text: Chapter 3
  STEP 1—RECEIPT OF MISSION
  3-29. Commanders answer the following questions about the force’s participation in the operation concerning
  Step 1—Receipt of Mission:
  • Are the unit’s mission partners, the task organization, command structure, and command
  relationships determined between the unit and mission partners?
  • Does the commander establish additional ad hoc structure to support interoperability? Or does the
  commander rely on direct coordination between unit and mission partner staff elements to conduct
  required interoperability planning and preparation?
  • Does the commander appoint a mission partner coordinator to assist the staff and advise the
  commander in planning, implementation, execution, and assessment of interoperability solutions?
  • Did the unit conduct initial coordination and staff or liaison exchanges with mission partners?
  • Did the unit identify mission analysis information requirements and share these requirements with
  subordinates and mission partners?
  • Did the unit issue a warning order to subordinates and mission partners?
  STEP 2—MISSION ANALYSIS
  3-30. Commanders answer the following questions about the force’s participation in the operation concerning
  Step 2—Mission Analysis:
  • Are the relevant agreed-to standards determined between U.S. and mission partners?
  • If no common standards exist, is a baseline standard determined to tailor to the specific
  circumstances?
  • Are the force capabilities, limitations, and national caveats of each mission partner determined to
  enable shared understanding and unity of effort?
  • Are the laws, policies, regulations, and higher guidance with impact on interoperability solutions
  determined?
  • Is the higher headquarters order examined for interoperability guidance such as force KM plans,
  theater ROE, network architecture, and COP data standards?
  • Are the mission critical interoperability requirements identified?
  • Are the tactical tasks the commander identified with interoperability guidance and associated
  information exchange requirements used in KM and network planning?
  • Are external resource requirements such as TLDs, translators, and MPN hardware determined?
  • Are changes to mission partner mix, command structure, authorities, and task organization identified
  to improve interoperability?
  • Is a draft plan of action and milestones developed to synchronize and to meet planning and
  implementation requirements for interoperability solutions?
  • Is a warning order published with updated interoperability requirements, identified standards, and
  other interoperability guidance as input to course of action (COA) development?
  STEP 3—COA DEVELOPMENT
  3-31. Commanders answer the following questions about the force’s participation in the operation concerning
  Step 3—COA Development:
  • Does the COA account for interoperability? Are changes to the ROE, KM, and coalition TTP
  required?
  • Is an interoperability assessment plan developed with key measures and a focus on mission critical
  interoperability requirements?
  • Are initial liaison, training, and rehearsal plans developed?
  STEP 4—COA ANALYSIS
  3-32. Commanders answer the following questions about the force’s participation in the operation concerning
  Step 4—COA Analysis:
  • Is the operational COA analyzed for interoperability implications, strengths, and weaknesses?
  • Are unique mission partner support requirements identified for each operational COA based on
  assigned tasks and scheme of maneuver?