ATTP 5-0.1 Commander and Staff Officer Guide - Army Electronic ...

� Write MOEs as statements not questions.
� Maximize clarity.
Formal Assessment Plans
7-13. Commanders select only MOEs that measure the degree to which the desired outcome is achieved. A
good basis must exist for the theory that this MOE is expected to change if the condition is being achieved.
7-14. Commanders choose MOEs for each condition as distinct from each other as possible. Using similar
MOEs can skew the assessment by containing virtually the same MOE twice.
7-15. Commanders include MOEs from differing relevant causal chains for each condition whenever
possible. When MOEs have a cause and effect relationship with each other, either directly or indirectly, it
decreases their value in measuring a particular condition. Measuring progress towards a desired condition
by multiple means adds rigor to the assessment. For example, in Figure 7-1 under condition 1, MOE 1 and
MOE 3 have no apparent cause and effect relationship with each other although both are valid measures of
the condition. This adds rigor and validity to the measurement of that condition. MOE 2 does have a cause
and effect relationship with MOE 1 and MOE 3 but is a worthwhile addition because of the direct
relevancy and mathematical rigor of that particular source of data.
Condition 1: Enemy Division X forces prevented from interfering with corps decisive operation.
MOE 1: Enemy Division X forces west of phase line blue are defeated.
• Indicator 1: Friendly forces occupy OBJ Slam (Yes/No).
• Indicator 2: Number of reports of squad-sized or larger enemy forces in the division area of
operations in the past 24 hours.
• Indicator 3: Current G-2 assessment of number of enemy Division X battalions west of phase line
blue.
MOE 2: Enemy Division X forces indirect fire systems neutralized.
• Indicator 1: Number of indirect fires originating from enemy Division X’s integrated fires
command in the past 24 hours.
• Indicator 2: Current G-2 assessment of number of operational 240mm rocket launchers within
enemy Division X’s integrated fires command.
MOE 3: Enemy Division X communications systems disrupted.
• Indicator 1: Number of electronic transmissions from enemy Division X detected in the past 24
hours.
• Indicator 2: Number of enemy Division X battalion and higher command posts destroyed.
Figure 7-1. Sample of end state conditions for defensive operations
7-16. Commanders use the same MOE to measure more than one condition when appropriate. This sort of
duplication in the assessment framework does not introduce significant bias unless carried to the extreme.
The MOE duplication to be concerned about is among MOEs measuring the same condition.
7-17. Commanders avoid or minimize additional reporting requirements for subordinate units. In many
cases, commanders use information requirements generated by other staff sections as MOEs and indicators
in the assessment plan. With careful consideration, commanders and staffs can often find viable alternative
MOEs without creating new reporting requirements. Excessive reporting requirements can render an
otherwise valid assessment plan onerous and untenable.
7-18. Commanders structure MOEs so that measurable, collectable, and relevant indicators exist for them.
A MOE is of no use if the staff cannot actually measure it.
7-19. Commanders write MOEs as statements not questions. They can express an MOE as a number.
MOEs supply answers to questions rather than the questions themselves. (See Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2,
page 7-4, for examples.)
7-20. Commanders maximize clarity. A MOE describes the sought information precisely, including
specifics on time, information, geography, or unit, if needed. Any staff member should be able to read the
MOE and understand exactly what information it describes.
14 September 2011 ATTP 5-0.1 7-3