DTIC ADA518758: An Effects-Based Approach: Refining How We Think about Joint Operations

0.68 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

Bouchard)
Bryan
Group (
Air Expeditionary Member of Air Force
th447 explosive ordnance unit
detonates explosives
adjacent to Baghdad
International Airport
55th Combat Camera Company (Joshua Balog)
MG Benjamin Freakley, USA, speaks to
community elders at Forward Operating
Base Lumberyard, Afghanistan
An Effects-Based Approach
Refining How We
Think about
Joint Operations
By THE Join T
WarfigHTin g CEnTEr
100th Communications Squadron (Teresa M. Pumphrey)
The expected future operational environment for military forces
will be extremely dynamic. Expanding webs of social, economic,
political, military, and information systems will afford oppor- U.S. Airmen using field
tunity for some regional powers to compete on a broader scale exportable training system during
and emerge on the global landscape with considerable influ- exercise with Royal Air Force
ence. While the nature of war will remain a violent clash of wills
between states or armed groups pursuing advantageous political
ends, the conduct of future warfare will include combinations of
conventional and unconventional, kinetic and nonkinetic, and
military and nonmilitary actions and operations, all of which add
to the increasing complexity of the future security environment.
— Capstone Concept for Joint Operations
August 2005
ndupress.ndu.edu issue 44, 1st quarter 2007 / JFQ    
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2007 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2007 to 00-00-2007
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
An Effects-Based Approach. Refining How We Think about Joint
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Operations
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
National Defense University,Institute for National Strategic Studies,260 REPORT NUMBER
Fifth Avenue SW Bg 64 Fort Lesley J. McNair,Washington,DC,20319
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 6
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Effects-Based Approach
An era of dynamic change, An Evolving Construct F–16C drops effects-related staff process to
laser-guided
constrained resources, and By 2004, USJFCOM was actively en- be employed in a multinational
missiles during
rapid technological advance- gaged in advancing effects-based operations joint task force headquarters. The
training flight
ment continues to confront following a period of concept development command’s Standing Joint Force
the Nation. This challenge and the factors and experimentation. Concurrently, many of Headquarters was deployed and
quoted above dictate the need for a global the joint professional military educa- teaching effects-based techniques
perspective of the operational environment tion (JPME) and Service schools had and procedures worldwide, linked
and military operations that are fully inte- begun to discuss EBO. The Air Force, closely with the J–7 integration of
grated with other instruments of national on its own initiative, started to incor- an effects-based approach to op-
power. Such an approach requires innovative porate an effects-based approach in its an effects- erations in joint training. Linking
thinking and the ability to shape and manage Service doctrine. these efforts, a USJFCOM team
based
change if America is to retain its worldwide Organizations in Afghanistan was writing a handbook to serve
approach
leadership. As the lead agent for the Secretary and Iraq also were using aspects of as a bridge for the migration of
measures
of Defense for transformation of joint forces EBO. To help socialize the ideas and effects-related ideas into joint doc-
to meet these challenges, U.S. Joint Forces promote a common perspective, the effects trine. And Joint Publication (JP)
Command (USJFCOM) supports the joint Joint Warfighting Center produced a attainment 3–0, Joint Operations, and JP 5–0,
community by pursuing a number of trans- series of pamphlets on EBO and re- rather than Joint Operation Planning, were in
formation-related objectives. One objective lated constructs. The pamphlets led to revision and were intended to in-
just task
being discussed by the Secretary of Defense a handbook with sufficient techniques corporate constructs based on the
and other senior leaders in the Department of and procedures to baseline an effects- consensus achieved at the forum.
Defense (DOD) is creating capabilities within based approach to joint operations.
