ATP-5-0-2-1 Staff Reference Guide Volume 1 Download
Page 21 of 440
Assessing 07 December 2020 ATP 5-0.2-1 5 comprehensive assessments for the commander. This is particularly true for protracted operations. Staff sections can accomplish these comprehensive assessments via an assessment working group. 1-28. Most assessment working groups are at higher echelons (division and above) and are more likely to be required in protracted operations. Normally, the frequency of meetings is part of a unit's battle rhythm. Staffs do not wait, however, for a scheduled working group to inform the commander of issues that require immediate attention or to take action in those areas within their delegated authority. 1-29. The assessment working group is cross-functional by design and includes membership from across the staff, liaison personnel, and other unified action partners outside the headquarters. Commanders direct the COS, XO, or a staff section leader to run the group. Typically, the operations officer, plans officer, or senior ORSA staff section serves as the staff lead. The frequency with which the group meets depends on the situation. 1-30. Developing an assessment plan occurs as part of step 7 of the military decision-making process (MDMP). Subordinate commanders may participate along with staffs to provide operations assessments and recommendations. The assessment working group may ultimately present its findings and recommendations to the commander as well. Commanders combine these assessments with their personal assessment, consider recommendations, and then direct changes to improve performance and better accomplish the mission. INCORPORATION OF THE LOGIC OF THE PLAN 1-31. Effective assessment relies on an accurate understanding of the logic (reasoning) used to build a plan. Each plan is built on assumptions and an operational approach. The reasons why a commander believes the plan will produce the desired results become important considerations when staffs determine how to assess operations. Recording, understanding, and making this logic explicit helps staffs recommend the appropriate MOEs and MOPs for assessing the operation. CAUTION WHEN ESTABLISHING CAUSE AND EFFECT 1-32. Although establishing cause and effect is sometimes difficult, it is crucial to effective assessment. Sometimes, establishing causality between actions and their effects can be relatively straightforward, such as in observing a bomb destroy a bridge. In other instances-especially regarding changes in human behavior, attitudes, and perception-establishing links between cause and effect proves difficult. Commanders and staffs must guard against drawing erroneous conclusions in these instances. AFTER ACTION REVIEWS 1-33. The material in this section is derived from graphic training aid (GTA) 25-06-023 and FM 7-0. AARs comprise three types: formal, informal, and interim. Formal AARs are scheduled in advance, may have external observers, and take considerably longer to prepare and complete than informal and interim AARs. Formal AARs use complex training aids and are conducted where they are best supported. Informal AARs must remain professional and well organized, while encouraging open dialogue about events and details. Informal AARs— Are conducted by the internal chain of command. Take less time than formal AARs. Use simple training aids. Are conducted when needed. Interim AARs afford commanders the ability to capture details that might otherwise be forgotten and ensures the reporting of intelligence to higher and adjacent units. Details can be lost during an extended operation or event such as a convoy. If the operation covers multiple days, commanders should conduct AARs during rest periods, breaks in activity, or as often as required.