Importance of Understanding As an Effect

Importance of Understanding As an Effect

Effects-based planning (EBP) is an approach—a way of thinking—to planning, executing, and assessing military operations that focuses on the results of military operations—and the explanation of how those results came about—rather than the actions—sorties flown, rounds fired, or tons of relief materials delivered—of military units. (Davis, 2001) It is thinking strategically. (Dixit and Nalebuff, 1991) As such, it spans the gamut of military operations from humanitarian relief to major theatre war. It accounts for lethal and non-lethal applications of force delivered kinetically or via non-kinetic modes. EBO incorporates and expands upon traditional approaches such as targets-based and strategy-to-task.

The most significant challenge for EBP is predicting and assessing how physical actions result in behavioural outcomes. Physical should not be confused with merely flying aircraft or dropping bombs. Pushing keys on a computer keyboard instigating a computer network defence is a physical action. Issuing messages an enemy can “intercept” from a fictitious headquarters, as part of a deception operation is also a physical action. The goal of an effects-based approach is tracing and understanding how those actions affect the attacker or enemy commander's behaviour. Functions are defined as broad, fundamental, and continuing activities. Processes, or activities, are how work—tasks--is done. For commanders, the most basic activities are planning, executing, and assessing operations. EBP is a method for accomplishing those tasks. This section describes those activities from an effects-based perspective. (McCrabb, 2002)

Effects-based Planning

EBO, as with any approach to planning, executing, and assessing military operations, starts with Commander's Intent. The provision of end state, purpose, method, and risk begins the process of mission analysis where objectives, desired effects, specified, and implied tasks, constraints and restraints and other needed elements of information start. For example, the method specified in Commander's Intent may direct an analysis of nonlethal applications such as deception or psychological operations.

Likewise, listed restraints on certain types of collateral damage—for instance, damage to electrical power systems—may preclude certain strategy options. The end state lists the set of conditions required to achieve the JFC's objectives. Purpose provides the rationale for the mission. In simpler terms, the end state gives what is to be accomplished. Method gives how the end state is to be accomplished. In addition, purpose gives why the end state is to be accomplished. Strategy (COA) development Together, these form the heart of a course-of-action (COA). At the JFC and JFACC level, the COA embodies the commander's strategy—the art and science of employing resources to accomplish objectives. The COA is the plan of activities the commander envisions that accomplish the objectives and desired effects. Commander's Intent, strategy, and COA can be used almost interchangeably though COA generally contains the most detail. Besides the what, how, and why, a COA includes with (resources), who, where, and when. It also includes mechanisms, sometimes referred to as the second why since mechanism explains why an action should result in some specified effect. Between the method and COA, a complete description of the chosen ...