WHY WE NEED IO......

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:41 pm

It might be beneficial if we delineate specific IO roles and responsibilities that are being considered.

I understand that much of what we do falls under the very large umbrella of IO. I gree with everything that has been said about Cyber. I also believe that much of what we do in the J39/N39 falls in our swim lane.

What specific jobs in the milestone listing are you talking about? What specific IO roles and responsibilities are you talking about?

(BTW, this is being discussed over at Station HYPO, with the new tri-fold as the reference...)
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Sum1 » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:00 pm

COMEVIL wrote:It might be beneficial if we delineate specific IO roles and responsibilities that are being considered.

I understand that much of what we do falls under the very large umbrella of IO. I gree with everything that has been said about Cyber. I also believe that much of what we do in the J39/N39 falls in our swim lane.

What specific jobs in the milestone listing are you talking about? What specific IO roles and responsibilities are you talking about?

(BTW, this is being discussed over at Station HYPO, with the new tri-fold as the reference...)


Just want to say that I'm not ghosting/ignoring this conversation. I was traveling and now I'm a one-man show in the office for a few days. Hopefully, I can get a moment to pull down the milestone list and discuss what I was referring to.

Cheers,
Sum1
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby yoshi » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:35 am

Specific jobs? I think it's jobs which don't exist, or at least don't exist in the appropriate locations on staffs. Three things needed for the CWO community to be effective and viewed as effective at the COCOMs and on Fleet Staffs. First, CWO community must have/send officers experienced in multiple Fleet tours and also in what occurs outside of classified spaces (sometimes hard to find). CWO career path and O5 and above billet dispersion (an oxymoron) does not support.

Second, those officers need to be appropriately placed on staffs. CWO presence is typically heavy in the N2, usually N2/39. In this context, whether we think so or not, we work for the N2 and everyone else on those staffs also thinks so. One can guess what the focus is (intel) and what it isn't (operations). USFFC, for example, still scrambles daily to do 2nd Fleet's job so they can produce an intel stand up for the guy responsible for MTE for the overall Navy (????). Sure, he's also dual hatted as CTF-80, but what's the value behind the brief - what operational decisions does it support? Those officers would be much more productive in the N3 working for CTF-80, planning fleet exercises, scheduling the Fleet, ensuring equities in Fleet maintenance (for our stuff), etc. If we want to have an operational impact within the Navy and COCOMs, some officers have to come out of C10F and out of the N2 at the 4-star staffs.

Finally, those officers on 4 star staffs have to be sufficiently influential - in personality, acumen, experience, and also rank. Many believe the O4s we have across the 4 star staffs are sufficient. Sufficient for what? If we want to influence and shape operations how can an O4 possibly provide the same level of influence. That's the whole reason behind placing O6s on the one star CSG staffs. Some think we don't need O6s on the COCOM staffs. That depends. If everyone (our community, C10F, the Navy, the COCOMs) is satisfied with where we are operationally right now, then we're fine. I don't think we are fine. For all of the good work being done by FCC/C10F, are we capable of consistently influencing 4 star and COCOM operations daily from within to ensure that good work remains topical to Navy and joint planning and operational efforts. Could the rest of the Navy/Joint world better understand the value we provide, the potential, the possible benefit, etc? If we don't need O6s at COCOMs (given what is done there), how can we possibly say we need as many as we have in NSA/CYBERCOM/NAVSECGRU/FCC/C10F billets?!?! I'm sure they are doing great, valuable work, as well, but is it really as important as securing the community's equities in those locations where the IWC and CWO will be called upon to provide operational value to the COCOM's plans? Our billets in MD area probably have existed since before we even had COCOMs, certainly before Goldwater-Nichols transferred operational power to them. It's comfortable and familiar in MD, but not sure the general structure of yesteryear postures our efforts correctly for today.

No matter how good we get at our three things independently of the rest of the Navy or COCOMs, we have to eventually be able to connect it for those 4 star operational decision makers beyond the O4 level. We struggle with this. We have a great team, no doubt. We are also part of a larger team with has a much more expansive reach. Success isn't derived from technical depth, portfolio size, acquisitions, certain strategies or lines of operations; neither do those items assuredly translate into value. There is no system/structure/bureaucracy which can be built well enough to function without people as its focus. Success/value derive from the right people, the right place, and the right time. It takes coordination, constant staffing, understanding, sufficient representation within the Navy/Joint staffs, and providence.
  • 1

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

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Sum1 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:09 pm

Yoshi,

Great points. Almost all the issues you described are things I've struggled with, as well. I've tried to be particularly vocal about our need to be relevant to the N3/J3, and my belief that to maximize that relevance we need to be sitting next to the other warfighting domain planners in the N3/J3. I don't think our future is the N2/J2 or N6/J6, and we would be best served by pushing through our NAVSECGRU/SIGINT past and solidify our place at the N3/J3 table.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:38 pm

yoshi wrote:First, CWO community must have/send officers experienced in multiple Fleet tours and also in what occurs outside of classified spaces (sometimes hard to find). CWO career path and O5 and above billet dispersion (an oxymoron) does not support.


