26 • Transformation Through Training • Issue No: 11 • November 2018 and organizations functioning in MND CS AOR (e.g. Military Police, Civil-Military Cooperation, private agencies, NGOs). The major disadvantage of such reports was their relatively low value as far as PSYOPS are concerned. They usually complemented PSYOPS-related information collected by agents (entities) specifically designated in accordance with the PSYOPS objectives. Analyzing the way information was collected, one cannot omit very interesting attempts to conduct opinion polls/surveys. They did not include large groups of respondents but were, more likely, a way to identify perception trends observable within certain populations. One of the very first surveys was carried out in October 2003 in MND CS AOR. The main objective of the survey was to determine trends in perception of MND CS, its actions and achieved psychological effects. The basic assumption of the survey was to later inform the whole MND CS IO community about its results. COM DPSE was responsible for preparation of the survey (development and print of survey questionnaires) whereas COM BPSE planned the conducting of the survey in his (BCT) AOR. The actual information collection (distribution and collection of survey questionnaires) was carried out by TPTs. There was a minor issue related to the lack of PSYOPS element in the structure of 2 BCT (Ukrainian brigade) so a few staff officers were assigned the task of conducting PSYOPS there, including the mentioned survey. Two questionnaire forms were used during the survey. One of them focused on perception of MND CS and the other dealt with availability/access to media and their viewership and listenership. Another survey was carried out in December 2003. Its scope was extended with defining population’s values, views on political parties (election preferences), apprehensions and expectations connected with the currency exchange (introduction of the new dinar). The results of the survey complemented the information extracted from other sources. The major advantage of such an activity was the fact that the respondents remained anonymous, which let PSYOPS personnel collect the data truly reflecting trends present in and expressed by local population. The data coming from a number of sources were then analysed. One of the most important kinds of analysis, as far as PSYOPS point of view is concerned, is Target Audience Analysis (TAA). Properly conducted TAA is a prerequisite for successful PSYOPS, which means a definite impact on message recipient. In order to make things possible, one needs to characterize a Target Audience (TA) or a group of TAs in detail. First, general characteristics of TA should be prepared to include its name (given name, name of whole population, social group or community), social structure, area of presence/living, meeting spots, total number, age diversity, ethnicity, material status, level of technological advancement, historical genesis of its origin. The next step is a thorough analysis of a given TA. The analysis encompasses the following: sorts and meanings of the symbols common in a given community/society, system of values, beliefs, customs, norms, taboos, needs and degree of their satisfaction, desires, position in a wider social structure and the role a given TA plays in it. Moreover, it is crucial to learn more about the level of its socialization, educational system, authorities, religion, change susceptibility, means of social communication (both verbal and non-verbal), trend setters/opinion makers and media. Then TA’s accessibility and all the limitations (e.g. political, physical, economic) blocking the achievement of the desired change in perception or behaviour are determined. A very special example of TAA conducted in Iraq was the so-called village profile. The document described the following features of TA: name and coordinates of the village, population and its ethnicity (number of inhabitants before the conflict, number of internally displaced persons currently living there), number of buildings (total, destroyed and inhabited), name of local community leader, reports of abuse and violence cases committed by authorities, any detainees, living conditions (electricity, potable water, sewage, medical supplies, food, schools), self-defence capability, public transportation, humanitarian aid, access routes and Improvised Explosive Device (IED) threat level. In order to maintain continuity of situation monitoring, the date of the last visit, media accessibility, cases of hostile propaganda and a general assessment of the village situation were recorded as well. As one can notice, it was a very detailed description of a relatively small community prepared for the purpose of PSYOPS. The allied planning process has been extensively covered so far. It is related to the positioning of its elements within the holistically perceived process of PSYOPS preparation, conduct and effectiveness evaluation. It seems advisable to consider an example of such a process applied to the tactical level (e.g. at HQ MND CS). For the purpose of PSYOPS activities carried out in five Iraqi provinces, MND CS DPSE PLANS had developed a proposition of planning process that was approved and implemented by COM DPSE in due course. The proposition included four phases: Initiation, Analysis, Development and Execution. What may be easily noticed here is the lack of a phase considering effectiveness evaluation. It resulted from the fact that the responsibility for assessment of PSYOPS effectiveness was taken over by the coordinating cell, which, in this case, meant IO. The first of the four phases – Initiation – consisted of two stages: Tasking and Coordination. Tasks for PSYOPS were usually initiated during Planning Board held by MND CS G3 - Operations Division. A project officer (currently described as Office of Primary Responsibility – OPR), or DPSE PLANS themselves, were task originators. DPSE PLANS coordinated task schedule (timeline), scope of documents to be developed, etc. The second phase of the process encompassed such activities as analysis of the orders issued by higher HQs and/or an MND CS project officer, consulting technical aspects of task execution with other DPSE sections (TAA section, Products Development Centre/PDC section) and designation of PSYOPS assets necessary for the execution of the task. The third phase – development of planning documents – was divided into four stages: Drafting, Staffing, Approval and Registering. First, DPSE planners drafted a document then it was staffed across HQ MND CS, approved by G3 Division Head/Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (DCOS OPS) and registered. The last phase – Execution – required a limited involvement of DPSE PLANS. It mainly consisted of handover of the planning documents to TAA and