Blog

  • Who Has the Mic? OPORD Step 4 – Command and Signal

    “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” — Robert McCloskey

    The final major portion of an Operations Order (OPORD) that I will discuss is the Command and Signal paragraph. I will continue writing about OPORDs and how they can be applied to higher education, including appendices and fragmentary orders. For those keeping score, the one section I am leaving out of this series is Sustainment. This logistical section is less applicable to the day to day operating environment of higher education.

    In Army doctrine, Paragraph 5, Command and Signal, defines the location of key leaders during the mission, the chain of command and chain of succession, and instructions for communication, reporting, and coordination. The communication and coordination portions are certainly more applicable to our work in colleges, but a discussion of command is also warranted.

    For mission success, everyone needs to know the plan

    Decision Makers

    The command portion of an OPORD specifies the location of key leaders during the mission, the chain of command, and the chain of succession: who is in charge, where they are, and who takes over if they cannot continue. In combat, this clarity is not administrative; it is lifesaving. When conditions change rapidly, units cannot pause to debate authority or search for guidance. Decisions must be made instantly, and everyone must know who has the authority to make them.

    The absence of clear command leads to hesitation, duplication of effort, or catastrophic gaps in action. In a community college, the stakes are different, but the principle holds. During moments of operational stress such as enrollment pushes, campus security incidents, system outages, or large events, unclear leadership leads to conflicting messages, delayed decisions, and frustrated staff and students.

    Establishing clear command ensures that when something goes wrong, or simply needs to move quickly, the institution responds with coordination instead of confusion. In particular, having a plan for responding to active threats on campus is where understanding who the decision makers are, and where they are, can mean the difference between safety and catastrophe.

    Keeping the Team Informed

    If the command section establishes who is in charge, the signal section provides the instructions for communication, reporting, and coordination that allow the mission to function. In an OPORD, signal ensures that information moves clearly and reliably: who needs to know what, how it is shared, and how units stay aligned as conditions change.

    While command defines authority, signal is often where organizations succeed or fail in execution, making it especially relevant to the day to day work of a community college. In the sections that follow, we examine each component of signal, communication, reporting, and coordination, and explore how deliberate planning in each area can turn intent into consistent action.

    In a previous post, I introduced the concept of PACE planning as a way to bring discipline and redundancy to communication. The idea was simple but powerful: do not rely on a single method and hope it works. Instead, establish a primary, alternate, contingent, and emergency path so that critical information continues to move even when one channel fails.

    A shared understanding of the battlefield is critical to disciplined reporting

    In a combat environment, this redundancy can be the difference between coordination and chaos. In a community college, the consequences are less dramatic but still meaningful, as missed messages lead to missed opportunities for students and breakdowns in service. What PACE adds to the signal conversation is intentionality. It forces us to decide in advance how communication will occur, how quickly responses are expected, and when to shift from one method to another. Signal builds on that foundation by expanding the focus beyond individual exchanges to the broader system of communication that keeps an institution aligned and moving forward.

    Standardizing Formats for Sharing Information

    Reporting, finally, is the structured way information moves up and across an organization, turning individual observations into shared understanding. In Iraq and Afghanistan, reporting was constant and disciplined. Situation reports, spot reports, and significant activity reports ensured that leaders at every level had a clear, current picture of what was happening on the ground.

    These were not optional or informal updates. They followed standard formats, were delivered on expected timelines, and allowed decisions to be made with speed and confidence.

    In a community college, reporting serves the same purpose, even if the content looks different. Committee minutes, enrollment updates, advising metrics, and briefings to supervisors or cabinet provide the institutional picture that guides decision making. When reporting is inconsistent, delayed, or unclear, leaders are forced to operate on assumptions rather than facts.

    When reporting is timely, accurate, and standardized, it creates alignment, reduces friction, and ensures that the right decisions are made at the right level. It also keeps the institution focused on its mission and reduces the tendency to jump from one initiative to another in a haphazard way that frustrates staff and faculty and stalls progress toward strategic goals.

    The BLAB (Bottom Line At the Bottom)

    Command and signal are not separate ideas. They are the conditions that make execution possible. Command establishes who decides and who leads. Signal ensures that information flows, that communication is intentional, and that reporting creates a shared understanding across the institution.

