• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

CHAPTER 5

ASSESSMENT

The truth is sought, regardless of whether pleasant or unpleasant.

                                      LTG Leslie J. McNair

Training assessment is an integral part of the training management 
cycle. Information obtained as a result of a thoroughly planned evaluation 
provides the basis for the commander's and leader's assessment of his unit
and training program. Throughout, leaders benefit through the leadership
assessment and development program that occurs concurrently with the training
evaluation and assessment process. Ultimately, adjustments are made in
resources, personnel, training methods, and other areas to refine the
training program focus.

UNIT ASSESSMENT

Leaders use evaluations and other feedback to assess soldier, leader, and unit proficiency. The analysis of the information provided through evaluations is the key mechanism that commanders use for their assessment. Additionally, commanders can adjust priorities and resources as necessary to synchronize all unit functions. To assess training proficiency and selected tasks, commanders--

• Select type of evaluation.

• Develop an evaluation plan.

• Conduct evaluation of training.

• Conduct after action reviews.

• Provide feedback to chain of command.

Figure 5-1 lists important sources of information that assist leaders in assessing their units' training status and ability to accomplish wartime missions.

Figure 5-1.

EVALUATION

The evaluation process is continuous. Therefore, evaluations must be planned for all training and considered as a way of life in the unit. Training evaluation is integral to training management and is conducted by leaders at every level.

Evaluation of training measures the demonstrated ability of soldiers, leaders, and units to perform a task against Army standards. It is a snapshot, at a given time, on whether or not the task was conducted to standard under prescribed conditions.

Each training event is evaluated during training execution. Planning for training must include resources (such as leader time, prerequisite training, evaluators, and equipment) to facilitate evaluation. The use of evaluation data can have a strong positive (or negative) effect on command climate of the unit.

Evaluations are used to--

• Provide feedback on training proficiency to those participating in the training event (using AARs).

• Assess METL task proficiency.

• Develop lessons learned for distribution throughout the command, and the Army, when applicable.

• Shape future training plans.

• Enhance leader development.

Evaluations can be informal or formal and internal or external. Key points for each type of evaluation follow.

Informal evaluations are most commonly used at battalion level and below. They are--

• Conducted by all leaders in chain of command.

• Continuous.

• Used to provide immediate feedback on training proficiency.

Formal evaluations are usually scheduled on the long-range and short-range calendars. These include ARTEP evaluations, EIB, EFMB, and TVIs. They are--

• Sometimes unannounced, such as an EDRE.

• Normally highlighted during QTBs and YTBs.

• Resourced with dedicated evaluators or OCs.

Internal evaluations are planned, resourced, and conducted by the unit undergoing the evaluation. External evaluations are also planned and resourced. However, they are normally conducted by the headquarters two levels above the unit being evaluated. For example, division evaluates battalions; brigade evaluates companies; battalion evaluates platoons; and company evaluates sections, squads, teams, or crews.

These evaluations can be combined to meet the particular needs of the units or soldiers being evaluated. Figure 5-2 shows the application of each combination. Regardless of the type of evaluation, leaders must be present at all training--personally supervising and evaluating.

The evaluation of collective training is critical to assessing a unit's capability to perform its METL tasks. For evaluation to be effective, it must be thoroughly planned and rigorously executed. Thus, leaders must begin the planning process as early as possible to provide an accurate evaluation.

RC commanders may request assistance from Maneuver Training Commands, partnership or affiliated units, CAPSTONE aligned units, or readiness groups to assist in the planning, preparation, and evaluation of training. However, the RC chain of command remains responsible for the evaluation.

Figure 5-2. Use of types of evaluations

The chain of command needs the following information to facilitate long-range evaluation planning:

• Type of exercise (battalion FTX, company FTX, company STX, TEWT).

• Dates of exercise.

• Type of evaluation (formal, informal, internal, external, or combination).

• Support requirements (internal and external).

• Coordination for external evaluation support.

More detailed evaluation planning occurs as time draws near. To continue effective short range planning, the commander and key leaders develop and provide the following information:

• Commander's intent and focus for the exercise.

