FY-17 Zone Message

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby yoshi » Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:20 pm

If anyone is interested in the specialist vs generalist debate, strongly recommend heading to station hypo blog. Really good 3 part article written on that subject. Link here:
http://www.stationhypo.com/2016/05/pi-s ... guest.html

I take a different view than many. I presently believe (could easily change):
1) we are neither specialists nor generalists.
2) most of us want to be, or think we are, a specialist. (for the record, I don't, although it all depends on how specialist and generalist are defined and whether we are talking about 'what we are' or 'what we should be')
3) the (rest of the) Navy assumes we are specialists in the same way as aviators, SWOs, EOD, etc (ie - they have unique skills, but aren't flying, driving ships, or defusing bombs every tour). the Navy doesn't care how cool or technical our work is, only about its value to the command mission. To summarize expectations I've experienced, the Navy wants us (to be sufficiently generalized) to be able to a) solve problems across many different Navy commands/platforms b) find solutions for many different commands/platforms via standard processes, and c) establish/maintain a healthy, productive, widely knowledgeable presence on, and contribute to, Flag staffs. non- IWC Navy wants us to define information warfare and demonstrate its significant value (using non-IWC Navy definition, not ours) to the command and overall Navy (again, non-IWC version). These types of expectations are usually better understood by those with broader general knowledge/experience in areas outside the IWC and 1810 community (knowing the customer/need). The technical depth required is that amount needed to recognize, coordinate, and provide the best solution (knowing the product).
4) our career paths, billets, and functions produce neither specialists nor generalists. rather, initiative, timing, and opportunity determine who is one, the other, or neither. we do not have a wardroom with skill sets and/or experiences common to ALL; some would say this is crucial to identity. instead, we have 3 core areas and we need experience in only one to O-4 or two to O-5. we do not ensure ALL 1810s/IWC have _____ (fill in the blank with required skills, specialties, experiences). we also do not have skill sharpening opportunities (analogous to AMWTI, Top Gun, etc) for any specialties across a full career. in this regard, we are consummate generalists. it turns out the SWOs and aviators, with their schools and repeat tours, are more specialized than we.
5) as also discussed on station hypo (http://www.stationhypo.com/2016/02/real ... rfare.html), we need to consider revision of designations, billets, and career paths within the IWC to better describe, build to, integrate, and execute functions. we can better (re)organize and align our officer and enlisted ratings within the IWC. Not saying we are doing poorly - we aren't. just saying we can be even better.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:12 pm

I've been tempted to jump into this debate for a few days now, but every time I think about it I have to acknowledge that both sides of the argument are valid and can be supported. What we are / are not and what we should / should not be have been in constant flux now for quite some time. We are working to "operationalize" a concept that is still evolving, which creates both policy and process challenges. The specialist vs. generalist debate is tangentially related to this and everything else we do (or are asked to do) as Navy cryppies.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby yoshi » Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:45 pm

Yep. That's why shaping guidance is so critical and controversial. Has to be helpful without choking potential.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Sat Jun 04, 2016 10:54 am

yoshi wrote:Yep. That's why shaping guidance is so critical and controversial. Has to be helpful without choking potential.


True. And sitting from my high horse at a Combatant Command trying to do planning in a non-CENTCOM AOR it becomes exceptionally clear that CYBERCOM is having an identity crisis (supported vs supporting? service missions vs national? title 10 vs title 50? authorities vs approvals? etc.). This is ANOTHER tangential (I live that word) debate we could have that relates back to our identity and our role. Good stuff.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby yoshi » Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:16 pm

much still to be determined, still much to clarify. with cyber now central to our self-perception, unknowns in cyber lead to unknowns in our "dominant community" of cyber (although many communities view cyber as shared by all). unknowns usually do not have a positive effect when they continue for several years with potential to affect people's lives.

bigger picture (way above the community or the Navy's control):
the DOD, the big Navy, and then our community (in a very lineal manner) struggle to keep pace, as we've used the same decision making beast for decades - only with progressively less defined purpose, more requirements, and fewer resources as time goes on. balancing equities within any large bureaucracy and (then) later within subsequently smaller and smaller bureaucracies to eventually align, rearrange, and reorganize (a multitude of organizations) to support an (now) outmoded concept is a continual cycle (or spiral) which moves more and more slowly when taking on additional inputs and more control. the ability to respond adequately and in a timely manner degrades over time. it's why we have things like CRIC, fast tracking of certain acquisition programs - because the system(s) in place can't respond quickly or well enough to produce needed/desired solutions. So, a large portion of our community identity, organizational debate - owing to our cyber centricity - relates to our community waiting for others to work through the process and for the dust to settle before we can make sense of what has been handed down. Personally, though, I wonder if we aren't at a point where the time line and processes for all the different levels of bureaucracy to synch up is so lengthy meaningful changes cannot occur, at least not in a way to practically address today's difficulties.