    Together, they prevent the drift, confusion, and fragmentation that so often derail progress in higher education. The lesson from the OPORD is straightforward but powerful. If we want to move from planning to outcomes, we cannot leave leadership and communication to chance. We must define them, practice them, and reinforce them.

    Because in both combat and community colleges, success does not just come from having a plan. It also comes from ensuring that everyone knows who is in charge, what is happening, and how to act when it matters most.

  • Main Effort: The Discipline of Prioritizing What Matters Most

    “In war, the first principle is to concentrate the strongest possible force at the decisive point.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

    My last post, on applying the Execution portion of an Army Operations Order (OPORD) to higher education, needs a bit of expansion. I alluded to the idea of Main and Supporting Efforts, but there is more that can be said. Much more.

    Every operation, no matter how complex, depends on identifying the one activity that must succeed for the mission to succeed. In Army doctrine, the main effort is the unit, task, or activity that receives priority of resources and support because it is most critical to accomplishing the mission. Everything else in the organization is aligned to support it.

    I have seen the relationship described this way: the Main Effort belongs to the organization, unit, or department that “wins the fight,” while Supporting Efforts are conducted by those who make that victory possible.

    A Lesson From Convoy Operations

    Preparing for a convoy mission required attention to every detail

    Remember my unit’s mission from the previous post? During Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2008, my cavalry squadron conducted convoy security missions moving supplies from Kuwait into Iraq. It was demanding work. Multiple patrols were often on the road at the same time, and some missions extended far into Iraq for days at a time.

    The operational details varied constantly. Patrol routes changed. Maintenance demands shifted. Intelligence updates and weather affected how we prepared our gun trucks and when we could move.

    But one priority never changed: our mission depended on the safe movement of supplies north into Iraq.

    That was the main effort.

    Every other activity supported that outcome. Mechanics worked long hours repairing vehicles. Staff coordinated convoy movement and tracked patrols across large distances. Troop headquarters maintained communications with their elements on the road. Different parts of the organization performed very different roles, but everyone understood the same priority: the convoy had to arrive safely.

    Why the Main Effort Matters

    The main effort does more than allocate resources. It provides clarity.

    I wrote in my earlier post that plans rarely unfold exactly as expected. Conditions change. Problems emerge. Leaders must constantly make decisions with incomplete information.

    When people understand the main effort, those decisions become easier. Leaders at every level can adjust tactics while still protecting the mission’s most important objective.

    Without that clarity, organizations often struggle. Teams spend energy solving problems that are important but not decisive. Resources become scattered across competing priorities. Identifying the main effort helps prevent that drift.

    To those of you working in higher education, do these consequences of unclear priorities sound familiar? They apply to us just as much as they applied in combat.

    A Note on Supporting Efforts

    Once the main effort is identified, the rest of the organization is structured to support it.

    In military operations these are called supporting efforts (sometimes referred to as shaping operations). Their role is to create the conditions necessary for the main effort to succeed.

    Some supporting efforts may provide security. Others provide logistics, communications, intelligence, or planning support. Their success is measured by how effectively they enable the main effort.

    This structure ensures that the organization works toward a common outcome rather than a collection of individual priorities.

    The concept may seem obvious, but I am convinced there is significant room for improvement, and many opportunities to create a more cohesive operation, throughout the organizational structures of higher education institutions.

    Practical Application

    At my college, our mission is:

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

    We often shorten this to say we give everyone the opportunity to learn, grow, and thrive. As I noted in my previous post, the main effort in this mission is likely found in faculty instruction. They win the fight for us. Faculty delivering high-quality learning experiences is the core activity that defines institutional success.

    Many other offices, however, perform essential work. These include Admissions, Advising, Financial Aid, Information Technology, tutoring and success coaching, etc. Their purpose, ultimately, is the same: to enable students to learn, grow, and thrive.

    When institutions clearly recognize this relationship of main vs supporting efforts, decision-making becomes easier. Leaders can ask a simple question when evaluating processes, policies, and investments: Does this support our definition of success?

    Clarity Aligns Organizations

    One of the lessons military leaders learn early is that clarity of priority simplifies leadership. When people understand the main effort, they do not need detailed instructions for every situation. They can adapt, solve problems, and make sound decisions because they know what matters most.