an overall framework of shared, knowledge- As the handbook took form, the The Commander’s Handbook
empowered, effects-based operations (EBO).1 Joint Staff Joint Education and Doc- The aim of the Commander’s
Initial ideas about an effects-based ap- trine Division (J–7) chief convened a forum Handbook for an Effects-based Approach to
proach did not originate at USJFCOM. Since in January 2005 to gain agreement on the way Joint Operations was to provide the joint com-
2001, the command has focused on testing ahead for effects-related constructs in emerg- munity with a common baseline that would
and refining the concept while seeking the ing joint doctrine. The gathering was held at fill the void between earlier transformational
best ways to implement it. This evolution has USJFCOM, and all the unified commands concepts, varied field practices, and emerging
included Service participation in joint experi- and Services were invited. It was a watershed joint doctrine. This initiative considered com-
mentation, discussions with faculty at mid- event because stakeholders could discuss their ments from Services, combatant commands,
and senior-level Service and joint schools, concerns. The outcome was a consensus on and other organizations to bring an under-
observation of effects-related constructs in how joint doctrine would incorporate effects- standing of various perspectives. The hand-
action at deployed operational headquarters, related constructs. The consensus was that book uses the style and language of joint doc-
and engagement with interagency and multi- EBO would be described as an “effects-based trine while reflecting the “best practices” that
national partners. approach” and that associated emerging joint USJFCOM had observed during interaction
This article provides background on doctrine would: with joint and Service organizations involved
an effects-based approach and explains the in actual operations. USJFCOM published the
key elements, highlights their application in n incorporate a systems approach to handbook in February 2006.3
current joint operations, and discusses their understanding the operational environment Although effects-based ideas continue
incorporation in joint doctrine, training, n expand combat assessment to provide for to be refined, the core aspects of the ap-
and education. In the interest of providing measuring progress toward desired effects and proach have become commonly recognized
the “bottom line up front,” an effects-based operational and strategic objectives within the joint community with the pub-
approach adds value to traditional joint pro- n describe the relationship of effects-based lication of the handbook, the community’s
cesses in four areas: ideas to elements of operational design involvement in the revisions of JP 3–0 and
n define and/or revise terms key to under- JP 5–0, and related joint training and educa-
n improved unified action among military, standing an effects-based approach to joint tion. It is focused at the theater-strategic and
interagency, multinational, and nongovern- operations operational levels—on combatant command
mental organizations n describe how effects are incorporated in and joint task force (JTF) headquarters—but
n an expanded understanding of the oper- the commander’s intent.2 can be applied at higher and lower levels as
ational environment beyond the traditional well. Its techniques and procedures comple-
military battlespace focus The joint and Service representatives ment rather than replace current joint pro-
n an improved joint planning process that explained what their cultures could accept cesses. An effects-based approach is used in
Garfield F. Jones) utisoensns e ifanfne t ceetrnsm htoas ncolcfa etrdhif eyj o otihpneet rdaasetsisoeirsnesadml eeennnvdt isprtoraontecm ecesosnn tdi- rThthegeea f arodpripunrmgo .ae Thcffhe cec toUsn-SbtJiaFnsCuedeOd iM dtoe a Jeosv iionnlt v jCoe iofnontlc ldoeowpcti tnrgin e. taphtliaeon jnonaiilnn etg ni,n vatinerodlln ijgomeinnecnt eta s(psJreIePspsOamrEae)tn,i tjoo pnirn ootf c otephseseer oasp.tieorn-
D (
O that measures effects attainment rather than Development and Experimentation Director- Foremost, an effects-based approach is
D
just task accomplishment. ate (J–9) continued to experiment with an a joint command and staff thinking process
 JJFFQQ // iissssuuee 4444,, 11sstt qquuaarrtteerr 22000077 nndduupprreessss..nndduu..eedduu
Joint warfighting center
designed to improve unified action. Its object
is to harmonize and synchronize military
actions with those of other instruments of
national power—diplomatic, informational,
and economic—to achieve unity of effort in
joint operation planning and execution. This
harmonization is accomplished by greater
collaboration in managing ways, means,
and ends in an operation. Beginning with
national objectives, joint force commanders
(JFCs) work with interagency stakeholders
to clarify the objectives, roles, and responsi-
bilities of each agency. These objectives are
translated into effects—the system behaviors
and conditions needed to achieve the objec-
tives. Tasks are assigned and stakeholder ac-
tions are integrated with the goal of attaining
specific effects on various systems—political,
military, economic, social, infrastructure,
and informational (PMESII)—within the
operational environment. Unified action at
the tactical level is enabled by effects-based
techniques and procedures embedded in the
joint intelligence, operation planning, and
assessment processes.
