A practical approach to effects-based operational assessment

Air & Space Power Journal, Summer, 2008 by Clinton R. Clark, Timothy J. Cook

Thirteenth Air force modified this approach to assess steady-state operations. The current pace of operations is such that the commander's decision brief (including OA reporting) occurs weekly. Due to the relatively low operations tempo, OA team members found that assessing performance on a weekly basis was a straightforward matter, but discerning changes in effects from week to week proved extremely difficult. To address this situation, they applied a similar approach to the one described in this article, separating the assessment of effects and performance. Under the new approach, the team briefs its assessment of performance to the JAOC commander each week. To accurately assess changes in effects, the OA team examines them over a longer time span (generally 60-90 days), thus providing the commander with a longer-term look at each objective while still allowing sufficient time for the changes in effect to become apparent.

Deployed analysts in ninth Air force implemented a similar approach in late 2005. The OA team assessing operations iraqi freedom and Enduring freedom struggled to provide the commander with an effects-based assessment of his objectives. In that case, team members decided to limit themselves to assessing performance, leaving the assessment of effects to the supported command, who briefed this to the deputy combined force air component commander along with a performance assessment conducted by the OA team. (23)

First Air force's strategy division adopted the methodology presented here in 2006, during development of the joint air operations plan for Defense Support to Civil Authorities, designed to provide guidance for joint air operations during events similar to Hurricane Katrina. Exercise Ardent Sentry stressed this plan, and the OA methodology proved successful in supporting JFACC decision making during the exercise.

Applied across multiple theaters for a wide variety of operations, this methodology has supported homeland-defense scenarios as well as the development and exercising of strategy for a major theater war; a modified version has supported steady-state operations. However, we still have room to improve this approach.

The Way Ahead and Future Research Recommendations

The way ahead for OA calls for adopting a standard methodology across the JAOCs. Although each JFACC faces unique issues, a core set of assessment processes exists. We developed this methodology to support the core OA needs of the JFACCs while offering the flexibility needed to address their unique, area-specific issues. The first practical benefit of adopting a standardized approach would involve rapid methodological improvements arising from the inevitable collaboration across JAOCs.

The first step to establishing standard tools and training entails adopting a standard OA methodology. By developing a standard set of tools, we can reduce the workload of the OA teams' chiefs by eliminating the need to develop and maintain their own tools. Further, we could link a standard set of tools to the backbone of JAOC software--Theater battle Management Core Systems or its successors--potentially automating much of the datacollection effort. Currently, the collection and input of relevant data make for a very labor-intensive process for OA teams, reducing the time they have for interacting with the strategy division during development and refinement of courses of action. Additionally, each team requires augmentation during contingency operations. A standard OA methodology would enable us to provide initial qualification training for OA augmentees, minimizing the "pickup game" approach to assessing operations. This training would certainly incorporate the use of a standardized tool set, enabling deployed OA team members to contribute to strategy and assessment quickly during contingency operations.