NATO UNCLASSIFIED

1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Supreme Allied Commander, Europe B-7010 SHAPE Belgium

Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation

Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2490 United States of America

SHAPE: SACT: Date:

SH/PLANS/J7/PLL/FA/15-309195 5000/TSC FET 0100/TT-150341/Ser: NU November 2015

Tel: Tel: Fax: Fax:

+32-(0)65-44-7111 (SHAPE) + 1-(757)-747-3400 (SACT) +32-(0)65-44-3545 (SHAPE) + 1-(757)-747-3242 (SACT)

Bi-STRATEGIC COMMAND DIRECTIVE 080-091 JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AND REPORTS REFERENCES: A. MCM-0021-2011, NATO Lessons Learned Policy, dated 18 May 2011..

B. Bi-SC Directive 080-006, Lessons Learned, dated 10 July 2015.

1. Status. This directive details the specific provisions from the NATO Lessons Learned Policy (Reference A), concerning the Joint Analysis Requirements and Joint Analysis Reports, and complements Bi-Strategic Command Directive 080-006, Lessons Learned (Reference B). 2. Purpose. This directive provides guidance to NATO Commanders on how to prepare and submit Joint Analysis Requirements and how to staff Joint Analysis Reports. 3. Applicability. This directive is applicable to NATO Strategic Commands and subordinate organizations and constitutes a guide for other organizations which submit Joint Analysis Requirements or produce Joint Analysis Reports. 4. Publication Updates. This document will be reviewed as required by the Bi-SC Lessons Learned Steering Group. Updates are authorized when approved jointly by COS HQ SACT and COS SHAPE.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

5. Proponent. The lead proponent for this directive is HQ SACT, ACOS Capability Engineering and Innovation (CEI), Innovation, Doctrine and Lessons Learned Branch (IDLL). FOR THE SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDERS, EUROPE AND TRANSFORMATION:

Michel Yakovleff Lieutenant General, FRA A Vice Chief of Staff

Phil Jones CB CBE Lieutenant General, GBR A Chief of Staff

DISTRIBUTION: External: Action: List XV List X List VIII List XIV Internal: Action: List I List II Information: External: List III List VII List XI List XII List XIII SHAPE J7

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

2 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – GENERALITIES ON JOINT ANALYSIS

Analysis in NATO NATO Joint Analysis Requirements Output of Joint Analysis

CHAPTER 2 – DEVELOPING JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

Nature of Joint Analysis Requirements Developing of Joint Analysis Requirements Submission of Joint Analysis Requirements

CHAPTER 3 – SELECTING JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

General Collection and selection of Joint Analysis Requirements Flowchart of the JAR process Timeline Submission of Emergent Joint Analysis Requirements Cancellation of Joint Analysis Requirements

CHAPTER 4 – PRODUCING JOINT ANALYSIS REPORTS

Joint Analysis Report Structure Progress Reporting Distribution of Joint Analysis Reports

PAGE

6 6 6

8 8 8

9 9 9 9 10 10

10 11 11

PARAGRAPH

1-1 1-2 1-3

2-1 2-2 2-3

3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6

4-1 4-2 4-3

CHAPTER 5 – HANDLING OF JOINT ANALYSIS REPORTS

Reviewing Draft Joint Analysis Reports Staffing Final Joint Analysis Reports Process Implementing Remedial Actions

12 12 13 13

5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4

ANNEXES:

A. Guidance for writing Joint Analysis Requirements. B. Example of Joint Analysis Requirements. C. Clarification questions to refine Joint Analysis Requirements. D. Comment sheet for draft reports. E. Glossary of Terms.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

6 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CHAPTER 1 – GENERALITIES ON JOINT ANALYSIS 1-1. Analysis in NATO

a. AAP-06 defines analysis as “the study of a whole by examining its parts and their interactions”. For the NATO lessons learned process, analysis is used to thoroughly understand areas and issues identified for which there is potential for improvement. Analysis supports decision makers by providing impartial advice derived from rigorous methods. b. Joint Analysis is the act of determining the root cause(s) of an observed issue and identifying the Remedial Action(s) (RA) that will address those root causes to correct the problem or sustain the success. Joint Analysis is generally conducted at the operational and strategic level leading to Lessons Identified (LI) and/or Best Practices (BP).

c. Subordinate to HQ SACT, the Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre (JALLC) is NATO’s lead agent for Joint Analysis. Consequently, this directive is mainly addressing Joint Analysis as conducted by JALLC.

d. The NATO Lessons Learned Policy notes that the NATO accredited Centres of Excellence (COE) also have the potential to conduct joint analysis projects of interest to NATO. Such a role may be carried out in conjunction with other analysis entities such as the JALLC.

e. It is recognized that other entities such as NATO agencies, NATO bodies and nations may conduct or contribute to Joint Analysis.