Effects and Joint Intelligence
A crucial application of an effects-based
approach resides within the joint intelligence
community, which is most likely to be held
accountable for creating and maintaining
the systems view of the operational environ-
ment. Joint intelligence preparation of the
battlespace (JIPB) will expand to JIPOE to
more thoroughly capture PMESII aspects of
the operational environment: friendly and purposes, it offers a technique for understand- Joint operation planning blends two
unaligned, as well as adversary systems (figure ing the enemy’s centers of gravity and a broad- complementary processes. The first is the joint
1). This expansion will necessarily involve er perspective of the operational environment operation planning process (JOPP) (figure 3),
more input from various agencies, especially to augment the JFC’s planning and assessment an orderly, analytical planning process con-
from the national intelligence community. processes (figure 2). Like JIPB, time available sisting of logical steps to analyze a mission;
JIPOE uses a system-of-systems analysis and access to detailed information determine develop, analyze, and compare alternative
(SOSA) that portrays the key elements in the how completely the JIPOE is developed. courses of action; select the best course of
operational environment. These are shown as Planning for the employment of military action (COA); and produce a plan or order.
nodes in key systems along with their func- forces occurs at every echelon of command The second process is operational design, the
tional or behavioral relationships—links—to and across the range of military operations. use of various design elements in the con-
each other. An effect is the physical or behav- An effects-based approach to planning com- ception and construction of the framework
ioral state of a system that results from an plements the traditional planning process. It that underpins a joint operation plan and its
action, set of actions, or another effect. From seeks to fully integrate military actions with subsequent execution. The JFC and staff use
a systems perspective, a system referred to in those of the other instruments of national effects and other operational design elements
the definition is represented by a designated power while clearly coupling tasks to objec- (endstate, center of gravity, etc.) throughout
set of nodes and links in the operational en- tives within an assessment framework that JOPP.
vironment at any point in time. Therefore, supports JFC guidance. Theater-strategic JOPP begins with the JFC’s guidance,
the joint force intelligence directorate under- and operational planning translates national continues through mission analysis and
standing of the JFC’s desired effects will help and theater-strategic objectives into the JFC’s COA determination, and produces directives
focus the SOSA-enabled JIPOE process. SOSA strategy and ultimately into tactical action by to subordinate commanders. As part of his
portrays not only the relationships within sys- integrating ends, ways, and means between guidance, the commander may discuss the
tems, but also between systems. Among other the echelons of command. operational environment in systemic terms
nndduupprreessss..nndduu..eedduu iissssuuee 4444,, 11sstt qquuaarrtteerr 22000077 // JJFFQQ        
Effects-Based Approach
as required, determine when to execute
branches and sequels, and make other critical
decisions to ensure that current and future
operations remain aligned with missions and
desired endstates. Normally, joint force plan-
ners are responsible for developing appropri-
ate measures to determine progress toward
attaining effects. Current “best practices”
and provide an initial set of effects to guide arrangement of tasks, objectives, and effects suggest that planners and an effects assess-
the planning process. During this process, as the operation progresses. The JFC and ment cell, supported by the battle staff and
effects help planners understand and mea- planners also consider effects as they think other stakeholders, are keys to an effective
sure conditions for success. The use of effects about decisive points, direct versus indirect assessment process. Various elements of the
is reflected in the steps of JOPP as a way to approach, and other design elements. Joint JFC staff use assessment results to adjust both
clarify the relationship between objectives Publication 5–0 discusses the relationship current operations and future planning.
and tasks. Combined with a systems perspec- between JOPP and operational design. The JFC and staff use measures of per-
tive, planners can use an understanding of formance (MOPs) and effectiveness (MOEs)
desired and undesired effects to promote Assessment of Effects to determine progress toward accomplishing
unified action with multinational and other Assessment measures the effectiveness tasks, creating effects, and achieving objec-
agency partners. of unified action. More specifically, it helps tives. More specifically, MOEs are associated
Effects are derived from understanding the JFC and stakeholders determine progress with creating effects and MOPs with task
the JIPOE and the JFC’s objectives. They help toward accomplishing a task, creating an ef- accomplishment. Well-devised measures can
clarify the relationship between objectives and fect, or achieving an objective. It helps identify help commanders and staffs understand the
tasks by describing the conditions (in terms of opportunities and any need for course correc- causal relationship between specific tasks and
system behavior) that need to be established tions. This process involves continuous assess- desired effects. During execution, MOEs and
or avoided within the operational environ- ment of joint force performance throughout MOPs will drive joint force adaptation. These
ment to achieve the desired endstate. This use planning and execution. measures will answer important questions:
of effects and a systems perspective can facili- JFCs and their staffs, together with Are we doing the right things? (effects assess-
tate the joint force’s collaboration with ambas- other stakeholders, determine relevant assess- ment); Are we doing things right? (task ac-
sadors and agencies within the operational ment actions and measures during planning complishment); Are we succeeding? (achiev-
area early in the planning process. (figure 4). They consider assessment measures ing operational and strategic objectives).