    The concept itself is not complicated. But it requires leaders who are willing to make hard choices about priorities and communicate them clearly. It requires leaders to understand the mission, what defines success, and their role in achieving that success.

    Organizations that do this well gain something powerful: A shared understanding of what success looks like. In both combat and higher education, leaders who clearly identify the main effort give their organizations the focus needed to succeed.

  • Executing the Plan: OPORD Step 3 — Execution

    “The commander must decide how he will fight the battle before it begins; then he must trust his subordinates to carry it out.” — Gen. George C. Marshall

    Supporting the main effort

    I wish I had a copy of the Operations Order (OPORD) my cavalry unit wrote for our convoy security mission during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in 2008. It did not change much in the nine months we were there. We protected supply convoys leaving Kuwait for Iraq. Usually we handed the convoys over to other units in southern Iraq, turned around the next day, and did it all over again. It was not unusual to have over six convoy security patrols on the road on any given night. When missions went farther into Iraq, they could be gone for a week or more. Those were long days for everyone—from the troopers on the road to the ones ensuring vehicles were safe, maintained, and ready to roll again.

    While the Mission section of an OPORD emphasizes what and why an organization is doing something, Execution is where you get into the weeds on how it will happen. In my unit’s case, it is where the rubber literally met the road. This section identifies the main effort, assigns responsibilities to subordinate units, and explains how their actions combine to achieve success. Most importantly, it establishes what success must look like so that when carefully built plans fail to account for something unforeseen—as they inevitably do—the team can continue to operate and accomplish the mission.

    That shared understanding of success is where the Execution portion begins. Its first subsection is the Commander’s Intent. Commander’s intent describes the broad conditions that define success at the end of the mission through three elements: expanded purpose, key tasks, and desired end state. By clearly articulating how the friendly force, enemy, terrain, and civil environment should look when the mission is complete, it gives subordinate leaders the understanding they need to act decisively when plans inevitably change. Done well, commander’s intent aligns initiative across the force by clarifying acceptable risk, empowering disciplined flexibility, and keeping everyone oriented on the same operational vision. The commander is essentially saying: This is how you will know we have succeeded. When in doubt, keep this vision in mind and help us get there. The details that follow matter—a lot—but this section is foundational. In a community college, it is just as critical.

    For the 1-126 Cavalry in 2008 the main effort was moving supplies safely to Iraq

    Other elements in the Execution section include the Concept of Operations, a high-level description of how the mission will unfold; the specific Tasks to Subordinate Units; and Coordinating Instructions that apply across the force. In combat, these might include rules of engagement and phase timelines. The level of detail grows with the number of units involved and the complexity of the mission.

    How might an Execution section apply to a community college? The president might provide a narrative for the institution as a whole. In most cases, the main effort is instructional faculty teaching classes. Many other offices support this effort and must understand their roles clearly—Student Financial Services, Student Success Services, Information Technology, Admissions and Registration, cafeteria services, libraries, and others. An overarching order that explains how each office contributes to the main effort would be extremely valuable, and it would not need frequent revision. Like our cavalry squadron’s order in OIF, it becomes a standing reference and a tool for assessing institutional effectiveness. Strategic plans already exist and remain essential, but what I am describing is complementary: a mission-focused framework informed by the strategic plan and the college mission that clarifies roles and supports meaningful assessment across departments.

    Subordinate areas can—and should—build their own OPORDs and nested Execution paragraphs. I work in Student Development Services (SDS). At our college, this division is overseen by a cabinet-level vice president and includes Advising and Counseling, Event Services, Wellbeing and Thriving, Recruitment and Outreach, Workforce Readiness, and others. While nested under the college-level order, the SDS OPORD, and Execution paragraph, would specify how our area supports the president’s mission. SDS would identify its own main effort (likely advising), articulate the vice president’s intent, and publish coordinating instructions and shared SOPs. Capturing this in a deliberate format, following deliberate decision-making (see my posts on MDMP), would provide a powerful tool for executing Student Development Services role in the college mission.

    There is one more section of the OPORD that is especially important in higher education: Command and Signal. I will discuss that in my next post.