with the gears turning so slowly, I wonder if we aren't as far forward as makes sense. For example, what would happen if a Cyber Service is created - how much of CWO/1810 in the Navy would be left after something like that? or, what will happen if the services each begin footing the training bill for cyber - how does that change things like standards, requirements, etc? A URL commander of C10F, or a Navy decision to eliminate C10F? when contemplating the vast array of possibilities for how things could change, there seem to me to be many more unknowns and ambiguity into the future with our community than with others. but, we can't really do more to remove the question marks (without massive wagering, anyway) until cyber has a solidified, universally understood place in the larger DOD bureaucracy. Today's questions of identity, functions, and path are way, way tougher than our abandoned 2005 attempt at fashioning identity (to IO/IW). That one was pretty straightforward, had common joint doctrine, service component C2, relatively clear title/authority, and a natural berth inside each COCOM from which to work. Cyber is much murkier and at a much higher level.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby yoshi » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:39 am

Really, really interesting article here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

The writing appears to be on the wall, or at least in the Senate Intelligence Committee's intelligence authorization bill. Perhaps this is a culminating point. Maybe it was always going to be this way, maybe it should have been separate three years ago. I wonder if the recent view of SECDEF on this matter comes from COCOM frustration with cyber (or from where else?). COCOMs are more numerous, unrestricted, and senior to any intelligence/cyber Flag/General officer. Their mutual messages and wider access to SECDEF and beyond can reinforce one another.

If a split occurs, the ramifications for the CRY community could be massive, particularly considering how we have invested to support the existing model. Assuming a split, it will be fascinating to see whether our community proves a preference for intelligence or operations. There are a whole lot of billets which undoubtedly would fall under CYBERCOM (all of our "cyber billets are operational" theory), unless a way could be found to not give CYBERCOM what would be expected (as C10F did/is doing with ADCON which should have gone to IFOR). Really interesting times.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Arkad » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:43 am

This split was the vision from the beginning. ADM Rogers has been very clear that his job was to help set the conditions for the dual hat to go away. Apparently, he has done his job well and ahead of schedule.
  • 0

User avatar
Arkad
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:07 am
Reputation: 21

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby yoshi » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:48 am

Apparently so. It seems to me any separation of the two would be incredibly complex/difficult/lengthy, particularly if, as the article suggests could happen, the future DIRNSA is a civilian. Then again, that might make it easier. It's an interesting approach - building something, with the eventual goal of dividing it later. Perhaps the stated goal of separation contributes to the pressure applied by some to do it now.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 16

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Sum1 » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:05 am

The article, in part, states:
Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the head of the NSA and CyberCom, told an audience at the Intelligence & National Security Summit last week that “I believe in the long run the right thing is to keep these two [organizations] aligned but to separate them.”

But on Tuesday, Rogers clarified his remarks to suggest now is not the time.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz) noted that Rogers earlier this year supported retaining the “dual-hat” relationship. “Is it still your professional advice” that such an arrangement is in CyberCom’s best interests? McCain asked. “Yes,” Rogers replied.


It isn't clear what is meant by ADM Rogers' comment here. Does this mean he doesn't think the organizations are ready for the split/separation?

From a customer standpoint, there is anticipation of the split because the perception is it will improve our ability to plan and leverage cyber effects in support of military operations. Considering most of our challenges originate with TOPIs who don't want to play ball (well, actually, it's cybercom's sloth-like procedure development, but I digress), the leadership here think it'll make cyber more relevant on the battlefield.

With that said, I disagreed with the White House report assertion that cyberspace operations in support of military operations should be overt and that we don't mind if our adversaries know who was disrupting their systems.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: FY-17 Zone Message

Postby Arkad » Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:12 pm

It isn't clear what is meant by ADM Rogers' comment here. Does this mean he doesn't think the organizations are ready for the split/separation?


He remains of the mind that the organizations are not yet ready. As he stated publicly many times, "NSA doesn't need CYBERCOM, but CYBERCOM most definitely needs NSA."
  • 0

User avatar
Arkad
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:07 am
Reputation: 21

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron