JOPP vs MDMP: Comparing Joint and Army Planning Processes

Overview of JOPP and MDMP

One useful framework for comparing the Joint Operation Planning Process (JOPP) and the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) is to examine them from the inside out — that is, first within their shared procedural mechanics, then outward toward their differing jurisdictions and command relationships. The two planning processes share many similarities, particularly in their tactical objectives and in the art and science of delivering those outcomes. JOPP's wider jurisdiction outside the area of operations (AO) and its reach to higher levels of command, however, represent the most important differentiating attributes — themselves composites of multiple interlocking procedures.

Shared Objectives and Planning Structure

Both procedures share similar objectives and methods. JOPP and MDMP employ iterative and collaborative planning to achieve commander-centric but adaptive field objectives through a series of parallel steps. In general, the two models share the same number of major steps — seven — and both produce orders directing broad objectives to assets on the battlefield. This is accomplished through adaptive Course of Action (COA) formation and analysis that begins with command but incorporates feedback from staff, with ongoing adaptation as orders are developed, tested through wargaming, verified, authorized, and then refined downward into detailed commands achieving specific deliverables.

These steps proceed from wider overall mission and timeline analysis — where the output is a mission statement, the Joint Force Commander's initial intent statement, and a list of commander's critical information requirements — through the subsequent stages of COA development. The COAs under both JOPP and MDMP establish the purpose of the mission, the physical boundaries, and exactly how, where, when, and in what sequence warfighting functions will be deployed. Both iterative models contain multiple sub-steps within this stage, as staff fulfills command's information requirements and wargaming and comparison reveal all possible enemy COAs. Command responds by anticipating and refining all possible actions, reactions, and counteractions across the theater, along with methods for evaluating those effects.

Key Procedural Differences

Where these procedures differ is in the technical details that affect how the respective forces implement command directives, purpose, and intent. MDMP begins upon receipt of orders by immediately issuing a warning order to subordinate assets. The first stage of JOPP, however, integrates higher strategic, national, and campaign-level priorities into assessment and planning through the Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (JIPOE) before the equivalent mission analysis step — the step at which MDMP alerts subordinate headquarters of impending action — takes place.

Aside from specific terminological and procedural intricacies that exceed the scope of this discussion — for example, Centers of Gravity in JOPP compared to MDMP's concept of "decisive points," or differences in the number of steps and order products within COA development under each model — the most significant material difference occurs at the initiation stage. JOPP incorporates more senior command procedures before receipt or anticipation of impending orders triggers Mission Analysis under MDMP.

References

FM 5-0 (2011). The operations process. Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army.

GTA 41-01-004 (2007). Joint civil affairs operations and joint civil-military operations planning guide. Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army.