  • Communicating the Plan: OPORD Step 2 – Mission

    “The mission is the task and the purpose. If you do not understand both, you do not understand the mission.” Gen. William DePuy

    The purpose of an Operations Order (OPORD) in the military is to provide a detailed set of instructions for how a given operation is to be executed. This begins by grounding the team in a shared understanding of the current situation (context, the subject of my previous post), followed by an actionable mission statement, the commander’s intent for carrying out that mission, detailed guidance on how it is to be executed, and finally clear direction on communications, sustainment, and chain of command.

    Everyone must know the mission

    We can do the same thing in higher education. We have already discussed Step 1, the situation portion of the OPORD. Once a team is grounded in a common understanding of where it stands, it is time to give it a mission. That mission is an actionable statement—usually a sentence or two—that defines exactly what is to be accomplished.

    Because things rarely unfold exactly as planned, the mission will be paired in the next section (Execution) with the commander’s intent. This is critical, and it will be a central focus of my next post. It gives subordinate leaders a clear understanding of what their boss is trying to achieve and allows them the flexibility to adapt when circumstances change and the original plan no longer fits reality. Deviating from the plan in order to accomplish the mission is never without risk. But with a well-trained team, that very flexibility is often what makes the difference between success and failure when the moment of execution looks nothing like the rehearsal.

    The mission statement itself is strongest when it is forged through a deliberate decision-making process, such as the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) I have written about previously. While the OPORD’s Situation section draws primarily from mission analysis, the mission statement is the product of developing, evaluating, wargaming, and comparing multiple courses of action. In the OPORD, the mission stands alone as its own section, ideally only a sentence or two long. It is designed to give subordinates the Who, What, Where, When, and Why of the upcoming operation, and it should be short enough for everyone involved to commit it to memory.

    Remember your five W’s from school? In the Army they might look like this:
    Who – the unit responsible for executing the plan.
    What – the tactical task to be accomplished (for example, seize, destroy, secure, occupy).
    When – the time of execution, often given as a deadline or a “Not Later Than” (NLT) time.
    Where – the specific location or objective, often a grid coordinate or named area of interest.
    Why (Purpose) – the reason for the mission, indicating the desired end state, often introduced by the phrase “in order to” (IOT).

    We have a mission statement at our community college, Kalamazoo Valley, that comes surprisingly close to this military clarity: “Kalamazoo Valley Community College creates innovative and equitable opportunities that empower all to learn, grow, and thrive.” In a single sentence, you immediately know who we are, what we exist to do, and why we do it. The timeline is intentionally open-ended, for a higher education institution, that makes perfect sense. Where we do it is assumed, and a part of the name of our college.

    Every day on a convoy mission started with a reminder of the mission

    At its core, the mission section of the OPORD is about disciplined clarity. It forces leaders to express their decision in language simple enough to be remembered and strong enough to guide action when conditions inevitably change. Whether on a battlefield or on a college campus, a well-crafted mission aligns effort, empowers subordinate leaders, and provides a shared touchstone when plans collide with reality. In my next post, I will turn to the Execution section of the OPORD, where intent and mission are translated into concrete tasks, sequencing, and control measures—the point where planning finally gives way to action.

  • Communicating the Plan: OPORD Step 1 — Situation

    “The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish the kind of war on which they are embarking.” — Carl von Clausewitz

    Lots of things impact mission success, including the temperature in Iraq!

    “The art of command lies in making intentions clear.” In the last post, I argued that clarity begins not with tasks or timelines, but with shared understanding. That is why every Operations Order (OPORD) starts not with the mission, but with the Situation.

    At my community college, nearly all employees take the CliftonStrengths assessment. It identifies preferred ways of thinking and behaving, with the idea that if we understand one another’s strengths, we can work together more effectively. My top strength is “Context.” Gallup defines it this way: “People who enjoy thinking about the past. They understand the present by researching its history.”

    I have occasionally wondered whether that tendency is innate or learned. My suspicion is that it is largely learned. The Army trained me to begin every serious discussion with context. Before we ever talked about what we were going to do, we talked about where we were and what conditions shaped the problem in front of us.

    In a formal OPORD, the Situation section describes the operational environment: terrain, weather, population, friendly forces, enemy forces, and key assumptions. It explains who is present, what capabilities exist, what constraints apply, and what uncertainties must be accounted for. The purpose is not to overwhelm with detail, but to ground everyone in a shared understanding of reality before assigning tasks or setting expectations.

