ATP-5-0-2-1 Staff Reference Guide Volume 1 Download

Chapter 2 34 ATP 5-0.2-1 07 December 2020 Step 2.16. Develop Course of Action Evaluation Criteria 2-102. If staffs are developing more than one COA, they need to develop evaluation criteria. Evaluation criteria are standards commanders and staffs later use to measure the relative effectiveness and efficiency of one COA relative to another. Developing these criteria during mission analysis or as part of a commander's planning guidance helps to eliminate a source of bias prior to COA analysis and comparison. Evaluation criteria address factors that affect success and those that can cause failure. Criteria change from mission to mission and must be clearly defined and understood by all staff members before starting analysis to test the proposed COAs. Normally, the COS, XO, or planning team lead initially determines each proposed criterion with weights (if needed) based on the assessment of its relative importance and the commander's guidance. Commanders adjust criterion selection and weighting according to their own experience and vision. Staffs present the proposed evaluation criteria to a commander for approval at the mission analysis brief. 2-103. Well-defined evaluation criteria have five elements:  Short title—the criterion name.  Definition—a clear description of the feature being evaluated.  Unit of measure—a standard element used to quantify the criterion. Examples of units of measure are U.S. dollars, miles per gallon, and feet.  Benchmark—a value that defines the desired state for a solution in terms of a particular criterion.  Formula—an expression of how changes in the value of the criterion affect the desirability of the possible solution. Planners state the formula in comparative terms (for example, less is better) or absolute terms (for example, a night movement is better than a day movement). 2-104. Evaluation criteria must be measurable and easily and clearly defined. For example—  Good evaluation criterion: mass-the number of tanks attacking at the decisive point.  Bad evaluation criterion: mass-number of platoons (this criterion leaves unanswered when and where regarding the platoons and whether non-maneuver platoons count). Table 2-5 shows example evaluation criteria. Table 2-5. Example evaluation criteria 2-105. Benchmarks, prescribed by regulations or by guidance from the decision maker, are critical standards for meaningful analysis. Decision makers judge a solution against a standard, thereby determining whether that solution is good in an objective sense. This process differs from comparison, where decision makers judge possible solutions against each other, determining whether a solution is better or worse in a relative sense. Sometimes, a decision maker can infer a benchmark by the tangible return expected from a problem's solution. Often, however, leaders establish benchmarks themselves. Four common methods for establishing benchmarks are—  Reasoning-based on personal experience and judgement regarding what is good.  Historical precedent-based on relevant examples of prior success. Short Title Definition Unit of Measure Benchmark Formula Casualties Casualties taken during the entire operation # of Casualties 136 Casualties < 136 is an advantage, > 136 is a disadvantage, less is better Tempo How long will it take for enemy forces to reach PL RED Hours 3 hours < 3 hours is a disadvantage, > 3 hours is an advantage, longer is better Complexity # of task organization changes required # of task organization changes 7 task organization changes < 7 is an advantage, > 7 is a disadvantage, less is better