FY-17 Zone Message

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby LIVINGIW » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Arkad wrote:CDR Command % is much higher than I thought it would be. Pleased to see the inclusion of CMF and IDFOR. Still no mention of valuing those who shape our future as members of the schoolhouse.


I would have liked to see that as well. We advocate training/instructor billets to our Enlisted Sailors, but for some reason we have not bridged that gap in the Officer community. I think it is an area we can definitely improve as a community, but it takes buy in at the top. I was encouraged to hear that the CRC Course Instructor is going to potentially become a fleet up billet to CIDU CS XO. 18 months in each. That is a great way to get a motivated post-CRC Officer in the billet in the school house coming off sea duty! We need more of that kind of thinking, IMHO.

I was also encouraged to see JOCCP and CNODP called out as a positive prior to O4s. I think we traditionally undervalue those programs!
  • 0

LIVINGIW
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm
Location: CA
Reputation: 12

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby LIVINGIW » Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:41 pm

The Convening Order (CO) for the FY17 O6 board is public. RDML Parode and CAPT Offord were the 1810 members to the board.

(http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/b ... 0Order.pdf)

My take-aways from reading the overall CO:
- 50% promotion to O6 for 1810
- Words matter. There is a difference between Fully Qualified and Best Qualified. You must first be Fully Qualified, then the Best Qualified of the Fully Qualified Officers will be selected for promotion
- For all designators, SECNAV states that the following are considered desired/favorable: IA/GSA/OCO/APH, Masters degrees, Special Scholars/Fellowship programs, acquisition experience, joint progression
- Troubling to me that there are no specific 1810 skillsets called out in section 5.c.3. For URLs, they call out many (20) areas, some of which I would think are applicable to 1810’s, including Joint Experience, Acquisition Corps, Navy Operational Planner, Naval Strategist SubSpec, Cyber Ops and Planning, LREC, Education and Training, Space Cadre. Is there a reason we don’t highlight areas here? The only reason I see is that we call out specifics in section 11, where URL’s use this area in section 5 to do the same

My take-aways from the IW specific portion (Pg 15; section 11):
- 1810 Core mission capabilities are defined as SIGINT, Cyber, EW (mirrors Foundational Principles Document)
- 2 sentences explaining Cyber battlespace as Global, Shore Based, Tactical Edge, and opportunity to demonstrate tactical or operational proficiency working for USCC, FCC, NSA
- Fully Qualified 1810 Officers should have demonstrated Sustained Superior Performance in milestone and major staff assignments; should have been screened for IW Milestone Assignment (though no requirement to have completed Milestone tour)
- Best Qualified 1810 Officers will have been screened for and/or completed Commander Command; will have completed Technical STEM advanced education
- Also progression towards JQO is Valued

I found the below line very interesting in section 11…
- “IW Officers Best Qualified for promotion will have demonstrated top performance among officers who have achieved expertise in one IW core mission area and/or uncommon proficiency in several areas…”
o So this is considered a determination for Best Qualified not Fully Qualified? I would think demonstrating top performance on a core competency would be a requirement to be considered Fully Qualified
o The second part of this sentence leads to the continued question of what do we really value in the 1810 community? Specialists? Generalists? By that statement above, it is either…

Anything jump out at anyone else? Thoughts on the above?
  • 0

LIVINGIW
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm
Location: CA
Reputation: 12

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:25 pm

LIVINGIW wrote:Is there a reason we don’t highlight areas here? The only reason I see is that we call out specifics in section 11, where URL’s use this area in section 5 to do the same.


What would you recommend listing there?

LIVINGIW wrote:So this is considered a determination for Best Qualified not Fully Qualified? I would think demonstrating top performance on a core competency would be a requirement to be considered Fully Qualified.


How do we measure top performance in a core competency?

LIVINGIW wrote:The second part of this sentence leads to the continued question of what do we really value in the 1810 community? Specialists? Generalists? By that statement above, it is either…


According to the Cryptologic Community Foundational Principles, specialists. Sadly, our friends in Memphis continue to emphasize "well-rounded" careers.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby LIVINGIW » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:58 pm

COMEVIL wrote: What would you recommend listing there?


Great question. In the sentence before, I pulled out some of the skills mentioned in the URL section that were applicable... Here is my stream of consciousness on those areas...

