Notes on Fourth Edition of the Commander’s Critical Information Requirements

Fourth Edition of the Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIRs) Insights and Best Practices Focus Paper, written by the Deployable Training Division (DTD) of the Joint Staff J7 and published by the Joint Staff J7.

http://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/focus_papers.aspx.

Four overarching considerations:

CCIRs directly support mission command and commander-centric operations. Incorporate a philosophy of command and feedback in which CCIR reporting generate opportunities and decision space rather than simply answers to discrete questions.
CCIRs provide the necessary focus for a broad range of collection, analysis, and information flow management to better support decision making.
CCIR answers provide understanding and knowledge, not simply data or isolated bits of information. Providing context is important.
CCIRs change as the mission, priorities, and operating environment change. Have a process to periodically review and update CCIRs.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. CCIRs directly support mission command and commander-centric operations (see quote at right). CCIRs, as a related derivative of guidance and intent, assist joint commanders in focusing support on their decision making requirements. CCIRs support two activities:

Understanding the increasingly complex environment (e.g., supporting assessments that increase this understanding of the environment, defining and redefining of the problem, and informing planning guidance).
Commander decision making, by linking CCIRs to the execution of branch and sequel plans.

This is a necessary and broader view than the legacy role of CCIRs only supporting well-defined decision points. Commander use of CCIR provides the necessary focus for a broad range of collection, analysis, and information flow management to better support decision making.

Insights:

CCIRs support commanders’ situational understanding and decision making at every echelon of command (tactical, operational, and theater-strategic). They support different decision sets, focus, and event horizons at each echelon.
Commanders at higher echelons have found that a traditional, tactical view of CCIRs supporting time sensitive, prearranged decision requirements is often too narrow to be effective. This tactical view does not capture the necessity for better understanding the environment nor the key role of assessment at the operational level. Further, operational CCIRs, if focused at specific “tactical-level” events, have the potential to impede subordinate’s decision making and agility.
Develop CCIRs during design and planning, not “on the Joint Operations Center (JOC) floor” during execution.
Consider the role of CCIRs on directing collection, analysis, and dissemination of information supporting assessment activities – a key role of operational headquarters in setting conditions.
CCIRs help prioritize allocation of limited resources. CCIRs, coupled with operational priorities, guide and prioritize employment of collection assets and analysis resources, and assist in channeling the flow of information within, to, and from the headquarters.
Information flow is essential to the success of the decision making process. Clear reporting procedures assist in timely answering of CCIRs.
CCIR answers should provide understanding and knowledge, not simply data or isolated bits of information. Providing context is important.
Differentiate between CCIRs and other important information requirements like “wake-up criteria.” Much of this other type of information is often of a tactical nature, not essential for key operational-level decisions, and can pull the commander’s focus away from an operational role and associated decisions down to tactical issues.
CCIRs change as the mission, priorities, and operating environment change. Have a process to periodically review and update CCIRs.

“CCIR are not a hard set of reporting requirements limited to specific actions or events, but more a philosophy of command and feedback that can generate opportunities and decision space.” – Former CCDR

2.0 UNDERSTANDING TODAY’S COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT. Today’s complex operational environment has changed how we view CCIRs. Operational commanders spend much of their time working to better understand the environment, the decision calculus of potential adversaries, and progress in achieving campaign objectives. We find that this understanding, deepened by assessment, informs design, planning, and decisions.

The strategic landscape directly affects the type and scope of our decisions and also dictates what
kind of information is required to make those decisions. Today’s great power competition, interdependent global markets, readily-accessible communications, and increased use of the cyber and space domain has broadened security responsibilities beyond a solely military concern. The environment is more than a military battlefield; it’s a network of interrelated political, military, economic, social, informational, and infrastructure systems that impact on our decisions and are impacted by them. We regularly hear from the warfighters about the requirement to maintain a broader perspective of this environment.