1-2. NATO Joint Analysis Requirements

a. NATO Joint Analysis Requirement (JAR) identifies an observed complex NATO-wide issue of an enduring nature. b. NATO Strategic Commands receive JARs from a variety of sources including: NATO HQ International Staff and International Military Staff, NATO nations, NATO Centres of Excellence, NATO Agencies, and subordinate commands.

1-3. Output of Joint Analysis The output of a JAR is a comprehensive Lessons Identified usually takes the form of a Joint Analysis Report, as detailed in para 4.1.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

7 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CHAPTER 2 – DEVELOPING JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS 2-1. Nature of Joint Analysis Requirements. A JAR should stem from a requirement to thoroughly understand areas and issues identified for which there is potential for improvement and that is of great importance to NATO or the Nations, and is of an enduring nature. In addition, JARs should:

a. Be derived from observations of trends, patterns or risks rather than from isolated events in respect of which findings from joint analysis will rapidly become obsolete. b. Identify an issue/problem or a good practice for analysis of an enduring nature that will still be of relevance to NATO (i.e. not overtaken by events) after Joint Analysis has been conducted (see Annex A).

c. Primarily concern the strategic-operational sphere with strategic-operational impact.

d. Focus on NATO as a whole, e.g. have an impact on NATO doctrine.

e. In principle, be approved through the respective chain of command.

2-2. Drafting of Joint Analysis Requirements. It is vital that JARs coherently articulate the identified problem or issue and have applicability/utility to NATO in order to be accepted. Annex A., B. and C. provide guidance for drafting a JAR, including suggestions for what can strengthen, as well as weaken, a JAR. 2-3. Submission of Joint Analysis Requirements. Proposals for JARs are to be submitted to HQ SACT or SHAPE biannually using the format in Annex A. A proposal for a JAR should be submitted by the entity that is faced with an issue as described above in paragraph 2.1, who stands to benefit from the findings from joint analysis, and will be the customer of the joint analysis project to be undertaken. If more than one JAR is submitted by the same originator, they should be listed in priority order. When considering whether a JAR should be submitted, the originator should take into consideration that the Joint Analysis process takes 9-12 months from start to finish (i.e. three months for the selection and tasking process and then six to nine months to conduct Joint Analysis and produce a Joint Analysis Product (usually a report). Additionally, the time to implement the LI to a LL has to be considered.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

8 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CHAPTER 3 – SELECTING JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS 3-1. General. The Strategic Commands are responsible for selecting JARs for analysis by JALLC and other entities. The selection is performed by the Bi-SC Lessons Learned Steering Group (LLSG) in accordance with Reference B., and should be the result of a process driven by SACEUR and SACT priorities to ensure they are relevant to current situations and future capability development in NATO. 3-2. Selection Process. Since JALLC is NATO’s lead agent for joint analysis, the selection process is aligned with the timeline for issuing of the JALLC Programme of Work (POW). As part of the JALLC POW, the PARL delineates ARs to be carried out by JALLC. The PARL is formally issued twice a year by HQ SACT and is based on the prioritized list of JARs developed by the Bi-SC LLSG. The PARL includes JARs assigned to JALLC, COEs, and other entities. 3-3. Flowchart of the JAR Process. The semi-annual process to collect and select JARs is visualized in the diagram.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

9 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Flowchart of the JAR process: Collection and Selection of JARs.

a. HQ SACT issues a biannual calling letter to NATO Commands, NATO Forces, NATO Agencies, NATO COEs and NATO Nations. b. SHAPE PLANS J7 collects, staffs and prioritizes JARs from SHAPE, subordinate ACO Commands, and NFS HQs. A consolidated list of JARs is forwarded to HQ SACT with copy to JALLC.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

10 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

c. HQ SACT, CEI, IDLL Branch collects, staffs and prioritizes JARs from HQ SACT and subordinate commands and forwards a consolidated list of JARs to SHAPE with copy to JALLC. d. HQ SACT CEI, IDLL Branch collects, staffs and prioritizes JARs from NATO HQ, NATO COEs, NATO Agencies, NATO Nations and others and forwards a list to SHAPE with copy to JALLC. e. SCs, supported by the JALLC, will staff the JARs for final wording and final selection and prioritization. Achievability and usefulness (in terms of time) are key criterions for selecting a JAR. f. The JARs will be prioritized by SHAPE and HQ SACT in coordination with JALLC and approved by the LLSG in accordance with Reference B, resulting in the Prioritized Analysis Requirement List (PARL). The LLSG will decide which JARs from the PARL will be incorporated in the JALLC POW and issued to JALLC by HQ SACT. The remaining JARs from the PARL will be considered by SCs for execution by NATO COEs or other suitable entities. HQ SACT will forward those JARs to the respective NATO COEs and/or entities.

