Military Decision Making Process Paper

There are several ways to ensure an effective transition between the conceptual planning associated with ADM (Army Design Methodology) to the detailed planning of MDMP (Military Decision Making Process). Maintaining ADM planners on the MDMP team, placing ADM planners in the lead of the MDMP team, constant updates, checks, rechecks, validating previous assumptions, and perhaps modifying how you view the problems as you gain understanding are how you manage an effective transition between conceptual planning and detailed planning.
The transition is important to convey the understanding and logic developed by the planning team. It is important that the members of the ADM planning team do not simply pass off a briefing and products to a MDMP
This ensures a clear “plan to plan” exists for the rest of the staff. The ADM team has a deeper understanding of the problem in the current state that provides valuable insight as they develop a path that plans to achieve the desired endstate.
As we conducted our ADM process during the CERASIA scenario, there were several times I saw biases in our planning. These biases can sway our way of thinking and ultimately our understanding of the situation. Without a clear understanding, we can’t accurately solve the problem or achieve our desired endstate.
The first bias I saw was the ambiguity effect; several members of the group didn’t complete the reading therefore didn’t have an understanding of the background of our problem. Therein, the members began to avoid areas of the plan where there was little information known. This left a lot of room to the imagination as we began to examine the relationships between the multiple actors in our scenario. The way to avoid this bias is to ensure all members of a planning staff are well read into the problem we are trying to solve. In some real world cases, this may mean traveling to a particular are to gain atmospherics and a better understanding of the
One group assessed the current state and group assessed the desired endstate. This was not effective whatsoever because each group was looking through a different frame. For example, the desired endstate group spent a majority of their time trying to analyze and understand the current state so that they could provide a feasible desired endstate; this was counterproductive as the other group was focused on the current state. In order to avoid this in the future staff planning, it is imperative that all planners are involved in every phase of the process. It makes little sense to separate planners and have them independent problems that are not independent events.
Throughout our ADM process during the CERASIA scenario, there were several times I saw biases in our planning. These biases must be avoided to enhance the effectiveness of the planning. These biases must be avoided to enhance the effectiveness of a planning team. An informed, independent thinking staff that is constantly communicating would have greatly increased our effectiveness in the CERASIA