• Pre-execution checklist.

• Level of evaluation; for example, down to platoon level.

• Dates for training the evaluators.

• Plan for conduct of evaluator training.

The commander and key leaders also provide a completed evaluation and control plan. The plan contains--

• Intent of the exercise and the evaluation.

• Evaluation procedures.

• Exercise scenario.

• Training objectives.

• Guidance on conduct of AARs.

• Resource guidance.

• Required coordination.

• Discussion on evaluators' role in safety.

• Rules of engagement.

• References (SMs, FMs, MTPs, and SOPs (including those of slice units)).

• Evaluation checklists (to include T&EOs).

Refinement of the evaluation plan continues up to execution. This accommodates changes made to the events and evaluation plan and to resource allocations.

Evaluators must be highly qualified to enhance the training experience for the evaluated unit by providing valid, credible observations. The evaluator should be equal or senior in rank to the leader being evaluated. Ideally, the evaluator should have held the position himself, as it lends credibility to his role.

Leaders and soldiers learn from the evaluator. Likewise, the evaluator learns by observing the unit. Listed below are some basic rules for the evaluator:

• Be trained and rehearsed.

• Know the terrain. (Conduct reconnaissance when possible.)

• Don't be argumentative.

• Identify strengths as well as weaknesses.

• Patiently observe all actions of a unit. (Don't jump to conclusions.)

• Always use the chain of command. (Don't take command of the unit.)

• Be prepared to coach unit leaders.

• Be flexible; base evaluation on unit's reaction to the tactical situation, not on personal knowledge of the preplanned scenario.

• Do what the soldiers do. Experience the same conditions as the evaluated unit.

• Know OPFOR training objectives.

Evaluation planners should use an evaluator worksheet, such as the example in Figure 5-3. This helps determine the best evaluator organization. The task evaluation matrix at Figure 5-4 aids in this determination.

Figure 5-3.

Figure 5-4. Task evaluation matrix.

Evaluators must be trained prior to conducting evaluations. This ensures they are technically and tactically competent and understand their responsibilities during evaluations. Training should include the elements listed in Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5.

AFTER ACTION REVIEW

The AAR is a structured review process that allows training participants to discover for themselves what happened, why it happened, and how it can be done better. AARs--

• Focus on the training objectives. (Was the mission accomplished?)

• Emphasize meeting Army standards. (AARs do not determine winners or losers.)

• Encourage soldiers to discover important lessons from the training event. (They are not a critique.)

• Allow a large number of soldiers and leaders (including OPFOR) to participate so that lessons learned can be shared.

The AAR consists of four parts:

• Review what was supposed to happen (training plan).

• Establish what happened (to include OPFOR point of view).

• Determine what was right or wrong with what happened.

• Determine how the task should be done differently next time.

The AAR is often used as a leader development technique to develop leaders throughout the entire chain of command. Leaders may use the AAR for an extended professional discussion with subordinate leaders. At completion of the exercise, a final AAR is conducted. It is a meeting with the evaluators or OCs, OPFOR, and unit leaders to review the training just conducted. Training weaknesses identified during AARs must be included in future planned training. Detailed discussion of AARs is at Appendix G.

TRAINING ASSESSMENT

After the conduct of the final AAR, the commander reviews the evaluation and AAR results to assess his unit's training proficiency. The commander's assessment of training proficiency on mission essential task list tasks is rated as either "T" (trained), "P" (needs practice), or "U" (untrained). As discussed in Chapter 3, those battlefield operating systems that do not apply to the task are left blank on the commander's assessment worksheet.

NCOs may use a leader book in assessing squad, crew, and soldier proficiency (see Appendix B). The commander uses the assessment worksheet to record training weaknesses. This information helps to identify a strategy to improve or sustain training proficiency. Other worksheet formats which identify subunits instead of BOS may be used for the commander's assessment (see Figure 3-15). Regardless of its format, the worksheet is only a tool for the commander to plan training.