3-4. Timeline. The calendar of actions for JAR submission, selection, and tasking (JALLC POW and other tasking) is indicated in the table below.

WHEN

1st / 2nd semester

WHO

WHAT

Jan / Jul HQ SACT (in coordination with SHAPE) Sends calling letter to request JARs.

Jan / Jul NCS, NFS, COEs, NATO nations, NATO Agencies

Initiate internal JAR development and staff level coordination with the JALLC as needed.

March / Sep NCS, NFS, COEs, NATO nations, NATO Agencies

Submit draft JARs to SHAPE J7/HQ SACT IDLL through chain of command.

May / Nov SHAPE, HQ SACT & JALLC through the LLSG

Coordinate and prioritize JARs in order to develop the PARL, the JALLC POW, and for other tasking of analysis.

Jun / Dec HQ SACT Releases the JALLC POW or amendments to JALLC POW. Other tasking as needed.

3-5. Submission of Emergent Joint Analysis Requirement. It is recognised that JARs may be submitted in respect of which analysis capabilities need to be engaged at shorter notice than is possible through the formal PARL/Program of Work (POW) process. An Emergent Joint Analysis Requirement (EJAR) provides a mechanism to accelerate requests

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

11 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

for analysis that were not known or could not be anticipated in time to be included in the PARL/POW. Although the EJAR process permits acceleration of critical analyses, emergent submissions follow the same overall procedure as PARL/POW submissions. A revised PARL/POW will be made when the EJAR has an impact on the PARL/POW. 3-6. Cancellation of JARs. A formal request for cancellation of a JAR can be forwarded through the chain of command for Bi-SC coordination, and reprioritization of the PARL/POW, by the SCs, the Customer, or the entity who conducts the Joint Analysis. When approved, HQ SACT sends out a formal cancellation and a revised PARL/POW.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

12 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CHAPTER 4 – PRODUCING JOINT ANALYSIS REPORTS 4-1. Joint Analysis Report Structure

a. Analysis reports should in principle include the following:

(1). Executive Summary

(2). JAR and Objectives.

(3). Factors affecting the analysis.

(4). Analysis Techniques applied/chosen.

(5). Analysis of the root causes/discussion.

(6). Conclusions.

(7). Recommendations.

(8). If appropriate, an Annex with all recommendations in the ODCR-format (Observation, Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation). As a minimum, each recommendation should clearly identify:

(a). A proposed solution. (b). A single proposed Tasking Authority1. (c). One or more proposed Action Bodies1.

b. Where appropriate categorization of the recommendations can be made in the DOTMLPFI lines of capability development (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities, and Interoperability). c. Classification of reports should be kept at the lowest possible level in accordance with NATO security policy in order to facilitate distribution and sharing.

4-2. Progress Reporting. While executing a joint analysis project, the analysis team will keep close contact with the Customer. Additionally, HQ SACT (IDLL Branch) is to be kept informed on the progress status of all analysis projects. Monthly updates by the originator of the Joint Analysis project, Lessons Learned Working Group meetings and Identified Point of Contacts (POC) at staff level will facilitate the exchange of information. 1 Please see Glossary of terms (Annex E).

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

13 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

4-3. Distribution of Joint Analysis Reports

a. Experience has demonstrated that the distribution of a draft analysis report for comment prior to the production of the final analysis report improves the quality of the product. b. Draft reports will generally be sent to the Customer, HQ SACT2, SHAPE3 and stakeholders for comments. SCs will indicate any possible limitations in the initial publication and distribution of the final report. c. Final reports can be published by the originator prior to the formal approval process (as described in Chapter 5) but with a disclaimer stating that content of the report is the independent opinion of the originator and is not approved by the appropriate NATO authority.

2 Always including IDLL Branch. 3 Always including SHAPE J7 PLL Branch.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

14 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CHAPTER 5 – HANDLING OF JOINT ANALYSIS REPORTS 5-1. Reviewing Draft Joint Analysis Reports

a. The draft analysis report review process facilitates quality, usefulness, approval, and publication of the final report by:

(1). Providing comments and assessment of the analysis report and the recommendations.

(2). Reviewing the proposed Tasking Authority and Action Bodies for the recommendations of the final report.

(3). Determining the initial distribution of the final report.

