text: Security Force Assistance
  Table 2-1. Levels of interoperability across primary focus areas
  BALANCING CAPABILITY, CAPACITY, AND INTEROPERABILITY
  2-22. The strategy for developing partner FSF capability, capacity, and interoperability should follow an
  effects-based approach where planners seek to understand both the effect they are trying to achieve, as well
  as potential negative effects that could occur from changing any existing capability residing with the partner
  FSF. It is also important to understand that the United States may not always be the definitive partner of
  choice for any given country or situation, as we are constantly competing with other nations for global access
  and influence. Potential partners may be receiving training and equipment from multiple countries, and these
  may include capabilities that are not only incompatible with U.S. systems but could potentially degrade our
  own capabilities and create a risk to the force.
  2-23. Army SFA planners can use the following chart (figure 2-1 on page 2-6), from DA Pam 11-31, to
  conceptualize the balanced approach needed to improve capability and capacity and enable interoperability
  with the partner FSF. Generally, the capabilities and capacity of a partner FSF are related to the level of
  desired interoperability. SFA planners should develop strategies and activities with a partner to help move
  them to the right (increasing capability and capacity) and up (increasing interoperability). Depending on U.S.
  country objectives and ally/partner objectives and willingness, U.S. interoperability and capability objectives
  for a given country or coalition may call for movement along only one axis, both, or neither. The SFA planner
  can use this model to determine if U.S. objectives are appropriate given resourcing priorities, the partner’s
  own objectives, and the likelihood for improvement along either axis.