EXAMPLE TRAINING ASSESSMENTS

To illustrate the concept of training evaluations and assessments, the following examples from the Task Force 1-77 FTX, 52d Engineer Battalion CFX, and 1st FSB FTX (EXEVAL) are provided.

At the completion of TF 1-77's FTX, evaluators provided written evaluations on the tasks performed. Evaluation results were recorded on the T&EOs from the applicable MTP. T&EO extracts from the TF, Team A, and 1st Platoon, Team A, are at Figures 5-6, 5-7 and 5-8. An extract from the squad leader's evaluation of his soldiers' proficiency in the task Prepare a Fighting Position is at Figure 5-9.

The leaders used the AARs as their final piece of information focusing on what happened, why it happened, and how to do it better. Through the AAR process, the chief OC was able to have unit members describe what happened in their own words and from their own points of view. This helped evaluators and unit leaders to focus on whether or not the mission was accomplished so that leaders could link lessons learned to subsequent training.

As a result of the AARs, the TF 1-77 commander discovered the unit had improved considerably on the tasks Movement by Road/Rail and Defend. However, the unit still had problems with the task Assault during the company STXs. The AAR revealed that coordination and adjustment of artillery and mortar fire slowed the assault, making the indirect fire ineffective. It also revealed that the slow commitment of engineer assets resulted in the companies spending too much time exposed to enemy fire at enemy obstacles. Much better coordination and integration of the slice units were needed during planning and preparation.

This type of feedback from the AARs, coupled with an after action report, provided information the TF 1-77 commander needed--

• To determine his assessment of each mission essential task.

• To develop a training strategy for future training.

• To plan and conduct additional training.

Based on the training evaluation results, AARs, and their own personal observations, the TF and Team A commanders assessed their units on each METL task trained. Extracts of those assessment are at Figures 5-10 and 5-11.

Figure 5-6. TF 1-77 training evaluation extract.

Figure 5-7. Team A training evaluation extract.

Figure 5-8. 1st Platoon, Team A, training evaluation extract.

Figure 5-9. Squad training evaluation extract.

Figure 5-10. TF 1-77 commander's training assessment extract.

Figure 5-11. Team A commander's training assessment extract.

The 52D Engineer Battalion CFX provided valuable training feedback to the battalion leaders. The exercise did not involve a higher headquarter's directed external evaluation; however, the battalion commander wanted help in evaluating the battalion CP operation. He requested and received evaluators from the 25th Engineer Battalion. To evaluate selected operations conducted by A Company, the battalion S3 planned and conducted evaluator training and assisted the OCs from the 25th Engineer Battalion in preparing evaluation packets.

The evaluators prepared evaluation packets using ARTEP 5-145-MTP, ARTEP 5-145-31-MTP, ARTEP 5-145-11-MTP, and ARTEP 5-145-Drills. The battalion CP evaluators focused on the battalion staff tasks which had been designated as battle tasks. A Company was evaluated on its ability to construct hasty obstacles and conduct obstacle breaching operations. Figures 5-12, 5-13, and 5-14 are examples of the completed T&EOs that the evaluators provided.

Discussions during the offensive planning AAR revealed that the battalion's logistical planning was inadequate; it did not allow for full support of the battalion's mobility operations. The battalion S4 pointed out that the companies had submitted their logistical requirements too late. The S4 section could not obtain the supplies prior to the offensive. The evaluator from the 25th Engineer Battalion suggested the S4 could reduce the impact of late requests by anticipating the increased requirements for Class III and breaching materials needed to support battalion operations.

Obstacle reporting was a weakness discovered during the AAR conducted after the division's offensive operations. Companies and platoons moving forward in the offense had not reported some existing enemy and friendly obstacles. This caused severe problems for two division CSS units as they moved forward to their next position. They had to detour to avoid the obstacles and reached their new position several hours late. The loss of the CSS units' support for the additional time could have been avoided had the engineer units reported the obstacles.

From the evaluators' comments, discussions during the AARs, and his own observations, the battalion commander assessed the training status of the unit. The results of the offensive phase of the exercise caused him to assess the battalion as "P" on two METL tasks, Conduct Logistical Operations and Report Obstacle Information.

