Page 1 of 1

FY18 O6 Board Convening Order

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:06 pm
by jay ... 0ORDER.pdf

I'm still too much of a noob to have a large opinion, but I am interested in what everyone thinks about this. For me, it was interesting that soft breakouts were mentioned and to not count it as negative if you aren't a 1 of X officer. It makes sense that CDR Milestones and CDR Command are valued so high, but I had no idea the % was so low of those who actually have achieved those checkmarks.

Re: FY18 O6 Board Convening Order

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: FY18 O6 Board Convening Order

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:03 pm
by yoshi
Putting this here, as I can't seem to log in to HYPO. Just my attempts to answer some of the questions you posed and why I think the way I do.

Could be wrong, but I think the Navy values CW O5 commanders and gets them to O6 more often than not, like somewhere “near” 100%, although here have been a couple AZ selects. I’m curious about why we felt it important to reinforce the value, given the success rate. With CW input to O6 convening order, command opportunity, and typical O5 zone size (to O6), seems like the language is trying to make O5 command screen de facto selection for O6. There is potential value in self-determination for any community and that is exactly what convening orders do. Our language points to generating CAPTs who are: post O5-Command STEM grads with deep foundational expertise gained typically at NIOCs and NSA staffs.

As for the questions, - not all IWC communities value command equally. If they did, we’d have more similar convening orders, just to start, or at least more common themes. Also, IWC not evolved enough to make IWC afloat valuable to Navy. Differing convening orders and community briefs highlight this. How can the Fleet Commander expect a consistent IWC afloat product from such differences? For flag, some communities have IWC afloat at the O6 level in their community brief (a generalist perspective). CW does not, but does have doctorate (specialization). So, here again, picking an 1860 is picking between dissimilar options - a disservice to the rest of the Navy. If the IWC afloat and 1860 concepts make any sense at all, which the URL Navy says it does, shouldn't the IWC focus on the common attributes required of IWC afloat and 1860? It seems like IWC communities are focused on THEIR individual operations rather than what the Navy needs collectively from the IWC. Also, not sure IWC has Flag numbers to support the 1860 ideal, at least in any credible way. Do we expect the Navy would not select an IP or CW for Flag for 5-6 years and risk losing all representation for that community at the Flag level?! Seriously doubt it. Correspondingly, I wonder if that possible outcome bothers any of the IWC communities who would be unaffected or even benefit from the misfortune of the other communities. Since URLs drove both concepts, IWC Afloat and the 1860 are clear indicators (to me, anyway) of what the non-IWC folks think the direction should be from the IWC folks. Yet, the 4 communities can’t seem to figure out the Navy isn’t interested in how awesome they each are inside their own organizations, but how awesome they could be together for the Navy outside of those organizations. It wants a general level of ability/support outside of COMETOCOM, ONI, NCTAMs, and C10F upon which the Fleet can rely. At this point, the likely candidate for making any sense of the IWC is IFOR, especially once the IWDC is stood up. Seems thus far to be beyond the ability of the IWC communities themselves, especially given how slaved each community is to its respective "operational" organization (C10F, ONI, etc). All this said, though, none of this is tragic. The Navy will fix it. Until its fixed, change is on the horizon, and will remain so, for the IWC and its communities. In fact, I think I feel some coming now.

A couple of questions for you: do our IWC commands hold the same level of responsibility as other non-IWC commands? Are our commands/commanders involved in equally consequential matters from the non-IWC Navy perspective? If not, why not? Our officers are very successful in command, arguably more so than non-IWC communities. To what would you attribute our level of success?

Re: FY18 O6 Board Convening Order

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:34 pm
+1000 to all of your comments! As far as your questions go...

"A couple of questions for you: do our IWC commands hold the same level of responsibility as other non-IWC commands?"

**Generally no, but I think that is understandable. Hard to compare a CDR in charge of an F/A-18 Squadron or a DDG to one in charge of a 80-100+ member NIOC. Not sure that is the point, though. Our mission is meaningful, our COs have significant responsibility for personnel and equipment, etc.