    That same logic applies in higher education. If we want people to understand the mission, they must first understand the conditions under which that mission must be executed. Agreement with a plan is not enough; people need to see how the plan fits the world they actually operate in.

    Macro- political and social realities, wildlife, terrain. All these were part of the situation on deployment.

    If you have used a deliberate decision-making process—such as MDMP or a close civilian equivalent—your Situation section will largely write itself. In an earlier post on Mission Analysis, I described how we adapted that step at Kalamazoo Valley Community College. That work provides most of what a strong Situation paragraph needs. For a community college, it might include:

    • The institutional mission and strategic priorities
    • The specific problem being addressed
    • Leadership constraints and non-negotiables
    • Available internal and external resources
    • Critical facts and data shaping the issue
    • Key assumptions
    • Risks and likely second- and third-order effects

    These sections can be written into a document and form the basis for a slide presentation provided to all involved departments.  A brief word on dissemination. Whenever possible, an OPORD should be briefed in person, then reinforced in writing. Questions, clarifications, and even disagreements are part of the process. In the Army, we expected plans to evolve and had a formal mechanism—Fragmentary Orders, or FRAGOs—to adjust them. I will return to that concept in a later post. Doing a formal slide presentation and following that up with a document of the entire OPORD, is the most efficient way dissemination can occur in my opinion.

    Context is not a luxury. It is the foundation. Whether or not “Context” is one of your natural strengths, your team needs it. When everyone understands the situation, the mission makes sense. And when the mission makes sense, the execution plan is no longer an abstraction—it becomes a coherent response to real conditions.

  • What the Military Got Right About Execution

    The art of command lies in making intentions clear. – Bernard Montgomery

    Operation Enduring Freedom 2012

    Most of us can think of a committee report or department directive that everyone agreed with—and then quietly moved on from. Execution is hard.

    The final step in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is issuing an order to execute the agreed‑upon course of action (COA). In the Army, the most formal way to communicate that plan is through an Operations Order, or OPORD. Creating and disseminating a commander’s approved plan is its own demanding process.

    One practical advantage the military has—especially before a deployment or during extended training cycles—is time. We were not constrained by an eight‑hour workday or the assumption that weekends were off‑limits. When the work needed to get done, we stayed until it was done. That reality makes producing something as detailed as an OPORD possible in a compressed window. Higher education quite reasonably operates under different constraints, and that places limits on how literally we can adopt the tool. But even in a simplified version, this is not trivial work.

    The underlying need remains the same in a community college. Having an executable plan for an approved course of action—one where everyone understands their role, the expectations placed on them, and how both individual performance and mission success will be assessed—is just as critical as coming up with a thoughtful strategy in the first place.

    Higher education institutions are full of good ideas: strategic plans, task forces, committees, initiatives with carefully crafted names and polished logos. And yet, execution often falters. The reasons are familiar—competing priorities, unclear roles, unshared assumptions, fuzzy communication, or a lack of clarity about what success actually looks like. An OPORD helps bridge the gap between planning and execution.

    At its core, an OPORD is structured without being rigid. It is designed for imperfect conditions. It assumes teams are distributed, busy, and not all sitting in the same room. Used well, it can be a powerful tool.

    Writing an OPORD does not guarantee success. History offers plenty of reminders of that reality, including the U.S. military’s withdrawals from Vietnam and Afghanistan. But a well‑written and well‑disseminated order does guarantee something important: no one on the team is confused about what is supposed to happen. Think of it as the transition point from vision to action.

    Action itself is never automatic. But one thing I see consistently in community colleges is strong leadership. Strong leadership combined with shared understanding of the mission will take you most of the way toward achieving meaningful outcomes.

    For the purposes of this series, I’ll use a simplified OPORD structure:

    Situation: The context, front and center.

    Mission: The short, specific, and time‑bound objective.

    Execution: Who does what, when, and why.

    Sustainment / Command and Signal: Resources, communication, and continuity. Remember the PACE plan from the last post? What happens when leaders move on in the middle of an initiative?

    I’ve written this before, but it bears repeating: the military does not automatically do things better. What it does have is experience earned in the ultimate school of hard knocks. There are lessons there that can be selectively and thoughtfully borrowed.

