MAGAZINE
FIGURE 4
SPRING 2020
What ‘ s new ? Evaluations now mirror the Exercise Planning Process ( EPP ). As a result , there is no grading system , but a general assessment for the headquarters ’ readiness which mirrors the current joint evaluation programme , complete with a summarized statement indicating whether or not the evaluated organisation meets the applicable standards and requirements and has the capability to conduct and sustain NATO operations . It is also important to emphasize the new Yes / No grading system for unit CREVAL checklists .
The CREVAL timeline has not changed significantly and still requires approximately 18 months of involvement , broken down into specified stages and subordinate phases for both units and headquarters elements ( see Figures 3 and 4 ). The most notable addition , however , is the new ETC to evaluated headquarters commander to commander dialogue . It is recommended that this be conducted the beginning of Stage 2 of the Exercise Planning Process or shortly after the Initial Planning Conference ( IPC ). The key output to this meeting is an agreement between evaluating and evaluated commander on the specific MCAs to be evaluated with an emphasis on SACEUR ’ s priorities and the training audience ’ s ( TA ) Primary Training Objectives ( PTOs ). This process of refining evaluation criteria within the CREVAL is intended to provide value when building readiness from the training event . The ETC to commander dialogue should provide direction and guidance for the ICM key outputs , namely refinement of PTOs , development of Evaluation Objectives , Technical Agreements understanding , and After Action Review ( AAR ) input from SMEs .
The other particular change to the ICM in Stage 1 , only applicable to a headquarters CREVAL , is the removal of the non evaluated / non applicable ( NA / NE ) agreement . This is now called the Evaluated Criteria Agreement . The reasoning is the same ( national caveats , peacetime restrictions , exercise scenario , real life considerations ), only the meanings have positive connotations . For unit CREVALs however , there is no change regarding this issue .
The most visible addition is Phase IV assessment during Stage 2 of Headquarters CREVALs . The AAR is a structured review process that allows training participants to discover for themselves what happened and why , and identify how they can perform better . The AAR is a guided analysis of the headquarter performance , conducted at the conclusion of the CREVAL with the objective of improving future performance . The LANDCOM Commanders AAR aim is for the ET , to include respective Division Assistant Chief of Staff ( ACOS ) support to the evaluated entity in recording observations , insights , and Lessons Learned ( LL ) for future use and to identify trends and prevent reoccurrences of improper practices . Phase IV concludes with the LANDCOM Commander ’ s CREVAL Outbrief and the respective authorities official signing of the Evaluation Formal Report .
Evaluation Criteria Development . Structured in accordance with MCAs , they translate every requirement identified in the AFS Vol . II into proper evaluation criteria in AFS Vol VII . Criteria are developed for each possible land forces headquarters role . In regards to units , developed evaluation criteria are applicable for Battalion and Battle Group ( BG ) level only .
So what is the real value behind all of these changes ? The new approach brings more interaction and understanding between stakeholders during the preparation for an eventual accomplishment of their mission , thereby achieving unity of effort . Evaluation has evolved to become a more valuable and insightful process , seeking constant improvement over a longer perspective .
Summary Key enablers for achieving Alliance strategic objectives and preparing for the challenges ahead in many ways are education , training , exercise and evaluation activities and events . The NATO ETEE programme provides transformation opportunities and plays a central role in efforts to build and sustain interoperability and readiness . These are essential for the Alliance to remain capable of reacting to an evolving and complex security landscape . NATO is responding to the current security threats , adapting to new challenges , and preparing for tomorrow . Future perspectives will be no less complex than today ’ s , remaining diverse , unpredictable , and demanding . Some aspects of today will endure , whilst others will change significantly . One principle upon which the military leadership should seek to build success in accomplishing the core tasks and addressing instability in the future security environment is to LEAD change at all levels . LC
FIGURE 3
13