"Are our commands/commanders involved in equally consequential matters from the non-IWC Navy perspective? "If not, why not?"

**Equally consequential? There is no doubt we are involved in consequential matters, sometimes more sometimes less consequential to other commands. Regardless, our COs play an important role. I'm not sure it matters whether we are on par with a DDG or SEAL Team. We play our role and have no need to justify it with comparisons, etc.

"Our officers are very successful in command, arguably more so than non-IWC communities. To what would you attribute our level of success?"

**Are they really? Define success. Is it not getting fired? Maybe we aren't holding our COs to the same level of accountability.

Re: FY18 O6 Board Convening Order

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:58 pm
by yoshi
agree with your assessment on our commands/level of responsibility and that our mission is meaningful. but i don't think we are as meaningful to other people, other commands, other missions, and each other as we could or should be. need to identify, understand, and operate from the center, connected with as many communities as possible, as that provides broader value and meaning.

believe we fail to understand we are equally consequential. we know what we do is significant, but we don't have enough, particularly at the senior leader levels, who understand how, where, and why our efforts should be consequential and how wide-ranging and broad their applicability should/could be across the Navy/joint world. if we did, we wouldn't centralize senior leadership at Ft Meade. that's not where we need our efforts to be important; folks there are already get it. we don't grasp/appreciate the broad impact we should and need to have, and engagement of the Fleet/joint world to assert the same is non-existent. we don't need to justify our role at all - but we do need to acquaint others with it and with the importance it plays in their plan - why what we do matters in their plan, how what they do requires us. otherwise, why do they care?

success for us, like the other communities, does seem to be not getting fired, at least in the eyes of those communities. we seem better at it than most. not sure about us having a different level of accountability. i sure hope we aren't pointing out how valuable command is to us if we have different standards. perhaps our stuff is just easier to account for, i don't know. but, kind of like that "can't trust a gold striper" concept, how reliable is the standard for what your commands/commanders should be doing if it's never been tested? not saying we should relieve a bunch of people, just saying i don't think we have a good understanding of what our standard is (other than legality), yet it's highly valued(?). this logic is a little backward, but i can think of more than a few instances in the last 8 years which should have seen leadership relieved. So, i think we're still trying to figure out what command really means to our community and i think we don't fully understand its value. This obviously is a different take than our convening order.

Re: FY18 O6 Board Convening Order

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:00 pm
by Sum1
Playing a little bit of devil's advocate from my shallow O-3 (sel) foxhole...

What metrics exist for defining what "success" at a command actually means? Percentages of successful DLI graduates? Number of cyberspace operations completed? Increase/decrease of cyber fires over a defined period of time? Relatively positive command climate survey results?

Our URL brethren have fairly well-defined MOP/MOE for assessing their relative success (also, luck) in command. The Surface Force Readiness Manual describes the training cycle ships move through on their way to becoming deployment-ready, warfare qualified fighting units. It describes all the gateway events, inspections, standards, and essentially lays out precisely what the CO is charged with achieving. Maintain the material condition of your ship is another way to ensure success (or, more precisely, failing to do so will ensure ... failure). Anyone who's been on a ship knows 3M and the overall material condition of the ship is more closely tracked than virtually anything else onboard. A failure there is readily apparent and cause for immediate dismissal. Fail an INSURV and you've got a good chance of getting fired (get a second chance and fail again and you guarantee your dismissal). Aviation squadrons run through similar wickets on their way to achieving mission readiness.

So, I hate to say this, but I think where we fall short is the same place many other organizations fail... and that's in defining requirements AND incorporating logical, achievable assessment criteria to measure how well we attain and maintain those requirements. Defining requirements is the easier of those two nuts to crack, but honestly and accurately assessing ourselves is critical. Without those things codified we'll always find it difficult to measure progress, success, and ultimately, relevance. Without being able to show relevance we will have a harder time justifying to the trigger pullers and "pointy spears" guys what we bring to the fight.