(4). Ensuring that subject matter experts have early access to the content of the report, and particularly to proposed Remedial Actions and Action Bodies. (5). Providing recommendations on the structure of the report to allow better tasking and tracking of the Remedial Actions.

b. Comments are to be submitted to the report originator using the comment sheet in Annex D. The report originator must include this important process in their timeline for the production of the Joint Analysis Report. c. The originator of the report incorporates comments and provides rationale for rejected comments using the comment sheet in Annex D.

5-2. Staffing Final Analysis Reports. Staffing of a final analysis report is focused on the notation, endorsement or approval4 of the analysis report and specific recommendations in the report. a. Notation reflects the receipt of information on an issue. Notation requires no further action nor does it imply agreement. Implicit in this definition is that it is not possible to refuse Notation. b. Endorsement represents formal agreement, but where the matter requires subsequent consideration and approval by another authority and/or at a higher level. c. Approval constitutes final and formal agreement on matters which are within the authority’s remit without reference to other authority. Such agreement will normally result in approval for follow-on action or activity.

5-3. Process. The handling of an Analysis Report is described below:

4 The Bi-SC directive 080-06 will be revised accordingly in order to align this terminology as it is used by NATO.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

15 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

a. The originator submits the Joint Analysis Report to HQ SACT. A copy thereof is sent to SHAPE5. b. HQ SACT in coordination with SHAPE will confirm the Tasking Authority for each recommendation/Remedial Action. c. If the Tasking Authority is HQ SACT, HQ SACT will note or approve the analysis report’s recommendations/Remedial Actions. d. If the Tasking Authority is SHAPE, SHAPE will note or approve the recommendations/Remedial Actions of the analysis report and inform HQ SACT. e. If the Tasking Authority is outside the SC structure, for example MC or NAC, HQ SACT submits the report to that authority with a cover letter. HQ SACT may note or endorse the report or specific recommendations/Remedial Actions in this cover letter. f. If there are recommendations/Remedial Actions for both SCs and some authorities outside the SC structure, the Tasking Authority will be decided on a case by case basis. In such a case there may be a number of Tasking Authorities and a Coordinating Tasking Authority may be designated. g. The Tasking Authority decides whether the recommendations/Remedial Actions are noted or approved and informs HQ SACT. h. HQ SACT (IDLL Branch) collects all decisions made by SCs and other Tasking Authorities outside the SC structure on the final analysis report and issues a cover letter to the report originator, summarizing the notation, endorsement and approval of recommendations or each remedial action. HQ SACT may also distribute this cover letter to relevant stakeholders in NATO and the nations for information and future action. HQ SACT cover letter may also include issues such as publication instructions. i. The final analysis report with the HQ SACT cover letter will be published by the originator in the NATO Lessons Learned Portal. j. HQ SACT will track the approval, endorsement and notation of Joint Analysis Reports and a periodic update will be provided to SHAPE, JALLC and other entities.

5-4. Implementing Remedial Actions

a. Once approved, the Tasking Authority tasks the Action Body to implement the Remedial Action. If there is more than one Tasking Authority identified, a Coordinating Tasking Authority may be selected to coordinate the implementation.

5 Always including IDLL Branch and SHAPE J7 PLL Branch.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED Bi-SCD 080-091

16 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

b. Tasking and implementation of Remedial Actions should begin immediately after the decision on approval. c. Action Bodies are responsible for implementing the Remedial Actions and to report progress to the Tasking Authority. Based on this reporting, the Tasking Authority is responsible to track the implementation and for the update in the NATO LL Portal of the status of each approved recommendation.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

A-1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX A TO Bi-SC DIR 080-091 DATED: NOV 15

GUIDANCE FOR WRITING JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS. 1. Before Submitting a Joint Analysis Requirement. If the analysis can be handled within own command/body, it is not an appropriate submission for analysis. However, if the analysis cannot be remedied by own command/body, it may be appropriate to forward an analysis request upwards, through the chain of command, for external analysis. 2. What is a JAR? The Joint Analysis Requirement (JAR) is the single, most critical building block of any analysis. The JAR delineates the issues and problems that need to be better understood and these, in turn, will drive the analysis that will be conducted. If the JAR is not clear, the resulting findings will be less useful. The JAR is the primary tool that the Originator and/or Customer has to influence, direct and guide the analysis. When drafting an analysis requirement, make sure that key direction and guidance for the analysis is captured in the JAR itself, not just as part of the background or other information provided. Seldom will an initial draft JAR be perfect and most require some adjusting and rewording. One of the initial tasks for every project is to discuss the JAR in detail with the Customer to ensure it is focused appropriately, within the available capabilities and resources, and understood and agreed by all parties. A JAR should capture the need to identify an issue/problem or best practice of an enduring nature that is of importance to the Alliance and its transformation. When considering whether a JAR should be submitted, take into consideration that the Joint Analysis process takes 9-12 months from start to finish (i.e. three months for the selection and tasking process and then six to nine months to conduct Joint Analysis). 3. What to avoid in a Joint Analysis Requirement. Some inclusions, inconsistencies and omissions may reflect negatively on a JAR, such as:

