Current operations indicate that improvements are warranted within our Battle Command (BC) planning method to support complex and ill-structured problems. Several modified approaches have been reviewed and synthesized into a general theoretical method currently addressed as Design. A practice of Design is necessary to facilitate the employment of Design theories. Design analysis so far has focused more upon the theory and less upon the actual practices of Design. Guidelines for conducting Design within Army forces do not exist within doctrine or SOP. There are no descriptive guidelines for the organization (team size, roles, and responsibilities), management (time, workflow, artifacts), or support environment (infrastructure and tools) of the design team. The Design practices identified within this paper address some of these gaps and can provide a baseline for additional guidelines or for tailoring by an operational force Design Team. This paper provides recommendations on the practice of Design. It provides these recommendations as a contribution to the evolution of the US Army Battle Command methodologies in tactical and operational decision-making. The paper strives to identify techniques and tools that may enable an Operational Planning Team to conduct Design activities more efficiently and effectively. These recommendations can then serve the Operational Design community of practice as guidelines on how to apply Design theories and concepts within operational forces. This paper is a product of synthesizing applied research. Applied research of Design practices identifies a baseline size and composition of a design group, appropriate venues and instruments, and considerations for modification. The Design practices identified within this paper should be understood as a baseline that can be tailored by an operational force Design Team. A methodology is a reasoned approach to a type of work. Methodologies are organized to guide cooperative human activities in order to improve their performance by measures of effectiveness or efficiency. Methodologies may vary in purpose, scope, formality, structure, flexibility, situational suitability, and level of documentation. The structural elements of a robust methodology are likely to include applicable or associated theory, principles/tenets, workflows, tasks, techniques, artifacts, roles, guidelines, best practices, patterns/anti-patterns, templates, examples, tools, environmental support, configuration and change management, quality controls, and associated project management techniques. A methodology lies roughly in the middle of a cognitive continuum of organized activity abstraction. It may be useful to place a methodology in the context of a hierarchy. In such a view, a methodology will lack the precision of technique but will be a firmer guide to action than a philosophy.