Intelligence Support to an Effects-Based Approach

**Jedburgh** · 07-11-2007

JFQ, 3rd Qtr 07: Eyes on Target: Intelligence Support to an Effects-Based Approach

...This article explores the evolving effects-based approach and identifies challenges and requirements for effective implementation. It then examines existing or emerging tool sets that may help answer these requirements. Finally, it derives general recommendations for an intelligence system that keeps “eyes on target.” If the utility of shock and awe has been limited by the issues that EBO critics note—and if those issues, rather than being insoluble, can be addressed by a refocused intelligence system—then an effects-based approach can become a critical enabler for victory....

**Dr Jack** · 07-12-2007

"... Commanders must widen the focus of priority intelligence requirements (PIR) supporting an effects-based approach beyond traditional issues of military capabilities and intent (especially on “personalities” and “cultural” intelligence) and increase the focus of battle damage assessment (BDA) on detecting the systemic or psychological effects noted above."

Interesting article... one of the issues that needs to be addressed is how PIR and BDA focus on what will happen (PIR) or what happened (BDA) rather than what it really means... the "Effects-based approach" requires more of a focus on what it all means.

This is analagous to MOP and MOE; MOP tells you whether or not you accomplished the specific task you set out to do; MOP tells you whether or not it really achieved the purpose. Much of our current intel process focuses on tasks / measures of performance -- but what commanders really need to have intel focus on is purpose / measures of effectiveness.

I plan to address this in a new chapter in the next edition of Campaign Planning: Tools of the Trade, and how MOP / MOE relates to Task / Purpose -- and then some examples on how BDA support may well collect metrics for MOP, but the analysis has to address MOE.