a. Pre-Determined Conclusions and Directional Bias such as:”…the lack of information sharing…”, “…the inefficiencies of…”, “…the difficulties created by…”. One of the main problems with these types of phrases is that they skew the analysis from the start. Generally they require focusing the analysis in just one direction and ignoring all the other factors that may be relevant…but just don’t happen to be the dictated direction. These tend to direct to “tell me why this is bad”, rather than asking what to analyse in “this” and let the data and the analysis capture the entire set of factors that are relevant, whether good or bad. In addition, only focusing on the negatives may lose sight of what is working well and needs to be preserved as changes are made to address the problems. b. Agendas and Politically Sensitive Issues. These are similar to the above, but are less easy to spot as they are usually not explicitly stated. One of the more frequent is where the JAR states or implies that another NATO entity (rather than something they do) is to be evaluated. For example, “analyse Training Centre X…”—this puts the

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

A-2 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

analyst in the position of passing judgement on the particular training centre. In contrast, “analyse the effectiveness of the scenarios developed for deployable force exercises [by Training Centre X]…” is a realistic task since a positive contribution is possible by providing Training Centre X insights on a product they have developed and/or processes they have employed. c. Broad, Sweeping, Vague, and/or Ambiguous Phrasing such as: “Analyse the information needs in ISAF”. Problem: information needs are extremely broad and the statement needs to provide focus such as specifying more who/what/where and/or when; “…determine how C2 can be improved” –problem: again needs more specificity as to what C2, which level, in what context, which parts of it, etc.; “…look at the HQ”—problem: again, what parts, where, in what context? In these particular examples, “C2”, “HQ”, “information needs” are all huge areas and without greater clarity, it will be nearly impossible to direct and focus the analysis efforts adequately. d. Inconsistencies/omissions between the JAR wording and materials covered in the various background information included with the JAR package. For example, the background stresses a certain problem or requirement but these items are either worded inconsistently or even omitted from the actual JAR. e. Extremely narrow or specific wording that constrains any findings solely to the particular HQ requesting the analysis. Often slight changes in the wording can result in the broader, potentially NATO-wide applicability of the findings. f. Unachievable JARs. A JAR can fall under the category of being unachievable for a variety of reasons. Spotting flaws of this nature is not always easy, but factors can be identified by carefully examining the JAR. The following highlight some specific contests that can contribute to a JAR being unachievable:

(1) Lack of Scientific or Logical Soundness. It is important that the requests be logically sound. In other words, the “flow” of the requirement from a starting point to a clear end state must be traceable. Indicators that there may be some logical/scientific flaws include dead ends and circular logic (internal loops). With dead ends, there will be aspects of the requirement that leads in directions that have no clear relationships to what seem to be the main intent underlying the JAR. With loops, internal dependencies that cannot be clearly resolved are found, for example if two separate sections of the JAR depend on successful prior analysis of the other. (2) Unrealistic Expectations. The JAR may be scientifically/logically sound, but the expectations of the customer and the level of analysis are unrealistic in the context of the resources and time available to conduct the analysis. Some requests stipulate topics, requirements and/or conditions that just cannot be met within the resource and time constraints. When these types of JARs are allowed to go forward, the results are nearly always unsatisfactory.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

A-3 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

(3) Lack of Access to Data. Success depends on being able to collect the right data required by the analysis. If the analyst cannot get access to the data (or it just doesn’t exist) analysis will be unachievable. Be concerned if the needed data is very closely held, if there are questions as to whether the data even exists, or if it is uncertain whether the individuals who have the knowledge will be available / willing. Sometimes the data exists but the individuals who have the knowledge of this data are no longer available or they are now scattered all around the world. If so, finding these individuals can be very difficult (they may no longer be in NATO as well) and if found, the cost/resources/time involved in collecting the required data may be impractical. The challenge is to determine if there will be access problems early on rather than well into the project.

