MAGAZINE
SPRING 2020
Driving Change With the case already made for the requirement to change , and an understanding of AFS Vol VII and its place in relation to assuring readiness , it is important to delve into the details of the key changes . These changes will affect not only the outputs of CREVAL , but also the evaluators and the way in which they will seek to conduct the evaluation of Units and Headquarters . There are several overarching principles that can explain the approach : 1 - CREVAL subject matter experts ( SMEs ) must follow the main evaluation principles , all of which are highlighted in the revised AFS Vol VII :
• Dialogue and interaction . Key to success is open and proactive cooperation between the evaluated entities and the Evaluation Conducting Authorities . Evaluations should be closely coordinated between both parties to ensure mutual support in achieving the desired outcome .
• Continuous improvement . Evaluation is not a one-time pass or fail event , but a process that facilitates continuous improvement and makes the NATO Evaluation , Training , Exercise and Evaluation ( ETEE ) a genuine learning system . The Lessons Learned ( LL ) process is utilized to provide feedback on how to improve the ETEE system .
• Tailored and flexible . Evaluation is conducted during the major phases of an exercise and is tailored to the specific character of the phase and to the evaluated headquarters / unit requirements . Any opportunity for evaluation inside or outside of an exercise can be exploited IOT provide commanders with early feedback for improvement .
2 - CREVAL is driven by the current year SACEUR Annual Guidance on Exercise ( SAGE ), the evaluated commander ’ s Training Objectives ( TOs ) and intent , the last evaluation report , and is conducted in accordance with AFS Vol VII ( see Figure 2 ).
Changing the Team Sheet The revision process resulted in some new additions to the Evaluation Team ( ET ), notably the addition of an Analysis and Reporting Team ( ART ), the Evaluation Team Leader ( ETL ), and specified SMEs . Composition of the ET may differ according to exercise , evaluation objectives , and evaluated entities , however , the following additions are noteworthy :
• The ART analyses the observations provided in daily situation reports ( SITREP ) in order to identify general trends , shortfalls , and areas of improvement . The team provides guidance to evaluators or data collection required to improve the CREVAL . The ART produces the
12
Evaluation Report based on analysis from daily SITREPs and collects updates on the evaluation progress and trends .
• The ETL is the senior evaluator and is responsible for reviewing written remarks prepared by evaluators for their respective areas of observations and presenting findings to the ETC through the ART . They lead and direct the ET and their analysis of the EVOs . The ETL also establishes an ET battle rhythm coherent with the battle rhythm of the evaluated headquarters / unit and provides a daily ( SITREP ) to the ETC and the ART . They also liaison with senior representative of the evaluated headquarters / unit .
• CREVAL Officer of Primary Responsibility ( OPR ) is the focal point for the organization of a CREVAL . They plan the evaluation and represent the ETC throughout the exercise planning process . During the execution stage , they are the coordination officer responsible for all ET arrangements and requirements .
FIGURE 2