    Operation Enduring Freedom 2012

    One of those lessons is this: agreement is not the same as understanding. A course of action coming out of MDMP reflects alignment at the leadership level. Understanding is achieved only when everyone knows what the plan means for them. That is why we issued OPORDs—and why the concept translates so well beyond the wire.

    In the next post, I’ll start where every good OPORD starts: the Situation. Before we talk about tasks, timelines, or metrics, we need to be clear about context—what conditions exist, what constraints matter, and what assumptions we may be carrying without realizing it. Fortunately, a solid MDMP provides most of the context an OPORD needs. In higher education, getting the situation right is often the difference between a plan that looks good on paper and one that actually survives contact with reality.

  • PACE Yourself: The Overlooked Importance of Communication in Community College Student Development

    Two is one. One is none. – My Dad, probably a parent or guardian of yours, too…

    Communication Redundancy is vital to mission success

    Part of going on any mission outside the wire in Iraq or Afghanistan was the pre-mission communication brief. Every Soldier heard the same reminder: know the PACE plan—your Primary, Alternate, Contingent, and Emergency methods of communication.

    Like so many military acronyms, I’m fairly certain someone came up with the catchy word first and assigned meaning later. We loved our acronyms almost as much as our laminated checklists.

    But behind it was a brutally simple idea: redundancy keeps people alive.

    When your convoys or patrol elements are spread across kilometers of routes, villages, irrigation ditches, and wadis—and the situation can change in seconds—you don’t rely on one channel and “hope it works.” You build multiple, reliable paths to pass critical information.

    • Primary was usually FM radio.
    • Alternate might be a GPS-based system with a built-in chat function that reached headquarters no matter how far we’d roamed.
    • Contingent included SAT phones, especially when terrain blocked line-of-sight.
    • Emergency was often visual signaling—smoke for medevac, panels, whatever would get the job done when all the tech failed.

    You could brief an entire PACE plan in less time than it took to spell out the acronym. That’s how you know the system works: simple enough to remember, redundant enough to survive friction.

    Operation Iraqi Freedom 2008

    PACE in Higher Education: Redundancy Isn’t Paranoia—It’s Professionalism

    In higher ed—and especially in student development—our communication practices often drift toward the opposite of deliberate redundancy. Too often the unspoken plan is:

    “I emailed them. If I don’t hear back… well… I’ll wait. Or maybe call. I guess.”

    That’s not a plan. That’s hope.

    And hope is not a communication strategy—not when we’re serving students who rely on timely, accurate information about enrollment, aid, advising, or crisis support.

    What if we adopted a simplified, civilianized PACE plan to build reliability into daily operations? Something like this:

    P: Primary – Email

    Email should be reliable, predictable, and treated with professional discipline.

    • Priority-labeled emails should receive a same-business-day response, regardless of when they arrive.
    • All other emails should be answered within 24 hours (weekends and holidays excluded).
    • Anyone out of the office for more than a day should use an automatic reply that includes an alternate contact for time-sensitive matters.

    If email fails—or the response window expires—move to the next tier.

    A: Alternate – Phone Call

    If email doesn’t get results: call.

    • Out-of-office voicemail should include who to contact for urgent issues.
    • Voicemails should clearly state:
      • your name
      • why you’re calling
      • when you emailed
      • when you need a response

    If there’s no callback—or phone communication isn’t possible—escalate to the next tier.

    C: Contingent – Text Message

    A controlled, professional use of texting can solve simple problems quickly.

    • Administrators should have each other’s cell numbers stored and updated.
    • Offices should maintain a group-text list for after-hours or inclement-weather notifications.
    • Supervisors should maintain contact lists for their teams, and team members should have their supervisor’s number as well.

    If texting still doesn’t get the job done, move to the final tier.

    E: Emergency – Supervisor Communication

    If the mission-critical message still hasn’t been delivered, elevate it.

    • Supervisors should foster a culture where quick in-person clarifications are normal, not interruptions.
    • Within the PACE model, supervisor engagement becomes the failsafe.

    Use this method when:

    • prior attempts went unanswered,
    • the response is now urgent enough to require immediate attention, or
    • every other channel has failed.

    This isn’t about tattling or escalating conflict—it’s about preventing operational gaps that negatively impact students and staff.