4. Template. The form below must be used for submission of Joint Analysis Requirements. Each field is explained in the form.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

A-4 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT TEMPLATE

IDENTIFICATION: The identification convention for JARs includes the Command followed by a serial number, indicating the priority. For example: HQ ISAF 01, JFCNP 01, C-IED COE 01, SHAPE 01, etc. TITLE: The title should be short and descriptive. CUSTOMER: The Customer is the owner of the problem. He is a decision making entity (preferably an individual at one star level or higher) that stands to benefit from the analysis product and will initiate the onward use of the analysis product in NATO. CUSTOMER POC: The Customer representative is an individual nominated by the customer to provide day-to-day advice and support to the analysis team. List contact details. STAKEHOLDERS: Parties who are likely to be affected by or have an interest in the outcome or conduct of the analysis. The stakeholders should be clearly stated by the JAR originator. BACKGROUND / AREA OF OBSERVATION: The purpose for this section is to set the scene and include background on the issue. It should state why the analysis topic is important for the submitting HQ and why it is important for NATO. This section is designed to allow the requester to provide insights into all of the different considerations and factors that led to the submission. It is a means by which a deeper understanding of the entire issue/problem can be gained. ITEMS FOR ANALYSIS: This will determine the scope of the analysis. This section describes exactly what has to be analysed. This can usually be identified by expressions that include processes or issues such as: ”the generation of …”, ”the execution of…”, ”the information exchanges amongst…”, ”the barriers that hinder…”, ”the processes used to…”, etc.. It should ensure that the analysis efforts are directed properly. It is advisable to include areas for analysis as well as areas that the study should not consider. Specify constraints, limits, specific areas/subjects of focus, or special instructions such as: ”within the Joint HQ…”, ”between the MAIN, Forward Element and the Components…”, ”between ISAF HQ, the IJC and the RC Commands…”, ”Taking into account…”, ”Particularly emphasizing the need for…”, etc. ANALYSIS DELIVERABLE: This section has different purposes. The first is a clearly articulated list of the products to be delivered based on the analysis such as: ”Recommendations about…”, ”Point Paper…”, ”summary of lessons identified…”, ”inputs for the Final Exercise Report…”, ”a briefing for…”, etc.. Note that on average, an analysis takes approximately six months to complete. If analysis findings are required earlier then this needs to be specified here. The second purpose is to provide a description of what the analysis is intended to achieve, i.e., what decisions, judgements, actions or doctrine the findings may influence, and how it is envisaged the findings will influence these. It is a description of what the analysis needs to cover in order for it to be considered successful. Indications of the customer’s “Desired End States” and “Strategic Objectives”. These can usually be identified by expressions such as: “In order to optimize information flow…”, “To enhance Unity of Command…”, ”to enable the Operational and Component Commands to make the most effective and efficient use of available resources…”, etc. FORMULATED JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT: Description of the JAR. Bring together the problem, scope and desired outcomes. TIMELINE: What is the requested target date for the report? List critical factors. IMPACT STATEMENT: Describe the impact if the analysis is not performed.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

B-1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX B TO Bi-SC DIR 080-091 DATED: NOV 15

EXAMPLE OF JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION: IMS-01 TITLE: A Decade of Operations CUSTOMER: DG IMS CUSTOMER POC: LTC John Doe, NCN xxx-yyyy, john.doe@nato.mil STAKEHOLDERS: ISAF, SHAPE, HQ SACT, JFCBS BACKGROUND / AREA OF OBSERVATION: Since NATO assumed command of military operations in Kabul in August 2003, NATO’s ISAF Operations in Afghanistan have identified a multitude of Lessons. Many of those Lessons have either led or are leading to significant transformations in how NATO is structured and how it functions. Some significant Lessons, though, have still not been set on a proper course to properly benefit future NATO-led operations. ITEMS FOR ANALYSIS: A study is needed to identify important Lessons and best practices from ISAF Operations that have already been identified and that, if Learned, could yield significant benefit to future NATO-led operations. ANALYSIS DELIVERABLE: The deliverable of this study should be a summary-level report identifying functional areas where best practices and Lessons Identified during ISAF Operations indicate that, while significant improvements to NATO policies, doctrine and capabilities have been realized, further transformation could yield significant benefit to future NATO-led operations. FORMULATED JOINT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT: Conduct a comprehensive study of ISAF, beginning with NATO assuming command in August 2003, portraying how the collective experience has contributed to major evolutions in NATO policy, doctrine and capabilities, in order to identify the enduring lessons for future NATO-led operations. TIMELINE: Must be completed before end of 2014 due to end of ISAF mission. IMPACT STATEMENT: Valuable lessons from many years of conflict may be lost and may not be incorporated in a much needed update of doctrines.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

C-1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX C TO Bi-SC DIR 080-091 DATED: NOV 15

CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS TO REFINE JARS

1. Purpose. This Annex is provided to assist staff in developing JARs, and should be seen as a supplement to Annex A.

2. Check list. When drafting a Joint Analysis Requirement, for each one of the fields to fill in the format, answering the following questions will be useful to refine the JAR:

a. JAR identification and title. Straight forward.

b. The customer

(1) Should your HQ/Command be the Primary Customer?