I would love to see an emphasis to Education and Training, as I agree with Akrad that this is a shortfall with our Community in the Officer ranks. Our best should be working at Corry/NMITC. But not historically a strong career move. So if you emphasize you incentivize. I think Space wrongly finds itself in the backseat to other specialties. The Space Cadre was revamped a few years back and I feel they are getting it 'righter' this time around. We need Officers smart on Space, so again emphasize to incentivize. We do not advocate for or emphasize Strategists within out ranks, therefore we have historically had challenges when developing/implementing a strategy (current Strategic Plan is breaking this trend!). There are programs (few) to develop Strategists... do we want them in the 1810 ranks? If so we should say that. I am a believer in Stavridis view that there is value in those with LREC specialties, so I think we should emphasize those who gain the language/cultural specialty. We do a good job (maybe too good) emphasizing Joint throughout this document. 1810's get a lot of joint-like (not JDAL, but multi-service) experience at more junior ranks than URL peers. Full JQO matters (right now) for the O7 board. Is it worth emphasizing 'progression' starting at O4 board? Actual trained Operational Planners in the 1810 Community are few and far between. Who was the last 1810 we sent to JAWS/MAWS? Do we care about this specialty? And Acquisition... do we truly value this? We should IMHO! SECDEF/SECNAV do. $$$ is always a fight. We need to get this right. So by emphasizing it, you incentivize a path that focuses on it. Just my off the cuff $0.02.

COMEVIL wrote: How do we measure top performance in a core competency?

Perhaps easier with JO jobs. Breaking out as a DSO, PCS Afloat, COMEVAL, TIO, Cyber Team Officers, etc. Those are all in core competency areas. As are tours at NSA/NSA Field Sites.
As an O5, I would consider breakouts as N2A/Staff Cryptologist or N39 as top performance in a core competency. Same with leading CMT/CPT. How about breaking out as a DIWC? Working in a core competency area at a Joint Command? Senior NSA tours?
Or maybe your question was deeper than that and looking at what "measuring top performance" truly means. I think there are working groups right now considering if we can do our FITREPS/EVALS better to better document/support top performance.

COMEVIL wrote:
According to the Cryptologic Community Foundational Principles, specialists. Sadly, our friends in Memphis continue to emphasize "well-rounded" careers.


Memphis? This was signed out by SECNAV. I am hopeful that 1810 Community input went through senior community leadership beyond Millington. So that is why I asked the question. Is this new guidance from the Community contradicting the Foundational Principles? Are we now saying it doesn't matter... specialist or generalist?

All great discussion and I am sure there is more to come...
  • 0

LIVINGIW
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm
Location: CA
Reputation: 12

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:53 pm

LIVINGIW wrote:
COMEVIL wrote: What would you recommend listing there?


Great question. In the sentence before, I pulled out some of the skills mentioned in the URL section that were applicable... Here is my stream of consciousness on those areas...

I would love to see an emphasis to Education and Training, as I agree with Akrad that this is a shortfall with our Community in the Officer ranks. Our best should be working at Corry/NMITC. But not historically a strong career move. So if you emphasize you incentivize. I think Space wrongly finds itself in the backseat to other specialties. The Space Cadre was revamped a few years back and I feel they are getting it 'righter' this time around. We need Officers smart on Space, so again emphasize to incentivize. We do not advocate for or emphasize Strategists within out ranks, therefore we have historically had challenges when developing/implementing a strategy (current Strategic Plan is breaking this trend!). There are programs (few) to develop Strategists... do we want them in the 1810 ranks? If so we should say that. I am a believer in Stavridis view that there is value in those with LREC specialties, so I think we should emphasize those who gain the language/cultural specialty. We do a good job (maybe too good) emphasizing Joint throughout this document. 1810's get a lot of joint-like (not JDAL, but multi-service) experience at more junior ranks than URL peers. Full JQO matters (right now) for the O7 board. Is it worth emphasizing 'progression' starting at O4 board? Actual trained Operational Planners in the 1810 Community are few and far between. Who was the last 1810 we sent to JAWS/MAWS? Do we care about this specialty? And Acquisition... do we truly value this? We should IMHO! SECDEF/SECNAV do. $$$ is always a fight. We need to get this right. So by emphasizing it, you incentivize a path that focuses on it. Just my off the cuff $0.02.

COMEVIL wrote:
According to the Cryptologic Community Foundational Principles, specialists. Sadly, our friends in Memphis continue to emphasize "well-rounded" careers.


Memphis? This was signed out by SECNAV. I am hopeful that 1810 Community input went through senior community leadership beyond Millington. So that is why I asked the question. Is this new guidance from the Community contradicting the Foundational Principles? Are we now saying it doesn't matter... specialist or generalist?

All great discussion and I am sure there is more to come...


Great discussion. I advocated for retaining the LREC opportunities 1810s had at NPS a number of years ago (5+, I believe) before the three seats in the National Security Studies classes were given up (presumably to free up more money for EE, Com Sci, and Cyber Ops). As leaders who not only manage CTRs, CTMs, and CTNs, but also find themselves in charge of CTIs and ISs once in a while, it was another niche area of expertise that I felt shouldn't be lost. At the time it was even more important because the 1810 community was still wholeheartedly embracing IO. The rationale I heard at the time was we as 1810s should be working within the IDC (*cough* "IWC") to leverage the LREC expertise resident among our 1830s if we needed that sort of information. In theory this is most definitely the most efficient way to operate, but in practical terms my observation is its more difficult to achieve.

