Effects-Based Decisions and Actions

WHY SHOULD commanders and staff use effects-based decision and action? Staffs often spend precious time in process rather than in product. They devote many hours working through all the steps in the decisionmaking process rather than focusing on issuing an order. Often, units waste time executing a plan that does not affect the enemy as the plan was designed to do, but units follow the plan anyway because it is "the plan. " An effects-based decision and action system that focuses on product, not process, and on effect on the enemy, not adherence to the plan, addresses these issues. In addition, an effects-based decision and action system leads to decisions and allows actions to be performed faster than an enemy can do the same, thereby increasing the probability that units can take advantage of opportunities as they arise on the battlefield. Finally, an effects-based decision and action system fits the operational concepts of the Army's Objective Force. Effects-based decisions and actions begin with commanders at every level, and they describe how commanders want to bring effects to bear on the enemy. "Effects" describes what commanders and units are trying to do to the enemy. Effects are the "end" or goal of the operation, battle, or activity a unit is undertaking. All else is "means"; that is, operations, battles, or other activities are the means through which a unit intends to achieve the effect the commander describes. Effects are fixed; means are variable. Effects must be nested. A description of desired effects on the enemy begins with the senior commander and works its way down through an organization. Each subordinate commander must ensure that the effects described are consistent with those of the commander two levels above. Furthermore, effects must be described clearly and concisely enough to be useful two levels down. Effects influence an enemy, by which we mean the conventional definition-uniformed soldiers of a nation-state or group of nation-states with which the United States is in armed conflict. The second, nontraditional definition is more difficult to define; it includes any person, place, group, action, or situation that inhibits an organization from accomplishing its mission. An effects-based decision and action system changes the way in which units use commander's intent, which current doctrine defines in terms of purpose, method/key tasks, and end state. Commander's intent is a task-based, stand-alone component of the operations order. In contrast, an effects-based decision and action system integrates commander's intent into other parts of the order; incorporates purpose into the mission; embeds key tasks as part of missions to subordinate units; and integrates the end state into the concept of the operation (see figure). The difference between current doctrinal commander's intent and an effects-based decision and action system is critical. In an effects-based decision and action system, the mission and the concept of the operation become the means (the variable element) the commander envisions to implement the action he wants to inflict on the enemy, that is, the end that he describes in the intent (the fixed element). The why of the mission statement states why, from a friendly commander's perspective, he assigns a particular task. Examples of mission statements that current doctrine generates are "seize a hill to protect a flank"; "secure a bridge to facilitate a river crossing"; "defend a town to protect a key facility. " Effects, on the other hand, are written from the enemy's perspective. A commander's intent that an effects-based decision and action system generates might state, "prevent the enemy from interrupting friendly movement across the river"; "keep the enemy within a specific geographic area"; "destroy the enemy's ability to perform a particular task. " Intent-the effect a commander wants to have on the enemy-governs initiative. In fact, intent should govern all activity on the battlefield and on staffs at every level. …