[3] In the reviewed open military doctrine literature intent is a critical component for command and control.
Artefacts describing the outcome are: purpose, goals, mission, effects and end state.
Klein identifies this to be a source of problem since too detailed descriptions may limit the subordinates initiative, (4) rationale for plan includes all the information that where present when making the decision, (5) key decisions that may have to be made, i.e. if there is a choice to be made the commander can provide the intent in how he wants it to be conducted, (6) antigoals, describe unwanted outcomes, and (7) constraints and other considerations describes weather and rule of engagement etc.
Commander's intent (CSI) plays a central role in military decision making and planning.
CSI acts as a basis for staffs and subordinates to develop their own plans and orders to transform thought into action, while maintaining the overall intention of their commander.
It describes the end state and key tasks that, along with the mission, are the basis for subordinates’ initiative.
For a short duration mission, such as a deliberate attack, the original statement may remain valid throughout planning.
Commanders must develop their intent within the bounds of a whole hierarchy of guiding principles that limit the types of solutions that they can entertain (Pigeau & McCann 2006).
85–108)[17] state that diverse team members need to have a high degree of common intent to perform effectively.
Brehmer continues that there is the loss of combat power inherent in top-down command-directed synchronization.
By NATO Network Enabled Capabilities (NNEC) as presented by Alberts, Garstka & Stein (1999, pp.
Brehmer (2009)[22] however says that the main responsibility of the commander and his staff is to articulate intent and crafting rules of engagement.
Command Intent is then an outline of a plan, objectives to be achieved, responsibilities, linkages and schemas of manoeuvre, and constraints.
CI acts as a basis for staffs and subordinates to develop their own plans and orders that transform thought into action, while maintaining the overall intention of their commanders (Gustavsson et al. 2008d;[15] 2009[24]).
Explicit intent is the one that is publicly stated for all the headquarters (HQ) staff and subordinates to perceive, think about, and act upon.
The explicit intent is either vocalized (i.e. made publicly) in doctrine, orders, statements or can be derived from questions and answers.
The implicit intent is developed over a longer time, prior to the mission, and develops from the style of how the commander is conducting the operations with respect to experience, risk willing, use of power and force, diplomacy, ethics, social values, moral, norms, creativity and unorthodox behaviour and the concepts, policies, laws and doctrine agreed to by military, civil, organizations, agencies, nations and coalitions.
The example used by Farell & Lichacz (2004)[20] is that with an explicit intent “to capture the hill” the implicit intent might be “to capture the hill with minimal battle damage” or “to capture the hill with Air Force assets only.” The implicit expectations depend on how the members interpret Commander's intent from personal expectations based on their style and experience, (Pigeau & McCann 2000),[19] and with the staff position (e.g., planner, operator, commander, etc.
Pigeau and McCann (2000)[19] presented some mechanisms of making original implicit intent made explicit.
Based on the PhD Thesis by Gustavsson Per M. (2011) "Modelling, Formalising, and Implementing Intent in Command and Control Systems", De Montfort University Leicester, UK