The information revolution has clearly changed the way we operate and make decisions. We and our adversaries have unprecedented ability to transmit, receive, and disrupt data and it is growing exponentially, both in speed and volume. This has affected our information requirements in many ways. The sheer volume of information can camouflage the critical information we need. We are still working on our ability to sift through this information and find the relevant nuggets that will inform decision making. At the same time, we are recognizing the need for higher level headquarters to assist in answering subordinates’ CCIRs, either directly or through tailored decentralization, federation and common database design of our collection and analysis assets.

The lack of predictability of our potential adversaries complicates our decision requirements and supporting information requirements. Our adversaries are both nation states and non-state entities consisting of loosely organized networks with no discernible hierarchical structure. The Joint Force and our Intelligence Community is focused on better understanding the decision calculus of our adversaries, and what influences their decisions. Lastly, our adversaries no longer can be defined solely in terms of their military capabilities; likewise, neither can our CCIRs be simply focused on the military aspects of the mission and environment.

Many of our decisions and information requirements are tied to our partners. We fight as one interdependent team with our joint, interagency, and multinational partners. We depend on each other to succeed in today’s complex security environment. Likewise our decisions and information requirements are interdependent. We have seen the need for an inclusive versus exclusive mindset with our joint, interagency, and multinational partners in how we assess, plan, and make decisions.

3.0 ROLE OF COMMANDER’S CRITICAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (CCIRs). Many joint commanders are fully immersed in the unified action, whole-of-government(s) approach and have broadened their CCIRs to support the decision requirements of their operational level HQ role. These decision requirements include both traditional, time-sensitive execution requirements as well as the longer term assessment, situational understanding, and design and planning requirements. This broadening of their CCIRs has provided a deeper focus for the collection and analysis efforts supporting all three event horizons.

CCIRs doctrinally contain two components: priority intelligence requirements (PIR), which are focused on the adversary and environment; and friendly force information requirements (FFIR) which are focused on friendly forces and supporting capabilities. We observed ISAF Joint Command (2010) add a third component, Host Nation Information Requirements (HNIR) to better focus on information about the host nation to effectively partner, develop plans, make decisions, and integrate with the host nation and civilian activities.

Operational-level commanders focus on attempting to understand the broader environment and how to develop and implement, in conjunction with their partners, the full complement of military and non-military actions to achieve operational and strategic objectives. They recognize that their decisions within this environment are interdependent with the decisions of other mission partners. These commanders have found it necessary to account for the many potential kinetic, nonkinetic, and informational activities of all the stakeholders as they pursue mission accomplishment and influence behavior.

The CCIRs associated with this broader comprehensive approach are different than those that support only traditional time sensitive, current operations-focused decisions. Commanders include information required for assessments in CCIR to better inform the far reaching planning decisions at the operational level.

Prioritization. We also see the important role of CCIRs in prioritizing resources. This prioritization of both collection and analysis resources enhances the quality of understanding and assessments, and ultimately results in the commander gaining better situational understanding, leading to better guidance and intent, and resulting in a greater likelihood of mission success.

We have seen challenges faced by operational-level commanders and staff that have singularly followed a more traditional “decision point-centric” approach in the use of CCIRs. Their CCIRs are focused on supporting decisions for predictable events or activities, and may often be time-sensitive. This current operations focus of their CCIRs may not correctly inform prioritization of collection and analysis efforts supporting assessment and planning in the future operations and future plans event horizon. Absent focus, these collection and analysis efforts supporting assessment and planning may be ad hoc and under-resourced.

Assessment is central to deepen understanding of the environment. We are finding that many commanders identify their critical measures of effectiveness as CCIRs to ensure appropriate prioritization of resources. This prioritization of both collection and analysis resources enhances the quality of assessments, better situational understanding, and better guidance and intent.

Supporting Subordinates’ Agility. CCIRs can support (or hinder) agility of action. CCIRs should address the appropriate commander-level information requirements given the associated decentralized/delegated authorities and approvals. Alignment of CCIRs supporting decentralized execution and authorities directly support empowerment of subordinates, while retention of CCIRs at the operational level for information supporting decentralized activities slow subordinates’ agility, add unnecessary reporting requirements, and shift the operational level HQ’s focus away from its roles and responsibilities in setting conditions.