    Why This Matters: Mission Success Looks Different, but the Stakes Are Real

    No one in community colleges is dodging IEDs or calling in medevacs. But we are navigating complexity, resource scarcity, shifting policies, and upstream/downstream effects that impact real lives.

    When a student misses a scholarship deadline because someone “thought the email would be enough,” we’ve failed our mission. When a department goes days without clarity on a policy because communication drifted, student service suffers.

    PACE gives us a framework—not for battle, but for reliability.It prevents the quiet breakdowns that derail enrollment, advising, retention, and campus operations. A communication plan with built-in redundancy isn’t military paranoia.
    It’s professionalism, clarity, and respect for the students who rely on us.

    Operation Iraqi Freedom 2012

  • Bringing Decision-Making Home: COA Analysis (Wargaming), COA Comparison, and COA Approval

    “You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality.” Vice Admiral James Stockdale (Medal of Honor)

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    In my last blog, we ended with the staff presenting leadership their best two to four Courses of Action (COAs), along with a recommendation for the one they believed would best accomplish the mission. That briefing included an analysis of each COA based on the evaluation criteria and the mission statement previously approved by leadership. Leadership then gets as much time as they need to consider the options, ask clarifying questions (which the staff must record!), and decide what comes next.

    When leadership receives a COA briefing, their response usually falls into one of four categories:

    1. Accept the staff’s recommended COA and direct them to wargame it.
    2. Identify two or more COAs as viable and ask the team to wargame each one and then compare the results.
    3. Send the team back to do more brainstorming.
    4. Suggest a COA the leader believes in that was not part of the original briefing.

    If option 3 is selected, it’s back to COA Development. In all other cases, the team moves into COA Analysis—what we called wargaming in the military and what I still call it today.

    Wargaming: Creating a Realistic Simulation

    Wargaming is simply a structured simulation of the selected COA(s). The goal is to identify risks to completion, consider ways to mitigate those risks, and refine the COA based on what the simulation reveals.

    I’m a firm believer that COA Analysis should be as visual and tactile as possible. Sticky notes on a wall, whiteboards, printed floorplans—anything that allows you to move pieces around. Seeing the plan in motion will reveal gaps, risks, and opportunities you would never catch on paper alone.

    A Community College Example: Three Campuses, 120 Students, Half a Day

    Recently, one of our high school recruitment coordinators, Demond, was asked to schedule a campus tour. Nothing unusual there—normally no need for deep decision-making. But this time they had a new ask: they wanted all 120 students to tour three of our five campuses, which are miles apart, all in half a day.

    Demond and I loved the idea and knew it was possible, but we also knew we needed a simulation to see what we might be missing.

    So we drew the campus buildings on a whiteboard.
    We used sticky notes to represent buses.
    We identified available staff.
    And with a notepad in hand to record every step, we played the morning out.

    Some insights emerged quickly:

    • If the school provided three buses, each going to a different starting campus, we could rotate the groups in a round-robin structure.
    • Two campuses were less than a mile apart, but the third was nearly eight miles away, affecting timing.
    • The school wanted students to eat lunch, but only two of the campuses had spaces where 120 students could eat.

    By walking through bus movements, lunch timing, and tours at all three campuses, we saw exactly where bottlenecks would happen. Our solution? We added a short presentation at our largest campus where students could hear from Demond. The students would share their interests and dreams, and Demond would share how education after high school could help them reach those goals. That extra activity created the time buffer needed to keep the entire event on schedule.

    Running the simulation took time, but it paid off. They day was a rousing success and we’ve already been asked to repeat it.

    The Final Step: COA Comparison and COA Approval

    When wargaming is complete, the staff prepares one last briefing. This briefing compares the results of all simulations (if more than one COA was analyzed), offers a final recommendation, and seeks leadership’s approval to execute the plan.

    One important note: approval must come from the administrative level with authority over every department or resource involved in the solution. In the military this sometimes meant taking the final plan to a higher headquarters to request additional resources. If those resources weren’t approved, we returned to an earlier step—but with a far deeper understanding of the problem.

    And that’s the point. By this stage:

    • You’ve done a thorough analysis.
    • You’ve followed leadership guidance at every turn.
    • You’ve developed multiple COAs.
    • You’ve simulated at least one.

