criteria table, where each COA is rated on several key aspects. These might include the potential for success, risks to friendly forces, logistical feasibility, and the time required to execute the plan.

For example, the direct assault COA might be rated highly for its speed and overwhelming force but could score lower in terms of risk to soldiers and logistical requirements. Conversely, a covert infiltration might minimize casualties but take longer and require more precise coordination.

The comparison process allows the staff to identify trade-offs between COAs and make an informed recommendation for the best course of action. By the end of this step, the commander should have a clearer understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each COA, and be prepared to select the one that best meets the mission objectives while aligning with available resources and risk tolerance.

# 6: COA Approval

Course of Action (COA) Approval is the final step in the evaluation phase of the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), where the commander selects the best COA from the options presented after comparison and analysis. This step is critical as it formally finalizes the plan for the mission and sets the stage for detailed planning and execution.

After evaluating the COAs based on feasibility, risk, resources, and alignment with the higher command’s intent, the commander makes a decision on which COA to approve. For example, after analyzing several options for a mission to clear an enemy-held town, the commander may approve a combined arms assault that incorporates infantry, artillery, and aviation, as it is the most viable and effective solution based on available resources and the mission’s objectives. Once the COA is selected, the staff proceeds with the next phase of detailed planning to execute the chosen approach.

During the COA approval process, the commander may also refine the COA based on additional input from the staff or higher command. The approval is not just a formality; it may involve adjustments to the plan to address unforeseen constraints, concerns, or new information.

For instance, if the commander determines that the approved COA for attacking an enemy position needs to account for inclement weather, adjustments may be made to the timeline or tactics to mitigate the impact.

Once the COA is approved, the staff begins to formalize it into an operation order (OPORD), which provides the detailed instructions needed for execution. The COA approval ensures that the mission proceeds with clear guidance, unified focus, and the resources necessary for success. This is the final checkpoint before shifting from planning to actual execution, marking the transition from decision-making to action.

# 7: Orders Production

Orders Production is the phase of the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) where the approved Course of Action (COA) is translated into a formal operation order (OPORD) or a fragmentary order (FRAGO).

This is where the detailed planning that has been done up to this point is communicated to all units and personnel involved in the operation. The OPORD is the official document that conveys all necessary instructions for the execution of the mission, and it includes critical details like the mission statement, the commander’s intent, the concept of operations, the tasks for subordinate units, coordination instructions, and logistical requirements.

For example, if the selected COA is an attack on an enemy stronghold, the OPORD would include the timeline for the attack, the coordination for artillery and air support, the roles of different platoons, and specifics about the medical evacuation plan. The purpose of orders production is to ensure that everyone involved in the mission understands their responsibilities and how their actions contribute to the overall mission success.

During orders production, the staff takes the approved COA and organizes it into a standardized format that is clear and actionable. This process requires careful attention to detail, as the orders must be precise to avoid confusion during execution.

The staff typically uses the 5-paragraph OPORD format, which provides a structured approach to disseminating critical information. This format includes the following sections: Situation, Mission, Execution, Sustainment, and Command and Signal.

In addition, subordinate units or lower-echelon units may receive a FRAGO if there are changes to the OPORD or additional instructions that need to be communicated quickly. For example, if unexpected enemy movements are detected during execution, a FRAGO would be issued to update the force on the new situation and provide instructions for adjustments to the plan.

The effectiveness of orders production ensures that the entire force is synchronized and prepared to act upon receiving the order, ultimately leading to the successful execution of the mission.

How Does it Work?

Depending upon the size of the unit, most units have a Plans Team in the G3 section. The Plans Team normally has a representative from each Staff Section (G1, G2, G3, G4, etc.) that work with the Plans Officer and S3. In smaller units, such as battalions, the XO and S3 work with the other staff sections to complete the process (S1, S2, S4, etc.).

Normally, when a unit receives an order from higher headquarters the S3 or XO bring the staff together to inform them of the order. At this point, everyone analyzes their respective section of the Operations Order to conduct mission analysis. They analyze what must get done; they brainstorm potential courses of action and create a WARNORD. They also get guidance from the commander and then analyze potential courses of action. Once they finalize a course of action, and get it approved by the Commander, they prepare an OPORD. That is the entire MDMP Process summarized in a nutshell.

My Experience

I was fortunate to serve as a G4 Plans Officer for about 9-months. Although I hated the job, I learned a lot from it. I was in this position while preparing for a deployment to Kosovo. The job is difficult, stressful, tedious, demanding, and sometimes frustrating, especially if your only experience is leading small units and having limited staff experience.

However, I’ve come to realize that Plans Officers and Staff Officers play critical roles in developing a solid, thorough plan that must be executed by their subordinate units. For that reason, I think it is a critically important job that should be reserved for the best-of-the-best. It’s also a great job for “future commanders” to serve in before they become higher echelon commanders.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) serves as a vital framework for commanders and their staffs to approach complex operational challenges with clarity, structure, and precision. By integrating thorough analysis, collaborative planning, and a clear understanding of objectives, the MDMP helps ensure that decisions are well-informed, adaptable, and focused on achieving mission success.

While the process is systematic and time-consuming, it fosters critical thinking and promotes a shared understanding within the team, ultimately leading to more effective outcomes in dynamic and unpredictable environments. Understanding and mastering the MDMP not only enhances operational efficiency but also reinforces the importance of disciplined decision-making in the face of uncertainty, enabling military leaders to confidently navigate the complexities of modern warfare.

On a side note, if you have experience with the Military Decision Making Process, I would love to hear from you. Please tell us about your experience, such as what you learned, whether or not you enjoyed it, what job you had, and any advice you would share with our other readers.

Suggested Reading:

1. Troop Leading Procedures
2. Battalion S3 Duties & Responsibilities
3. Types of Orders in the Army
4. Military Career Tips
5. The Officer NCO Relationship

Resources:

1. MDMP Handbook
2. Battle Staff Handbook