The decentralization of both the decisions and alignment of associated CCIRs is key to agility and flexibility. Operational-level commanders help set conditions for subordinates’ success through mission-type orders, guidance and intent, and thought-out decentralization of decision/mission approval levels together with the appropriate decentralization of supporting assets. They recognize the value of decentralizing to the lowest level capable of integrating these assets. Operational commanders enable increased agility and flexibility by delegating the requisite tactical-level decision authorities to their subordinates commensurate with their responsibilities. Decentralizing approval levels (and associated CCIRs) allows us to more rapidly take advantage of opportunities in today’s operational environment as noted in the above figure. We see this as a best practice. It allows for more agility of the force while freeing the operational commander to focus on planning and decisions at the operational level.

Together with decentralization of authorities, operational commanders also assist their subordinates by helping answer the subordinates’ CCIRs either directly or through tailored decentralization, federation, and common database design of collection and analysis assets.

Insights:

Broaden CCIRs at the operational level to support traditional, time-sensitive execution requirements and longer term assessment, situational understanding, and design and planning requirements. Seek knowledge and understanding, versus a sole focus on data or information.
Use CCIRs in conjunction with operational priorities to focus and prioritize collection and analysis efforts supporting all three event horizons.
Many of the operational level decisions are not ‘snap’ decisions made in the JOC and focused at the tactical level, but rather require detailed analysis and assessment of the broader environment tied to desired effects and stated objectives.
Delegate tactical level decisions to their subordinates has allowed them to focus their efforts on the higher level, broader operational decisions.
Support decentralized decision authorities by helping to answer their related CCIRs. Retaining CCIR at higher level for decisions that have already been delegated to a subordinate adds unnecessary reporting requirements on those subordinates, slows their agility, and shifts higher HQ focus away from its more appropriate role of setting conditions.

4.0 CCIR DEVELOPMENT, APPROVAL, AND DISSEMINATION. Commanders drive development of CCIRs. We have seen successful use of the CCIRs process (see figure). This process lays out specific responsibilities for development, validation, dissemination, monitoring, reporting, and maintenance (i.e., modifying CCIRs). While not in current doctrine, it still effectively captures an effective process…

Operational-level commands develop many of their CCIRs during design and the planning process. We normally see decision requirements transcending all three event horizons. Some decisions in the current operations event horizon may have very specific and time sensitive information requirements, while others are broader, assessment focused, and may be much more subjective. They may also include information requirements on DIME (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic) partner actions and capabilities and environmental conditions.

Branch and Sequel Execution: While many CCIRs support branch and sequel plan decision requirements at all levels, the complexity of today’s environment makes the predictive development of all the potential specific decisions (and supporting CCIRs) that an operational commander may face difficult. However, this difficulty doesn’t mean that we should stop conducting branch and sequel planning at the operational level – just the opposite. We must continue to focus on both the “why,” “so what,” “what if,” and “what’s next” at the operational level to drive collection and analysis and set conditions for the success of our subordinates. The complexity does suggest, though, that some of our branch and sequel planning at the operational level may not result in precise, predictive decision points with associated CCIRs that we may be accustomed to at the tactical level. Additionally, unlike the tactical level, much of the information precipitating operational commanders’ major decisions will likely not come off the JOC floor, but rather through interaction with others and from the results of “thought-out” operational-level assessments. Much of this information may not be in the precise form of answering a specifically worded and time-sensitive PIR or FFIR, but rather as the result of a broader assessment answering whether we are accomplishing the campaign or operational objectives or attaining desired conditions for continued actions together with recommendations on the “so what.”

Most CCIRs are developed during course of action (COA) development and analysis together with branch and sequel planning. We normally see decision points transcending all three event horizons with associated PIRs and FFIRs (and in some cases, unique IRs such as HNIRs) as depicted on the above figure. These PIRs and FFIRs may be directly associated with developed measures of effectiveness (MOE). Analysis of these MOEs helps depict how well friendly operations are achieving objectives, and may result in the decision to execute a branch or sequel plan.

Some decision points in the current operations event horizon may have very specific and time sensitive information requirements, while those supporting branch and sequel execution are normally broader and may be much more subjective. They will also probably include information requirements on “DIME” partner actions/capabilities and adversary “PMESII” conditions. Some examples:

Current operations decisions: These decisions will likely require time sensitive information on friendly, neutral, and adversary’s actions and disposition. Examples of decisions include: personnel recovery actions; shifting of ISR assets; targeting of high value targets; and employment of the reserve.
Branch plan decisions: These decisions will likely require information from assessment on areas like: the adversary’s intent and changing ‘PMESII’ conditions, DIME partner, coalition, and host nation capabilities and requests, and target audience perceptions (using non- traditional collection means such as polls). Examples of decisions include: shift of main effort; change in priority; refocusing information operations and public affairs messages; redistribution of forces; command relationship and task organization changes.
Sequel plan decisions: These types of decisions will be based on broader campaign assessments providing geopolitical, social, and informational analysis and capabilities of partner stakeholders. Examples of decisions include: transitions in overall phasing such as moving to a support to civil authority phase; force rotations; or withdrawal.

Planners normally develop decision support templates (DST) to lay out these kinds of decisions and the associated CCIRs in more detail (see figure). They help link CCIRs to the decisions they support. The adjacent figure depicts some of the information provided to the commander to gain his guidance and approval. These DSTs also help provide the clarity to collection and analysis resources to focus effort and information flow.

Insights:

Commanders drive development of CCIRs.
Planners help develop CCIR during the design and planning process across all three event horizons.
CCIRs at the operational level will likely include information requirements on “DIME” partner actions and capabilities and environmental conditions.
CCIRs change as the mission, priorities, and operating environment changes. Have a process to periodically review and update CCIRs to ensure relevance.

5.0 CCIR MONITORING AND REPORTING. Proactive attention to CCIRs is essential for JOC (and other staff) personnel to focus limited resources in support of commander’s decision making. To promote awareness and attention to the commander’s information requirements, we recommend prominent display of CCIRs within the JOC and other assessment areas.

Many of the CCIRs precipitating operational commanders’ major decisions will likely not
come off the JOC floor but rather through interaction with others and from the results of operational-level assessment. Much of this information may not be in the precise form of answering a specifically worded branch or sequel oriented CCIR, but rather as the result of a broader assessment answering whether we are accomplishing the campaign objectives together with recommendations on the “so what.”

The senior leadership is provided answers to CCIRs in many venues to include operational update assessments, battlefield circulation, and interaction with stakeholders. This information may be provided in some form of presentation media that addresses the decision requirement, associated CCIRs, and status of those CCIRs as depicted in the figure above. We often see a
JOC chart such as that portrayed in the adjacent figure for selected decision requirements. This “status” of CCIRs enables the commander to maintain situational awareness of the various criteria that the staff and stakeholders are monitoring and get a feel for the proximity and likelihood of the potential decision.

Insights:
· Prominently display CCIRs within the JOC, other assessment areas, and on the HQ portal to facilitate component and stakeholder awareness of CCIRs.
· Clearly specify what constitutes notification, to whom, how soon it has to be done, and how to provide status of notification efforts and results.

6.0 RELATED INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS. We see JOCs struggle to determine what constitutes a reportable event other than CCIR triggers. Many commands use “notification criteria” matrices (see figure) to clearly depict notification criteria for both CCIR and other events that spells out who needs to be notified of various events outside the rhythm of a scheduled update brief. Notification criteria and the reporting chain should be clearly understood to prevent stovepiping information or inadvertent failures in notification.

Significant events (SIGEVENTs) should be defined, tracked, reported, and monitored until all required staff action has been completed. We have seen some JOCs preemptively remove some SIGEVENTs from their “radar” before required follow- on actions have been accomplished. Once a SIGEVENT has been closed, it should be archived for record purposes and to assist the intelligence and assessment functions.

Share this:

Related