(2) Generally, the Command/HQ that submits an analysis request will be deemed the appropriate level to be designated the Primary Customer for the analysis.

(3) Occasionally, the analysis will have further reaching implications well beyond the initiating Command. It may be deemed best for the Primary Customer to be elevated to a higher HQ/Command.

c. Stakeholders

(1) Who could be affected by this analysis?

(2) Who could contribute to the analysis?

(3) What specialized expertise will be required to successfully conduct the analysis?

d. Background/area of observation. Describe the issue to be looked into.

(1) What has been observed/seen that brought this to your attention? (2) What facts/concrete points can you provide regarding this observation, situation? (3) When/In what context was this observed? (4) What is your opinion as to the impact of the issue/problem? (5) At what level of interest will these findings be to NATO (Polmil, Bi-SC Strat, Joint, Tact, etc.)?

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

C-2 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

e. Items for analysis (scope). What you need to know as a result of the analysis.

(1) What are the specific questions you would like to have answered?

(2) What will you use the findings for (e.g., support decisions, change procedures/policy, organizational/structural change, etc.)?

(3) Are you aware of any aspects of this analysis that will be "sensitive", politically or otherwise that may cause the findings, no matter how accurate, to be ignored?

(4) Are there any special constraints, limits, or specific areas/subjects to focus upon during the analysis?

(5) Are you aware of any other analysis/work being done on this topic? If so, what and by whom?

f. Analysis deliverable (outcomes). What should be the expected outcome of the analysis?

(1) What is your desired end-state of the analysis?

(2) How will this deliverable help you? What do you hope it will help you do? (3) What do you need deliverable to address/contain? (4) How broad (number of areas, topics, etc.) do you need it to cover? (5) When do you need the final deliverable? (6) Are there any incremental deliverables you need (interim or initial impression reports/summaries, briefings, etc.? (7) When do you need these incremental deliverables? (8) What do you NOT need answered/looked at (e.g., we have no concern about the strategic level, etc.)? (9) Will the findings only have an impact within a certain time frame? (10) If required, can you provide subject matter expertise (SME) in support of the analysis? (11) Can you, or do you wish to provide support for the data collection and/or analysis (i.e., do you want to have a Staff Officer as part of the actual Project Team?

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

C-3 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

g. Formulated JAR (what). Writing a JAR. (1) Attempt to write out, in fairly straight forward language the initial draft of what you think/feel the request for analysis should say. (2) List any questions or areas where there is uncertainty about what the JAR should say or areas it should/should not cover.

Examples of formulated Joint Analysis Requirements:

(3) Redeployment from operations. Joint Analysis Requirement: Collect, collate and summarize lessons and best practices from NATO, EU, UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and national redeployments in order to inform the nations preparing to redeploy from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

(4) Conducting and resourcing combined training events and exercises. Joint Analysis Requirement: Based on Training Event 12-1 and Unified Endeavor 12-2 (TE 12-1 and UE 12-2), identify key factors affecting the outcome of Combined Training Events and Exercises in order to improve future Preparations for Operations.

(5) Exercise STEADFAST JUNO 10. Joint Analysis Requirement: Conduct analysis of the Command and Control (C2) and Information flow issues among the Joint Headquarters (JHQ) MAIN, JHQ Forward Element (FE) and Subordinate Components in order to support further development of NATO’s deployable forces concept(s).

(6) ISAF Pre-Deployment Training for the Police Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams. Joint Analysis Requirement: As part of the on-going ISAF PDT, examine the POMLT PDT at Joint Multinational Readiness Centre (JMRC) and Centre National d’ Entrainment des Forces de Gendarmerie (CNEFG), analyse the individual and collective training content, suitability and resources, with regard to mission deployment, in order to recommend improvement to the training provided to individuals and units deployed to ISAF in the POMLT role.

(7) Shortfalls in the crisis response operations urgent requirement process. Joint Analysis Requirement: Analyse the NATO-wide CUR approval process, with emphasis on meeting ISAF operational needs, in order to make recommendations to improve the performance of the CUR approval process.

(8) ISAF Command and Control. Joint Analysis Requirement: Examine the functionality of the recently implemented ISAF C2 structure (HQ ISAF, IJC and NTM-A) in order to identify recommendations to enhance the unity of command.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

C-4 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

h. Timeline. Describes the customer requirement for completion of the Joint Analysis. In time.

(1) Is there an urgent requirement for having the analysis completed earlier than in six months?

(2) Will it be sufficient to get the preliminary findings early?

i. Impact Statement. What happens if the analysis is not conducted?

(1) Will it have operational or other consequences?

(2) What other projects are depending on this analysis?

