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

Formal Assessment Plans
the indicator and the MOE? For example, the indicator “Decrease in monthly weapons caches found and
cleared in the division area of operations” is not relevant to the MOE “Decrease in enemy activity in the
division area of operations.” This indicator could plausibly increase or decrease with a decrease in enemy
activity. An increase in friendly patrols, particularly in areas not previously patrolled on a regular basis,
could result in greater numbers of caches found and cleared. Staffs may also have difficulty determining
when the enemy left the weapons, raising the question of when the enemy activity actually occurred. These
factors, unrelated to enemy activity, could artificially inflate the indicator, creating a false impression of
increased enemy activity within the assessment framework. In this example, staffs can reliably measure
enemy activity levels without considering weapons caches or using the indicator for this MOE.
Building the Assessment Framework
7-25. A basic assessment framework typically quantifies end state conditions, MOEs, and indicators. In
some cases, it may include an objective rather than the end state or MOPs rather than MOEs.
7-26. A formal assessment framework is simply a tool to assist commanders with estimating progress.
Using a formal assessment framework does not imply that commanders mathematically determine the
outcomes of military operations. Commanders and staff officers apply judgment to results of mathematical
assessment to assess the progress holistically. For example, commanders in an enduring operation may
receive a monthly formal assessment briefing from their staff. This briefing includes both the products of
the formal assessment process as well as the expert opinions of members of the staff, subordinate
commanders, and other partners. In this way, the commander receives both a mathematically rigorous
analysis as well as expert opinions. Commanders combine what they find useful in those two viewpoints
with their personal assessment of the operations, consider recommendations, and direct action as needed.
7-27. A significant amount of human judgment goes into designing an assessment framework. Choosing
MOEs and indicators that accurately measure progress toward each desired condition is an art. Processing
elements of the assessment framework requires establishing weights and thresholds for each MOE and
indicator. Setting proper weights and thresholds requires operational expertise and judgment. Input from
the relevant staff sections and subject matter experts are critical. Staffs record the logic of why the
commander chose each MOE and indicator. This facilitates personnel turnover as well as understanding the
assessment plan among all staff sections.
7-28. Each component of the assessment framework is standardized, assigned a weight, and given
thresholds. Staffs mathematically combine them starting at the indicator’s level, worked up through MOEs
and conditions, arriving at the end state. (See Figure 7-3, page 7-6.)
7-29. Standardization means that each component is expressed as a number on a common scale such as
1 to 5 or 1 to 10. Setting a common scale aids understanding and comparing as well as running the
mathematical model. For example, Indicator 1 for MOE 1 for Condition 1 in Figure 7-3 can report monthly
dollars in ransom paid as a result of kidnapping operations. For the month of June, that number is
$250,000. That number is normalized to a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being bad and 10 being good. The value
of that indicator within the framework is 6.8.
7-30. A weight is a number that expresses relative significance. Some indicators may have more
significance than others for informing a given MOE. They count for more in the real world and should
literally count for more in the mathematical assessment framework. Staffs use weights as multipliers for
MOEs and indicators. The standard weight of 1.0 implies equal significance. A weight of 2.0 for an MOE
(or indicator) implies that MOE carries twice the significance.
7-31. A threshold is a value above which one category is in effect and below which another category is in
effect. Thresholds answer the question for a given indicator or MOE of what good and bad is. The
categories can name whatever the commander finds useful, such as colors or numbers. Commonly used
colors are red, yellow, and green. Mathematical thresholds are often set at plus or minus one standard
deviation. Whatever category commanders use, they must define it in the assessment plan. They also must
weigh the value of insight against the risk of bias.
14 September 2011 ATTP 5-0.1 7-5