AFDD 2-1.9, page 68

58 commanders’ objectives at all levels, support commanders’ decision cycles in real time, and provide the basis for analysis. To accomplish these things, an effective assessment construct must address the entire spectrum of operations and all levels of war, permit component validation of assessment elements, focus on effects, standardize federation, utilize intelligence specialties effectively, and integrate analysis efforts to the maximum extent possible. MEASURES AND INDICATORS At all levels of assessment, planners must choose criteria that describe or establish when actions have been accomplished, desired effects have been created, and objectives have been achieved. These criteria are called “measures and indicators.” There are three distinct types of measures: › Measures of Performance: Objective or quantitative measures assigned to the actions of a tactical task and against which a tactical task’s accomplishment, in operations or missions terms, is assessed. MOP are associated with actions and thus exist only at the tactical level of conflict. › Measures of Effect: Qualitative or quantitative measures assigned to an intended effect (direct or indirect), against which the effect’s achievement is directly assessed. Some of these may be direct forms of measurement, like an eyewitness account of a bridge span being down; some may be more circumstantial indicators, such as measurements of traffic backed up behind a downed bridge. › Success Indicators (SI): The conditions indicating the progress toward or achievement of an objective or end-state condition. SI are normally qualitative and may be subjective. SI are normally developed from the most critical end state conditions that attainment of an objective will manifest in the operating environment. SI are independent from MOP and MOE and can exist at all levels of conflict, but primarily reside at the operational and strategic levels. Measures and indicators are selected during planning. When selecting assessment measures, planners must identify the essential elements of information required to collect against them and provide guidance in the collection plan and JIPCL if special ISR or other PBA resources are needed. These measures must be refined or amended during the tasking cycle, as the tactical situation or the status of the target changes. Selection of assessment measures is an iterative, ongoing effort. There may often be “gray areas” between MOP, MOE, and SI—empirical data supporting objective accomplishment, for instance—but all measures that determine accomplishment of objectives are SI, regardless of the level of war. To be useful as a gauge of effectiveness, a measure, whether an MOP, MOE, or SI, must be meaningful, reliable, and either observable or capable of being reliably inferred. Meaningful means it must be tied, explicitly and logically, to objectives at all levels. Reliable means it must accurately express the intended effect. If quantitative measures are used, they must be relevant. It is not sufficient to choose “fifty percent of enemy