As far as Navy Strategists go, where is the requirement in the 1810 community? What billets are coded for the AQD/sub-spec? I know our recent pol-mil grad has posted here about his efforts to get PERS to explain why URLs get a different sub-spec than RLs despite identical experiences. I think this is because there's no demand signal from our community for these types of leaders. It's the same thing I heard regarding the LREC grad education -- there's no jobs within the 1810 community that are coded for that AQD/education, so why should we spend time or money on it when there are other jobs that are coded for EE, comp sci, etc.?

Chicken or the egg? A bottom up organization is great, but when it comes to sweeping billet/organizational structure changes I really only see that happening from the top down (hopefully after looking at community objectives, core competencies, and understanding where our organizational weaknesses exist). For example, we still have IO billets on the books, even though I've been told ADM Rogers has said "we don't do IO." Do we place less value on those jobs, or should we try to fill them with people qualified to do the work? How do we track that experience without an AQD for it? The community hasn't communicated a demand signal, so therefore it hasn't happened. Maybe we're still hoping to shake the IO-monkey off our backs, and to identify our personnel who've completed IO assignments or done IO work (and face the likelihood that Navy-billets requiring such an AQD would pull more 1810 personnel) is counterproductive.

The above is simply a first draft unreviewed vomit of words. Tear it apart! I certainly enjoy the dialogue/discussion.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm

Thought your billet there is going away. Isn't that indicative of the demand signal changing?

Other than a handful of billets, some work at NIOC Norfolk, and the letters IO in our command titles, what is left of our investment in IO?
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:02 am

COMEVIL wrote:Thought your billet there is going away. Isn't that indicative of the demand signal changing?


That wasn't deliberately done by the Navy or by the IW community - the billet went away because the unit shifted it to a GS-13 job.

COMEVIL wrote: Other than a handful of billets, some work at NIOC Norfolk, and the letters IO in our command titles, what is left of our investment in IO?


I think you're asking the wrong question, and also minimizing the IO-like work that people do in jobs that don't necessarily have "IO" in the billet title (e.g. PCS afloat, CRC, DIWC).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm

Sum1 wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:Thought your billet there is going away. Isn't that indicative of the demand signal changing?


That wasn't deliberately done by the Navy or by the IW community - the billet went away because the unit shifted it to a GS-13 job.


Not being difficult here, but are you sure the unit didn't make it a GS-13 because the community chose to stop funding it? The point is, we are divesting ourselves from IO.

Sum1 wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:I think you're asking the wrong question, and also minimizing the IO-like work that people do in jobs that don't necessarily have "IO" in the billet title (e.g. PCS afloat, CRC, DIWC).


If you include EW in IO then yes. But we aren't doing IO writ large, just a subset. I say this as a former CRC.

You continually sing the praises and beat the drum of IO on this board. The reality is that, other than EW, it is not in our wheelhouse. Nor should it be.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:16 pm

COMEVIL wrote:If you include EW in IO then yes. But we aren't doing IO writ large, just a subset. I say this as a former CRC.

You continually sing the praises and beat the drum of IO on this board. The reality is that, other than EW, it is not in our wheelhouse. Nor should it be.


You're latching onto the wrong part of my previous point. It isn't my intention to beat the IO drum this time. I was trying to subtly say that if the community doesn't value a particular job, expertise, experience, etc. then they need to clean house of it. Don't let remnants laying around that create confusion or jobs that are seen as subpar or not valued when compared to others. How many O-4/O-5 milestones still talk about IO? There is at least one IW job (yes, IW) that is an intel support to IO. We don't do intel OR IO, and yet here we are with a billet that is doing intel support to something we aren't supposed to spend the time to understand.

And please, be as difficult as you like. The two people who made the decision to push the job from a Navy billet to a GS-13 gig were my bosses until they both moved on. That was how I knew the context behind what they were trying to do. The Navy didn't know the billet had gone away until I dropped that nugget in a discussion with the detailer.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:45 pm

Sum1 wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:If you include EW in IO then yes. But we aren't doing IO writ large, just a subset. I say this as a former CRC.

You continually sing the praises and beat the drum of IO on this board. The reality is that, other than EW, it is not in our wheelhouse. Nor should it be.


You're latching onto the wrong part of my previous point. It isn't my intention to beat the IO drum this time. I was trying to subtly say that if the community doesn't value a particular job, expertise, experience, etc. then they need to clean house of it. Don't let remnants laying around that create confusion or jobs that are seen as subpar or not valued when compared to others. How many O-4/O-5 milestones still talk about IO? There is at least one IW job (yes, IW) that is an intel support to IO. We don't do intel OR IO, and yet here we are with a billet that is doing intel support to something we aren't supposed to spend the time to understand.

And please, be as difficult as you like. The two people who made the decision to push the job from a Navy billet to a GS-13 gig were my bosses until they both moved on. That was how I knew the context behind what they were trying to do. The Navy didn't know the billet had gone away until I dropped that nugget in a discussion with the detailer.


I agree with everything you have said here. I was trying to relay that those efforts are underway, and was using your job as an example. Apparently it was a bad one...
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron