1-7
complished by developing measures of effectiveness (MOEs) to answer the question
“Are the desired results being achieved?” Measures of performance (MOPs) answer the questions “Are directed actions being accomplished?” or “Are we doing things right?”
Indicators are information items that help determine the status of MOPs and MOEs, and should be measurable (quantitatively or qualitatively), collectable, and relevant. Besides purely military indicators, others that partially depend on information from other actors, particularly humanitarian organizations, could be crafted. Their inclusion in collection and analysis is feasible only when there is a positive and regular interaction with inter-national organizations and NGOs; without their cooperation, information is likely to be misleading. Examples of metrics in an Assessment Framework are shown in Figure 1.6.
► Figure 1.6: Example Assessment Framework Metrics ◄
c. Recommending or Directing Action. MOEs can be useful criteria for deci-sions to progress to another phase of an operation, conduct transitions, or make signifi-cant changes to plans and operations. MOPs can be used as criteria to change proce-dures or shift the allocation of resources. In some cases, the commander will be able to direct the action required. In other cases, because of a lack of authority, responsibility, or capability, the commander will provide recommendations to superiors or other actors such as host state officials.
1-7.4. Like any organizational system, an assessment framework should be a tool that supports effective operations; it should not be a burden that impairs them. In some cases an elaborate framework is unnecessary because the commander’s understanding
They can also cause units to focus on generating “good” numbers by whatever means possible. For example, if a unit is evaluated on the number of daily patrols it conducts, the result may be a large number of brief excursions rather than a few extended multi-day patrols that might have better operational effect. Information on the ground is often incomplete or questionable, particularly when it is impossible for a unit to monitor every event in a large area of operations. However, as information is reported to progressively higher echelons it may be misinterpreted as being completely accurate and complete.
Nevertheless, lack of an effective and systemic assessment framework can result in poor situational understanding, ill-advised operations, and poor information-sharing with other organizations.
1-7.5. Benchmarks. Benchmarks are tangible standards against which assessments are measured. Benchmarks often relate to desired outcomes or endstates, but they can also reflect interim goals that are waypoints on the path to the endstate. As will be dis-cussed in Section 2, each of the five desired outcomes (safe and secure environment, good governance, rule of law, social well-being, and a sustainable economy) encom-passes several supporting conditions that should be pursued. For example they can provide direction to PoC efforts, particularly with respect to planned transitions. In this regard, they may relate to both the current situation and the preparedness of relevant ac-tors to assume their impending responsibilities and authorities after a transition occurs.
Benchmarks may be arrayed along Lines of Effort and within phases, and may be tied to their own supporting MOEs and MOPs. Sample benchmarks are illustrated in Figure 1.7 and should be incorporated into transitions as discussed in Task 2.7—Maintain PoC During Transition.
1-7.6. Assessments and benchmarks should be coordinated, where possible, with other friendly actors to promote a comprehensive and collaborative approach to ad-dressing PoC. Additionally, independent assessments conducted by other actors can provide valuable new information to the military force and help preclude “groupthink” or
“tunnel vision.”26
26 A variety of metrics frameworks can be employed, including a modified version of the task list in Annex A. For a useful ex-ample with sectors that closely conform to the “desired outcomes” used in this Military Reference Guide, see John Agoglia; Michael Dziedzic, and Barbara Sotirin, Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE): A Metrics Framework (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2010) and USIP/PKSOI, Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction (Washington, DC:
The United States Institute of Peace, 2009). Also see the United Nations in cooperation with the FAFO Institute for Allied International Studies and the Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre (NOREF), Monitoring Peace Consolidation: United Nations Practitioners’ Guide to Benchmarking (New York: the United Nations, 2010) available at http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pbso/pdf/monitoring_peace_
consolidation.pdf and the International Forum for the Challenges of Peace Operations, Considerations for Mission Leadership in
► Figure 1.7: Example PoC Benchmarks ◄
1-7.7. Task Challenges. The main challenge regarding assessments is avoiding the creation of an over-engineered and burdensome information apparatus that interferes with the military’s operational effectiveness because of excessive and unreasonable re-porting requirements. A second challenge is avoiding the tendency to attribute too much accuracy to assessments that are ultimately based on subjective, incomplete, or inaccu-rate data. Third, assessment efforts may have unintended effects such as compromising the neutrality of potential information sources, being perceived as “spying” on the host state, or conducting operations that merely try to generate good statistics. Finally, it
2.1. Section 2 Overview. In accordance with prescribed objectives and mandates, military forces will usually be concerned with ending an armed conflict and preventing its recurrence. Consequently, a desired outcome will be a Safe and Secure Environment which includes the protection of civilians from threats of violence. In some situations PoC will in fact be the main purpose of a military operation. Civilian protection from imminent violence usually cannot be sustained over long periods without the attainment of four other critical outcomes that support eventual peace-building and development, including Good Governance, Rule of Law, Social Well-Being, and a Sustainable Economy.27 All of these outcomes directly relate to civilian vulnerabilities. Additionally, they are critical for effective peace-building and their absence can cause grievances which can be a source of conflict that threatens civilians. However, pursuit of these objectives paradoxically could conflict with PoC if a perception emerges that some groups benefit more than oth-ers. Consequently, in most cases these outcomes should be pursued effectively from the outset. In some situations, however, PoC efforts will be limited to those pertaining to achieving a Safe and Secure Environment and not address political, legal, social, or economic outcomes.
2.2. The military will likely focus on Task 2.1—Establish and Maintain a Safe and Secure Environment in order to protect civilians and provide the secure space necessary for other actors to operate effectively. In many cases the military can assist these actors with personnel, equipment, communications, information, or supplies. In extreme situa-tions of last resort, units may need to perform non-military tasks until other actors are ad-equately established and can assume responsibility. This implies a blurred line between limited military operations such as peacekeeping and broader development functions that require military and non-military efforts. For example, repair of infrastructure such as bridges and roads can improve military operations and logistics, but also removes civilian fear of being cut-off and assists government and humanitarian access, the return