    So if you’re required to revisit an earlier step, you do so from a place of clarity, confidence, and shared understanding.

    Up Next: Execution and Communication

    Execution is its own discipline, and it’s an area where the military excels. It starts with clear, consistent communication to every person responsible for carrying out the plan.

    I’ll talk about communication—and how it applies to higher-ed operations—in the next few posts.

  • Step 3 – COA Development: Where Creativity Meets Discipline

    “The dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.”
    — T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”)

    I have vivid memories of our TOC (Tactical Operations Center) covered in whiteboards and butcher paper. We were constantly developing alternatives to our current course of action—planning logistical convoy security, updating troop strength, tracking vehicle maintenance, and revising Electronic Warfare jamming programs as the radio-controlled IED threat evolved. While these aren’t memories of a full-on, end-to-end MDMP cycle, they remind me how involved our COA work really was—and how much it mattered that we were trained in a process that rewards thoroughness and attention to detail.

    Step 3 of the Military Decision-Making Process is Course of Action (COA) development. In the method we’re experimenting with at my community college, we keep the same name. Where Mission Analysis (what we call problem analysis) is an extremely rigorous, research-driven exercise designed to produce a well-informed staff able to discuss the problem with leadership, COA development is more creative. I’ve described it as a brainstorming exercise, but—as I learned in the Army—that creativity is tempered by the rigor produced in problem analysis. It’s also bounded by the approved mission statement and by the leader’s requirements, constraints, intent, and evaluation criteria. In short: creative brainstorming from a position of strength.

    At the end of step 2, Mission Analysis, the commander is briefed on what the staff has learned. The staff then recommends a mission statement and proposes evaluation criteria for assessing potential COAs. If the leader approves the mission and criteria, the staff reconvenes—again without the commander—to brainstorm ideas that accomplish the mission (in our context, to solve the problem). There usually aren’t many rules for this session, but because it follows thorough analysis and a leadership brief, the creativity stays grounded in reality. There’s no set number of ideas that must come out of brainstorming. When the session wraps, I recommend a short break before reconvening to apply the mission statement and evaluation criteria to the results.

    When the staff meets to refine ideas, start by reviewing the approved mission statement and the evaluation criteria. Post a simple decision matrix to narrow the list to a few COAs to bring to leadership. A decision matrix for a community college might include criteria such as impact on student outcomes, cost, time to implement, staffing requirements, risk, and alignment with strategic priorities.

    Begin by removing ideas that clearly fail one or more criteria, are unacceptable to leadership, or are impractical given constraints. Then discuss what remains. I recommend bringing no more than three to four recommendations to leadership; two to three is often better. You can evaluate as many options as time allows, but keep the final brief focused. For each COA you present to leadership, complete the decision matrix (some options will stand out on scores alone), write a short narrative identifying its decisive or unique element, and explain why it’s distinct. Finally, list the risks for each COA (costs, time investment, added resources, change-management complexity, etc.). Your available time will determine how many brainstormed ideas get the full treatment.

    Ideally, you want to give leadership a real choice. By bringing two to four strong options—each with unique points, risks, and rationales—you enable a detailed discussion of what best meets the leader’s intent. Once your staff work is complete, bring the commander/leader back in for their input. This is the leader’s COA presentation. At our community college, we’re using this format:

    • Brief recap of the Problem Analysis deck (emphasize changes since the last meeting)
    • Leadership’s approved mission statement and the approved evaluation criteria for choosing a COA
    • Slide on major obstacles/constraints to successful execution
    • Completed decision matrix highlighting quantitative scores for the 2–4 COAs being briefed
    • One slide per COA including:
    – Its score against the evaluation criteria (with notes)
    – Decisive/unique component of the COA
    – Rationale for the COA
    – Risks associated with the COA
    • Final slide with the staff’s recommendation

    After the presentation, the leader provides feedback. He or she isn’t deciding yet—they’re offering reactions to each COA, eliminating options they find unsuitable, and then handing it back to the staff for the final exercise. In the military, there are three more steps: COA Analysis (wargaming), COA Comparison, and COA Approval. For our community college, we’re finding that combining those into a single step makes sense. I’ll cover that in the next post.

  • 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.