Throughout the remaining JOPP steps, as early as mission analysis and include those
the JFC and staff further refine their under- and related guidance in commander and Current Operations
standing of desired and undesired effects. The staff estimates. They use assessment consid- Perhaps the most compelling indica-
accompanying text box contains an example erations to help guide operational design, tor of an idea’s potential value-added is the
of an objective, two supporting effects, and a because these considerations can affect the willingness of people to apply it. Organiza-
task that might be given to a joint force com- sequence of actions along lines of opera- tions engaged in operations tend to quickly
ponent to attain the second effect. Friendly tions. They adjust operations and resources reject ideas that don’t work or that complicate
COAs are developed to attain the effects.
These COAs are analyzed, compared, and
presented to the JFC for approval together
with the staff’s recommendation.
Once the JFC approves a COA, the
operation plan or order is developed and pub-
lished. These plans or orders provide action-
able direction by aligning objectives, effects,
and tasks. Effects can be reflected in various
ways, including the commander’s intent, the
concept of operations, and annexes.
Planners use elements of operational
design throughout the planning process. As
a new component of operational design, the
effects element impacts other parts. As men-
tioned earlier, effects are tied to endstates and
objectives. Desired effects relate to under-
standing centers of gravity in systems terms.
Effects can be used in conjunction with lines
of operations—a technique to depict a logical
 JFQ / issue 44, 1st quarter 2007 ndupress.ndu.edu
Joint warfighting center
proven techniques and
RADM Richard W. Hunt, USN, Commander, Combined Joint Task
procedures. Following although Force–Horn of Africa, meets with Sultan of Tadjoura in Djibouti
are three examples of effects-
organizations using ef- based ideas
fects-related constructs
continue to
in current joint and
be refined,
combined operations.
the core
Both Combined
Forces Command–Af- aspects have
ghanistan (CFC–A) become
and its subordinate, commonly
Combined Joint Task
recognized
Force–76 (CJTF–76),
use effects in their thwei tjhoiinn t Duncan)
internal planning and S.
their interaction with community Roger
the U.S. Ambassador mera (
and country team. Ca
Although focused on mbat
Co
a single country, a number of diverse prov- Fleet
inces increase the complexity of operations.
CFC–A’s development of effects statements Embassies, and other agencies regarding the environment, enhances effects-based plan-
has facilitated collaboration with the U.S. various organizations’ roles in achieving ning within a joint/combined context, and
Embassy. Likewise, CJTF–76 uses effects in common objectives. assesses progress toward the desired end-
its collaboration with the British-led Inter- In Operation Iraqi Freedom, both state by measuring attainment of direct and
national Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Multinational Force–Iraq and Multinational indirect effects to facilitate adaptation of the
Although ISAF uses its own variation of Corps–Iraq (MNC–I) are using a systems per- plan. United Nations Command/Combined
effects, the differences compared to CJTF– spective, effects in the planning process, and Forces Korea/United States Forces Korea
76’s usage are small, and effects essentially assessment of effects in much the same way as has applied effects-based ideas across all
facilitate a common language between the CFC–A and CJTF–76. MNC–I incorporated its military functions. This was evidenced
two organizations. CJTF–76 also uses lines aspects of an effects-based approach as part by Combined Forces Command–Korea’s
of operations not only for military tasks and of its joint operation planning and execution extensive use of TEBO during Exercise
objectives, but also for those related to other procedures. Although its efforts preceded the Reception, Staging, Onward movement, and
systems, such as an objective associated with publication of the Commander’s Handbook for Integration ‘06. Also, in an effort to further
extending the reach of the central govern- an Effects-based Approach to Joint Operations, combined operations in the Korean theater,
ment (the political system in Afghanistan). MNC–I established sound techniques for the Commander’s Handbook for an Effects-
The use of effects and a systems perspective effects planning and assessment. Moreover, based Approach to Joint Operations has been
of the operational environment promote techniques such as those practiced by MNC–I translated to Hangul.
unity of effort among the military, other heavily influenced the development of the n U.S. Special Operations Command’s
agencies, and international forces. handbook. operation plan for the global war on terrorism
U.S. Central Command’s Combined incorporates effects.
Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa (CJTF– Other Examples n The U.S. Army War College incorporates
HOA), based at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Additional organizations in the Depart- effects-related constructs in its Joint Force
faces a situation different from that in Af- ment of Defense, industry, academia, and the Land Component Commander’s Course, a
ghanistan. Its operational area encompasses multinational arena are using effects-related supporting handbook, and its Distance Educa-
a number of countries and requires interac- constructs. tion Course.
tion with seven ambassadors and country n U.S. Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence
teams. Much of the task force’s operational n The U.S. Army is sponsoring a Theater Course includes system-of-systems analysis in
focus is on humanitarian assistance. CJTF– Effects-based Operations (TEBO) Advanced conjunction with its JIPB instruction.
HOA interacts with U.S. Central Command Concept Technology Demonstration for U.S. n The Military Committee of the North
headquarters using objectives and effects, Forces Command Korea to examine spe- Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has
and collaborates with the Embassies the cific tools and technology associated with adopted an effects-based approach to opera-
same way in the context of their mission effects-based planning. TEBO’s integration tions, defining it as “the coherent and compre-
performance plans. While success varies of emerging analysis and decision-aiding hensive application of the various instruments
among the Embassies, in general the use of technologies helps the development of a of the Alliance, combined with the practical
effects has facilitated a more inclusive and comprehensive knowledge base of red, blue, cooperation along with involved non-NATO
common view between the military, the and green players within the operational actors, to create effects necessary to achieve
ndupress.ndu.edu issue 44, 1st quarter 2007 / JFQ    
Effects-Based Approach
at its core, an effects-based approach will
remain primarily a refinement of how we
think about joint operations
planned objectives and ultimately the
NATO endstate.”4
nThe latest draft of Air Force
Doctrine Document 2, Operations
and Organization, incorporates an
effects-based approach to military
operations. 5
At its core, an effects-based
approach will remain primarily a Suggs)
rjnoeiifitnynt n eomopweer nhatat oiso fa nhnso .a wThu twhee oj otrhiitniantt ikcvo eam bbomausuet l-ine mpany (Joey L.
Co
for this thinking in JPs 3–0 and 5–0. The commander of Task Force mera
As effects-related constructs mature, Spartan, part of Combined Joint Ca
members of the joint community Task Force 76, meets governor of mbat
will continue collaboration to refine Kunar Province, Afghanistan th55 Co
the enabling doctrine, organizations,
training, education, and technologies. USJF-
COM will help sustain that baseline consistent The journey to fully implementing an NOTES
with its transformation charter and role as the effects-based approach will continue as joint
joint force trainer. doctrine publications under revision expand 1 Joint Transformation Roadmap, U.S. Joint
Forces Command, November 3, 2003, 12.
The journey from concept develop- the overarching constructs described in Joint
2 The Joint Staff Memorandum, The Effects-
ment and experimentation to joint com- Publication 3–0; as joint training and educa-
based Operations Mini-forum, March 11, 2005.
munity acceptance and application of tion extend their reach to a larger audience;
3 Commander’s Handbook for an Effects-Based
effects-related constructs is typical of other as we field better collaboration, visualization,
Approach to Joint Operations, Joint Warfighting
transformation initiatives. The debate over modeling, and simulation tools; and as orga-
Center, February 24, 2006, available at http://www.
the past three years has been productive. In nizations in the field using an effects-based dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/other_pubs/eb_handbook.pdf.
one way, it has challenged USJFCOM and approach to operations (including those 4 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Military
other proponents to continue to refine the outside the Department of Defense) continue Committee Memorandum, “MC Position on an
constructs, simplify explanation of ideas, to validate new ideas in actual operations Effects Based Approach to Operations,” June 6, 2006.
demonstrate the added value, and recycle or identify better ways and means. In the 5 Air Force Doctrine Document 2 (signature
ideas that are not yet ready for prime time. context of transformation, U.S. Joint Forces draft), Operations and Organization, May 25, 2006.
But the debate has also challenged the en- Command will continue to support these
tire joint community to revisit established processes with concept development, experi-
practices and consider how the community mentation, capabilities development, and the
might improve itself rather than merely professional dialog that is essential to finding
retaining what has worked in the past. better solutions. JFQ
6 JFQ / issue 44, 1st quarter 2007 ndupress.ndu.edu