The CAP assessment concept is essentially captured by the following three shifts in focus: First, a shift in focus from the idea that the aim of military actions should be to achieve predefined remote impacts/effects, to the idea that the aim of military actions should be the adaptive facilitation of continuously developing societal functions. That is, a focus on capacity building. Secondly, a shift in focus from the idea that End-states should be static and predefined, to the idea that End-states should be defined in dynamic collaboration with the recipient population and non-military organizations. Such non-performance based strategically oriented "end -states" will be considered reached when the societal function is self-sufficient (with respect to military involvement) and sustainable. Probing actions in this context consist in performing "trials", where military involvement is incrementally phased out, to determine if a function is, in fact, self-sufficient. Third, a shift in focus from the idea that an assessment should produce efficiency and performance ratios between actions performed and impacts achieved (MoE & MoP), to the idea that an assessment should i) produce efficiency and performance measures of how well the military has fulfilled its role as adaptive facilitator of the developing societal function, as well as ii) indicate when the function/process is self-sufficient and sustainable. These shifts in focus enable an effects-based approach, albeit somewhat indirectly, particularly suitable for smaller military entities such as SwAF. When conducting capacity building operations, SwAF will always be a part of a larger campaign and will have to play its part, or role, in relation to several other actors, both military and non-military. Moreover, since it is unlikely that one conflict will closely resemble the next, at least from the perspective of SwAF, it is difficult to achieve learning from a direct Effects-based approach. It is however possible to learn the role of collaborator and facilitator.