We have sufficient billet base and inventory to do this. In fact, I can think of 5 solid examples of Officers who served afloat in multiple tours, culminating in assignment as a DIWC or Fleet Cryptologist. With the advance of the IWC assignment, I think the perfect career path for the most qualified will include SIGWO, CRC, and DIWC.

yoshi wrote:Second, those officers need to be appropriately placed on staffs. CWO presence is typically heavy in the N2, usually N2/39. In this context, whether we think so or not, we work for the N2 and everyone else on those staffs also thinks so. One can guess what the focus is (intel) and what it isn't (operations).


Not my experience working on an afloat staff. N2/N3 collaboration/coordination/integration was strong. We (IWC) also had solid representation in the N3. The DIWC, N39, is fully integrated in the N3, along with the EWO working for him/her. Organization is important. But don't think that, because one is assigned to the N2 they are only doing Intel. Same goes for N3.

yoshi wrote:USFFC, for example, still scrambles daily to do 2nd Fleet's job so they can produce an intel stand up for the guy responsible for MTE for the overall Navy (????). Sure, he's also dual hatted as CTF-80, but what's the value behind the brief - what operational decisions does it support? Those officers would be much more productive in the N3 working for CTF-80, planning fleet exercises, scheduling the Fleet, ensuring equities in Fleet maintenance (for our stuff), etc. If we want to have an operational impact within the Navy and COCOMs, some officers have to come out of C10F and out of the N2 at the 4-star staffs.).


USFFC is probably the best example of what not to do. Does your same example hold true for PACFLT? I don't know the answer to that but I suspect not.

yoshi wrote:No matter how good we get at our three things independently of the rest of the Navy or COCOMs, we have to eventually be able to connect it for those 4 star operational decision makers beyond the O4 level. We struggle with this. We have a great team, no doubt. We are also part of a larger team with has a much more expansive reach. Success isn't derived from technical depth, portfolio size, acquisitions, certain strategies or lines of operations; neither do those items assuredly translate into value. There is no system/structure/bureaucracy which can be built well enough to function without people as its focus. Success/value derive from the right people, the right place, and the right time. It takes coordination, constant staffing, understanding, sufficient representation within the Navy/Joint staffs, and providence.


Agree we can always improve. Also agree that we have been very insular at times as a community. There is much work to be done in general.

In the end, our success will be determined by what we contribute. When I look around the community, I see plenty of solid contributions.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Cryptonite » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:57 pm

Agree!

However,

Are we operating under the most optimum force model; considering our billet base and distribution. Why not leverage (IO) Operational Frameworks already created to address both Navy and Joint requirements. We tried in the past with a less than a fair commitment. Someone made the argument, that its not our job, but we are essentially already doing it and duplicating effort across the DoD. For example:

1. Technology Insertion (Duplicating numerous efforts or programs across DoD), often find out several agencies working on the same problem.
2. IO planning and integration
3. J3/N3 billets (#' Fleets, CCMD's, Afloat) - How do we crack this nut? ------------JWAC, JIOWC, JPSE,JEWC/ 1st IO/ Align with CMF Collection requirements/ EMW

1. Many of the comments made are in my opinion "First Conclusion Biased". They address the issues as we each individually understand them, but not the overall solution.

2. From the National Security Strategy, CNO's Vision, to Admiral Tighe's IWC strategy what are the greatest ROIs as they relate to Joint and Navy Strategic, Operational, and Tactical objectives.
  • 0

User avatar
Cryptonite
Registered Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 6:42 am
Location: VA
Reputation: 0

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:10 pm

Cryptonite wrote:Agree!

However,

Are we operating under the most optimum force model; considering our billet base and distribution. Why not leverage (IO) Operational Frameworks already created to address both Navy and Joint requirements. We tried in the past with a less than a fair commitment. Someone made the argument, that its not our job, but we are essentially already doing it and duplicating effort across the DoD. For example:

1. Technology Insertion (Duplicating numerous efforts or programs across DoD), often find out several agencies working on the same problem.
2. IO planning and integration
3. J3/N3 billets (#' Fleets, CCMD's, Afloat) - How do we crack this nut? ------------JWAC, JIOWC, JPSE,JEWC/ 1st IO/ Align with CMF Collection requirements/ EMW

1. Many of the comments made are in my opinion "First Conclusion Biased". They address the issues as we each individually understand them, but not the overall solution.

2. From the National Security Strategy, CNO's Vision, to Admiral Tighe's IWC strategy what are the greatest ROIs as they relate to Joint and Navy Strategic, Operational, and Tactical objectives.


Request you take a stab at answering your own questions. Otherwise, this will continue to be a circular discussion.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Cryptonite » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:15 pm

I don't have all the answers. I thought this was a forum to generate answers/feedback. So with that I will conclude my comments.

Thanks to all for the great and awesome feedback.
  • 0

User avatar
Cryptonite
Registered Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 6:42 am
Location: VA
Reputation: 0

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:29 pm

Cryptonite wrote:I don't have all the answers. I thought this was a forum to generate answers/feedback. So with that I will conclude my comments.

Thanks to all for the great and awesome feedback.


But you have thoughts. Take a stab at it!

I'm having a hard time determining what the exact problem is...
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Sleeper » Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:59 pm

I think it's telling that the OCO IO billets have been kicked over to the Reserve side:

CNIRC Mobilization Opportunities for 181X

To me, this indicates that these positions are not considered worthwhile or career-enhancing by the Active side.

EDIT: Fix URL.
  • 0

Sleeper
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Reputation: 4

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron