For the employment of the integrated battle procedure

By Capt Vincent Laderoute - November 18th, 2025

Reading Time: 15 min

Introduction

For nearly 15 years, the Canadian doctrine on the battle procedure (BP) has not evolved. It remained stuck in 16 steps¹ which never really took into account the need of the new generation to be involved in the planning processes. The new reality of the modern battlefield, marked by a disconcerting speed of execution driven by new technologies requiring several small, coordinated and decentralized teams, is currently being left behind by doctrine.

It is understood that the operational planning process (OPP) cannot be done in isolation, but the assessment (estimate) and the BP could well be. By reviewing the BP, this opinion text targets where the steps need to be adjusted in order to integrate collaborative planning². These modifications are necessary to accelerate planning cycles and maximize subordinates’ understanding and commitment to accomplishing the higher commander’s intent within the Mission Command philosophy.

The proposed adjustments are a hybrid version between the BP, the OPP³, NATO⁴ tactical planning and a loose inspiration from CANSOFCOM’s integrated BP to which elements of collaborative planning are added. This short text will focus on reviewing step by step how to integrate collaborative planning into BP.

Planning dynamics

Generally speaking, the BP is employed from section commanders to battalion commanders and beyond. All commanders must direct planning for their organization and control/coordinate execution of effects. Take note of the action of directing planning⁵ rather than to plan. This aspect is essential to include subordinates and maximize the outcome of the planning cycle.

Battle Procedure

This part tackles BP head on. In sum, we propose amplifications and additions that mesh with the current BP, thus forcing interactions between different levels of command in order to stimulate the constant communication essential to Mission Command in collaborative planning⁶. Figure 1 shows the changes to the BP (in bold) as opposed to the classic battle procedure.

Fig 1. Comparison between Current BP and Proposed BP

• Preliminary Warning Orders. A commander may receive warning orders that were issued directly to his superior commander. This is outside of the BP, but desirable in that he is advised that his commander will be required for his superior commander‘s (2 higher echelons) planning process for an upcoming task.
• Step 1 – Receive the Planning Warning Order. Added. Upon receipt of the Planning Warning Order, the commander must also receive a copy of his commander’s orders and be prepared to contribute to his commander’s planning cycle. Subsequently, he must immediately communicate this warning order and assign his staff to preparation activities (no planning at his level at this time).
• Step 2 – Receive the Initial Warning Order. Amplified. This order is received as a commander assists his superior commander in planning. It contains enough detail to allow him to begin his planning, based on his superior commander’s mission analysis and assessment of factors.
• Step 3 – Conduct a Summary Time and Map Study. No change.
• Step 4 – Issue the Planning Warning Order. Added. It is at this stage that a commander integrates his team into his planning process. He must describe the planning process to his team including the planning-preparation-action time (principle 1/3 - 2/3). This in no way constitutes guidance on the plan itself, but rather on the planning method used. A commander immediately issues the warning order he has received to his subordinates. Collaboratively, they can begin the appreciation process. A commander will still be required in his superior’s planning cycle, but his team is able to begin mission analysis and factor assessment.
• Step 5 – Receive a Mission Warning Order. Amplified. Following the finalization of his superior’s planning cycle (superior commander’s outline plan⁷ completed), a commander receives a Mission Warning Order. This marks the end of a commander’s involvement in his superior’s planning. The commander must immediately issue this warning order, redirect personnel to his planning group and continue preparation activities. This is where issuing a Commander Planning Guidance becomes relevant. Subordinates are able to continue the assessment and develop Rapid Courses of Actions (COA).
• Step 6 – Receive Orders. No change.
• Step 7 – Finalize Mission Analysis. Amplified. The commander and his team complete and confirm the mission analysis and confirm the Rapid COAs.
• Step 8 – Finalize Factors Evaluation. Added. The commander and his team complete and confirm the Factors Evaluation. A mission analysis brief can be given to the superior commander.
• Step 9 – Issue the Initial Warning Order. Amplified. This step serves to formally initiate the subordinate planning cycle. The mission to be executed and the factors surrounding the overall situation are sufficiently clear that the preparation of subordinates becomes relevant.
• Step 10 – Finalize the Estimate. Amplified. The assessment is completed in a collaborative manner until the end of the draft of the COAs. An information brief on the key factors and COAs can be given to the superior commander.
• Step 11 – COA Selection. Added. Following the guidance of the superior commander, the COAs are revised, a decision by the commander is made and the appropriate COA is chosen. A detailed backbrief or a decision brief including comparison of options may be given to the superior commander.
• Step 12 – Issue a Mission Warning Order. Amplified. This stage marks the end of active subordinate engagement in the commander’s planning cycle. This frees them up for their individual planning. Although not all details are present in the Outline Plan, enough detail is provided for subordinates and their respective teams to get going with their own planning cycle. Having been actively involved in the higher-level planning cycle, their planning is not only made easier, but also much more defined.
• Step 13 – Finalize the Plan, Orders and Issue Orders. Amplified. Proceed with the Plan wargame and complete the support plans. A brief of the plan can be given to the superior commander. All that now remains is to complete and distribute the orders.
• Step 14 – Coordinate and supervise preparations. No change.
• Step 15 – Supervise the deployment. No change.
• Step 16 – Execute the mission. No change.
• Step 17 – After-Action Review. No change.

Linking planning cycles

In collaborative planning, the sooner subordinates and specialists can be included in their commander’s planning process, the more situational awareness they will have for the task and the smoother their own planning process will be. You have to find the precise place where it is ideal to integrate subordinates into the planning cycles as described in Figure 2.

Formalizing collaborative planning in the Battle Procedure is essential to project Mission Command forward faster. These modifications meet two essential needs. First, to accelerate decision-making processes and allow subordinates to better understand the complexity of situations, allowing them to take disciplined initiatives in the execution of their tasks within a constantly evolving combat environment. Our international peers recognize that a certain level of decentralized planning and execution produces tactical actions leading to strategic effects⁹. Secondly, integrating subordinates into the Battle Procedure allows them to better appreciate the higher context and to seek to invest more in the accomplishment of the mission, resonating enormously with the need for retention of the CAF.

End Notes

1. Department of National Defense, B-GL-335-001/FP-001, Decision Making and Planning at the Tactical Level, 2-9
2. This text focuses on collaborative planning, between different levels of command, and not on collective planning, where specialists plan symbiotically, for example at Bde staff level.
3. Department of National Defense, CFJP 5.0, The CF Operational Planning Process, Chap 4
4. NATO Standardization Office, APP-28, Tactical Planning for Land Forces
5. Ibid p.1-6
6. U.S. Department of the Army, ADP 6-0, Mission Command, p.3
7. For clarity, a rapid COA (1) is a non-outlined COA (ex. doing a left envelopment), a COA (2) encompasses an articulation and a concept of operation, an Outline Plan (3) is the chosen COA where the support plans are generally conceptualized and a Plan (4) is the complete fleshed-out plan to carry out the mission.
8. Jocko Willink, Extreme Ownership (St-Martin’s Press, 2015), 204
9. U.S. Air Force, Air Force Doctrine Note 1-21 – Agile Combat Employment (August 2022), p.4