‘The commander's decision for his unit … and the missions to subordinate units in support of the decision, are communicated to subordinates by clear and concise orders, which give them freedom of action appropriate to their professional knowledge, to the situation, to their dependability, and to the team-play desired.’[i]

In October 2024, ADF-I-5 Decision-Making and Planning Processes was released. The publication superseded Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 5.0.1 Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP), and Land Warfare Doctrine 5-1-4 Military Appreciation Process. Notably, with the release of this new doctrine, Army shifted from three to two processes, while Defence moved from one to two.[ii]

The two are the Immediate Decision-Making Process (IDMP) and the Deliberate Military Appreciation Process (DMAP).[iii] The two are now common to the Army, Royal Australian Navy (RAN), and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF); complementing the drive to become an ‘integrated force’. Central to the change was a need to emphasise the role of the commander[iv] and introduce the concept of ‘pattern matching’.[v]

Philosophically, ADF-P-5 Planning relies on assessing the situation, framing the problem[vi], developing options, comparing options, and then deciding and acting. The process provides a framework to help planners explicitly assess the environment, analyse the problem, consider the resources available and identify possible solutions. The option that best meets the situation, goals, and resources is then selected.[vii] The process makes military thinking, driven by heuristics, explicit.[viii]

Critically, neither ADF-P-5 nor ADF-I-5 tightly links thought, decision, or action to doctrine. ADF-I-5 specially requires the commander to ‘pattern match’ from their experience, rather than doctrine, to develop a satisfactory response. It’s as though doctrine doesn’t exist.[ix] Assuming doctrine is fundamental to action, how do we integrate doctrine into our decision system?

The legal system provides one worthwhile comparison. Legal problem solving requires reading a ‘fact scenario’ (‘the problem’) to identify the legal issues, identifying the applicable law(s), and then explaining the possible legal outcomes. Legal problem-solving is an essential skill for the study and practice of law.

There are several legal problem-solving methods. One is IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion); another common one is MIRAT (Material facts, Issue, Rule/Resources, Arguments, Tentative conclusion). The methods organise legal analysis so that a reader/listener can follow arguments. Pertinent to this article is that ‘the law’ is explicitly integrated (the second step), while doctrine is not explicit in Defence decision processes. Adopting an approach based on the legal method solves the lack of linkage between a military decision and doctrine.

Integrating doctrine into our decision process requires yet another rework of our decision-making doctrine. There have been several iterations since the appreciation process was consigned to the past.[x] Using the legal model, military decisions could be based on four core parts:

1. Assess the situation (issue).
2. Identify the doctrine that applies (rule).
3. Apply the doctrinal solution to the situation (application).
4. Deliver guidance and directions to subordinates or staff (conclusion).

For simplification, the model could be called a ‘four-step decision process’ (4SDP) or SDAD, drawing on key letters in each step. The advantages are simplicity, speed, doctrinal coherence, and applicability across all domains.

Assess the situation

Clearly understanding the situation is a necessity. The objective is to identify ‘material’ or ‘relevant’ facts, assumptions, missing information, the objective and/or outcome sought. Our current process starts with scoping, but includes framing, mission analysis, and past analysis of superior commander’s orders to name a few.

In addition, intelligence preparation has come and gone from the process. Each of the above could be considered tools to ‘assess a situation’, not as essential steps. Those tools should not be mandated (as is the current practice), but taught and then used judiciously. Part of the education and training process could be teaching which ‘situation assessment’ tool to use and why.

Assessment tells us ‘what must be done’, ‘where to go’, ‘with what resources’, ‘to what schedule’, and ‘to what aim’.

Identify the doctrine that applies

The missing element in our decision system is the identification of the appropriate doctrinal element that resolves the situation in our favour. Defence has tens of thousands of pages of doctrine, which must be of some use outside of the schoolhouse. The identification of the applicable doctrine is essentially the first effort at ‘pattern matching’, not experience.

Adversary doctrine, historical actions, personal experience, and discussions are additional parts if a doctrinal match fails to emerge. A ‘comprehensive pattern matching system’ needs to consider more than one’s experience, which could be as little as 12 months in the role, team, unit, or formation. Looking at doctrine provides a ‘thinking check’ by identifying if material elements were missed, or irrelevant elements considered. This is especially important in the field where personnel are in less than optimal conditions.

A second major area to search is the Lessons Repository(DPN link), where observations, insights and lessons can be found.[xi] If doctrine is weak, using this process will rapidly expose the deficiency and drive rectification through the lessons system.

Applying doctrine to the situation

By necessity, doctrine cannot cover every eventuality and is written in a generic fashion. Therefore, doctrinal guidance needs to be adjusted to the situation. This is where education, training, and practice rise to the occasion. Consideration needs to continue to reinforce a hierarchy of applicable doctrine and positive or negative precedents. The hierarchy and precedents assist a decision-maker in creating a decision envelope.

A lessons ‘before activity review’ (BAR) should also be part of applying doctrine. Lessons awareness reduces the repetition of common errors and highlights what may not yet have made it into doctrine. This process will be reasonably familiar to corps that have strong ‘rule compliance’ cultures, like Army Aviation. Consideration is needed to give elements the freedom of action appropriate to professional knowledge to the situation, to their dependability, and to the cooperation desired. Unfortunately, for those seeking certainty, often no clear answer exists, but many workable solutions will compete against acceptance criteria.

Applying doctrine and lessons to a problem should generate a workable solution quickly and with little need for discussion. Workability trumps perfection in time critical environments, such as combat.

Delivering guidance and directions to subordinates or staff

While IRAC and MIRAT wrap all the elements into a conclusion, the military needs to direct subordinates or guide staff. A suite of templates exists to direct subordinates or staff to undertake the work required to satisfy the commander’s needs. SMEAC, as a key example, provides a simple and common military template that works in the field and behind a desk. Focusing on producing a SMEAC product avoids the convoluted linkages that existed in the recent processes.

Conclusion

Tightly coupling doctrine to decisions modifies the decision process. IRAC and MIRAT from the legal profession provide some examples of how to achieve this. Doing so generates a four-step process: one – assess the situation; two – identify the applicable doctrine; three – apply the doctrine to the situation; and four – provide orders/direction to subordinates or staff. Considering and applying doctrine, as in the SDAD, allows doctrine to provide the guiderails to a workable solution. Try the doctrinal system and the approach contained in this article and place your observations in the Lessons Repository (DPN link).