Figure 5-12. 52d Engineer Battalion training evaluation extract.

Figure 5-13.

Figure 5-14. 1st Squad, 1st Platoon, A Company, training extract.

Figure 5-15. 52d Engineer Battalion commander's training assessment.

Figure 5-15 shows the battalion commander's revised assessment of the four METL tasks rated "P" prior to the CFX. It also shows his strategy for correcting weaknesses and sustaining strengths.

At the completion of 1st FSB's FTX (EXEVAL), evaluators provided written evaluations on the tasks performed. Extracts from evaluations of the battalion task Direct Response Against BSA Threat and the related company task Defend Company Sector are at Figures 5-16 and 5-1.

The FSB commander used the AAR as the final piece of information. He focused on how well the tasks were performed and what the unit needed to do for future training. Through the AAR process, the chief OC heard soldiers describe what happened in their own words and from their own points of view. Following are comments made by unit members.

PVT Romero, legal clerk, HHD, 1ST FSB, stated that he had learned the importance of using the SALUTE format (size, activity, location, uniform, time, and equipment) to send a spot report and of properly camouflaging himself, his equipment, and position. He and another soldier were assigned LP and OP duty prior to one of the attacks. The enemy detected PVT Romero and was able to get very close to the perimeter of the BSA. When he did see the enemy, he was unable to send a clear and concise warning to the BSA.

Immediately afterward, PVT Romero received retraining on sending a report and camouflaging properly. He recommended that the unit conduct refresher training on basic combat survival skills for all soldiers prior to field training.

PFC Schmitt, supply specialist, A Company, 1st FSB, stated that his training with the reaction force had increased his tactical competence. He felt that the movement techniques he had learned were key to driving off the OPFOR during the FTX. He recommended that MILES be used more on the next FTX to enhance the training.

Figure 5-16.

Figure 5-17. A Company, 1st FSB training evaluation extract.

SFC Mills, platoon sergeant, B Company, said that the predeployment training the battalion had accomplished prior to the FTX was key to the successful deployment to the field. He felt that his soldiers had performed extremely well on uploading supplies and equipment and had gained confidence in their ability to deploy. SFC Mills also noted that the route to the BSA had only two artillery targets. He thought more targets were needed for the length of route. The S3 noted this weakness for future planning.

PVT Johnson, medic, C Company, 1st FSB, stated that his land navigation training had helped him in accomplishing his mission. He had received a "real world" mission to evacuate a soldier with a broken leg and had only grid coordinates of the location. His training allowed him to quickly navigate to the location, render aid, and evacuate the patient back to the BSA.

From the AAR feedback, the FSB commander found that the unit had improved considerably on the following tasks:

• Deploy to a combat area of operations.

• Conduct logistical operations.

• Casualty evacuation.

However, the unit still had problems responding to a threat to the BSA. The AAR revealed that many soldiers needed refresher training on basic combat tasks. The unit performed extremely well on these tasks during last year's FTX but had conducted little sustainment training since. Many new soldiers were assigned to the battalion since that FTX and needed initial training. The FSB commander had considered the unit trained on basic combat skills and therefore had not emphasized sustainment training to subordinate leaders.

Feedback (such as above) from the AAR, coupled with the evaluation result, provided information the FSB commander needed to complete his training assessment and develop a plan for corrective actions. After assessing the unit's level of proficiency on METL tasks, he developed a training plan to emphasize the following:

• Basic combat skills--refresher training.

• Casualty evacuation--sustainment training.

• Direct response to BSA threat--refresher training.

• Deploy to combat area of operations--sustainment training.

Figure 5-18. 1st FSB commander's training assessment extract.

From the training evaluation results, AARs, and his own personal observations, the FSB commander assessed his unit on each METL task as it related to the BOS (Figure 5-18).

The commander's assessment is not the end of training. It is the link that ties the evaluation of training to the planning of future training.

Figure 5-19. Training Management Cycle.