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

D-1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX D TO Bi-SC DIR 080-091 DATED: NOV 15

COMMENTS MATRIX TO DRAFT JOINT ANALYSIS REPORTS The matrix shown below will be used to record comments during the staffing of draft Analysis Reports. The column headings depicted on the matrix are self-explanatory. However, the following guidelines apply to the matrix. All comments will be numerically numbered and arranged in chronological order. The comments will be categorized in the following manner: C – Critical (Contentious issue that will cause non-concurrence with publication), S – Substantive (Factually incorrect, misleading, etc.). The originator, and paragraph, sub-paragraph and line is self-explanatory. Comment should be placed in the Comment column. General observations without proposed solutions should not be submitted. Rationale will be submitted for all comments. The adjudication column is used by the report OPR to record the adjudication of the comment. The responses are Accepted (A), Accepted w/ Amendment (AA), Withdrawn (W), or Not Accepted (NA). All amendments to a comment are recorded on the matrix. The matrix becomes the record of decisions for the publication review. COMMENTS AND CHANGE PROPOSALS FOR ANALYSIS REPORT “XXX XXX XXX” Serial C/S Originator Para Sub-

Para Line Comment Rationale Adjudication

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

E-1 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX E TO Bi-SC DIR 080-091 DATED: NOV 15

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Action Body (AB). The organisation or staff tasked with the implementation of assigned remedial action (RA) or recommendations in association with a Lesson Identified (LI) and/or a Joint Analysis Report. The AB develops an Action Plan to guide the remedial action activities. Action Plan. The written plan of action and milestones developed by an Action Body to implement assigned remedial actions and/or recommendations for a lesson identified and/or a Joint Analysis Report. Analysis. NATO defines analysis as “the study of a whole by thoroughly examining its parts and their interactions”. In the LL process, analysis should allow discovery of the root cause of a problem and identification of the appropriate RA to correct the problem and the appropriate AB to achieve the correction. Analysis is initiated by an observation originator or a LL Staff Officer creating an Analysis Requirement. Analysis Objective (AO). A clear, demonstrable and achievable analysis tasking that identifies what the analysis will accomplish. AOs derive from the analysis requirement and have a tangible output. Approval. Approval constitutes final and formal agreement on matters which are within the authority’s remit without reference to other authority. Such agreement will normally result in approval for follow-on action or activity (such as tasking the appropriate Action Body, committing resources to implement one or more of the remedial actions from a recommended lesson identified). Coordinating Tasking Authority (CTA). The Coordinating Tasking Authority leads and coordinates the handling of all recommendations and remedial actions. The CTA is established when a report has many recommendations and actions with more than one Tasking Authority involved. Normally, the CTA is the highest level of the involved Tasking Authorities. Customer. The Customer is the Head of a HQ, body or entity (normally Flag Officer) who normally is the Originator of the AR and takes ownership of and benefit from the AR. The Joint Analysis Project Team will engage with the Customer throughout the analysis work as required to ensure delivery of a useable report. The Customer may also be the Tasking Authority (TA). However, the TA is finally defined when the recommendations or Remedial Actions are made. Endorsement. Endorsement represents formal agreement, but where the matter requires subsequent consideration and approval by another authority and/or at a higher level. Implementation. For the LL process, implementation is “the work of the action body to complete the tasked remedial action in accordance with the action plan”. Implementation may include one or more action bodies completing a wide variety of actions across the DOTMLPF-I spectrum.

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

E-2 NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Lesson Identified (LI). A LI is a mature observation with a determined root cause of the observed issue and a recommended Remedial Action and Action Body, which has been developed and proposed to the appropriate Tasking Authority. An Analysis Report is considered as a comprehensive Lesson Identified. Notation. Notation reflects the receipt of information on an issue. Notation requires no further action nor does it imply agreement. Implicit in this definition is that it is not possible to refuse Notation. Originator of an AR. The originator is the Head of a HQ, body or entity (normally a Flag Officer) who create the Joint Analysis Requirement (JAR). The Originator is normally considered as the Customer. However, the Customer may change to ensure ownership of the JAR at the appropriate level. Remedial Action (RA). An activity or set of activities that correct an issue identified for improvement or facilitates the implementation of a best practice. Stakeholder. An organization which is involved, affected by, or has a special interest in or can benefit from an Analysis Report. Tasking. The act of formally directing an Action Body to execute the Remedial Action from a Lesson Identified to correct an issue or implement a Best Practice. Tasking is directed by an appropriate, authoritative NATO organisation (Tasking Authority) and usually includes a request for an action plan. Tasking Authority (TA). The Tasking Authority can decide on recommendations and Remedial Actions (note or approve), commit resources and appoint and task one or more Action Bodies. The TA is responsible for the implementation and the tracking from a LI to a LL.