IW RL/URL Debate

Postby navy05 » Thu May 21, 2009 4:43 am

Sum1 wrote: I'd love to be a community where USNA and NROTC midshipmen could opt to join straight up without needing to be broken or an attrite from a different community. I think it would make us a stronger community in both the short and long term.


I would love to see this happen. I was always interested in the Crypto/Intel communities as a Midshipman. That interest lead me to deliberately join a community (aviaiton) I could easily DOR in order to enter the IW community. It was a leap of faith at the time and luckily it worked out. Not only did I ultimately get what I wanted, I also got to live where I've always wanted to, Hawaii :D
  • 0

navy05
Registered Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Texas
Reputation: 0

Postby IW OCM » Thu May 21, 2009 5:10 am

Rest assured, we (NNFE Communities) are lobbying hard to do this. It was a topic of conversation at this week's OPNAV N13 hosted "Cyber Summit." In the interim, we will have SWO (IW Option) quotas for both USNA and NROTC commencing in FY-10. This is progress, but not the solution...
  • 0

User avatar
IW OCM
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Arlington, TN
Reputation: 1

Postby IW OCM » Thu May 21, 2009 5:19 am

Sum1 wrote:I know for a fact some aviation training attrites were being discharged rather than redesignated, and I also know for a fact that not more than a year ago there were so many new SWO ensigns that ships were literally making up jobs for them to do.


Your facts are correct (I sit the board that redesignates training attrites each month). Those attrites not redesignated were let go after much deliberation and IAW CNP Guidance.

SWO accession model is to overaccess to compensate for poor retention and meet DH requirements. That, like so many other things, is being scrutinized.

Happy to talk manpower at any time. This is an interesting world and not necessarily intuitive ( I learn something new each day). Every decision is deliberate, though the rationale may appear suspect from a distance (and sometimes even when you're close up).
  • 0

User avatar
IW OCM
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Arlington, TN
Reputation: 1

Man / Train / Equip

Postby VQ Bubba » Thu May 21, 2009 5:44 am

If we are going to discuss our accession needs in a coherent and systematic manner...I think we (or maybe it's just me) could use a primer on 1610 numbers.

The community brief provides some good data...but I know I still have questions.

So...I'll ask the questions (since I lack the answers):

1. How many billets (by paygrade) are required?
2. How many billets (by paygrade) are we authorized?
3. How many bodies (by paygrade) do we have?
4. What are our accession requirements to maintain O-4/O-5/O-6 inventory?
4a. What are our career attrition planning factors (by paygrade)?
5. What is the current breakdown of O-1 accession sources?
6. Assuming current O-1 accessions are insufficient, how many more do we need?

Basically, what should/does our IW community manning pyramid look like?

Fixing the accessions piece is the long pole in the tent...copy all...so in the meantime we will continue to fill our billets with lateral transfers.

Accordingly, I'd posit that we are all recruiters for the community. As such, we need to be armed with enough information to adequately "sell" the community to interested personnel. I'd love to be able to have the data at hand and sit down with a junior officer (or his chain of command) and discuss the IW opportunities available...both now and in that individual's future.

Right now, I can say that "hey, we're hiring...probably" but I don't have the specifics.
  • 0

User avatar
VQ Bubba
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Maryland
Reputation: 4

Postby Sum1 » Thu May 21, 2009 5:44 am

I love this conversation. It's always good to get manpower facts straight from the source. There's an abundance of skuttlebutt floating around out there of questionable quality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm betting that the IW community sees much higher retention rates than its SWO/Nuke/whoever brethren. As such, I bet it would require a much smaller (relative to overall available billets) influx of talent from USNA/NROTC to swell our ranks to an appropriate level to meet our billet obligations. Rather than having to access 4 or 5 new Ensigns for every DH billet (I'm completely making this number up), we probably could get by with less than half of that. I really think it's in the best interest of both the midshipmen and our community (not to mention the other communities who aren't getting people who are planning on jumping ship from day #1).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby Sum1 » Thu May 21, 2009 5:54 am

VQ Bubba wrote:Fixing the accessions piece is the long pole in the tent...copy all...so in the meantime we will continue to fill our billets with lateral transfers.


I know that lateral transfers bring unique operational experience to the community, and is a very valuable program that we've leveraged to the fullest extent, but I have other reservations. We can't really rely on lat transfers to bring in the O-3s and O-4s to meet operational requirements because there's limitations to the usefulness of said O-3/O-4+ for a period of time. Do we have O-4 billets specifically for people who don't really know what they're doing yet (from an IWO standpoint... obviously not from a managerial standpoint).

With the advent of the new PQS and the requirements being levied on new accessions, it's increasingly clear the bar is being raised each and every day on what the "minimum operational level of knowledge" should be for an effective IWO. Now, fast forward 8 or 10 years when the IWOs of today are starting to fill those O-3 and O-4 billets, and the lat transfers trying to come in and help fill those billets are going to be at a SEVERE disadvantage (both in our community and in their ability to perform their warfighter responsibilities).
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby TarHeel98 » Thu May 21, 2009 4:38 pm

The manpower equation is by far not an easy one to solve. I do agree that there is a compelling argument that the best solution would be to be able to assess in a manner similar to the URL communities resulting in fully enclosed pyramid-in other words, not having to rely upon lateral transfers to populate the community. However, in light of the means by which so many IWOs are currently accessed, it is not feasible. Remember that most URL Ensigns are coming to the Navy will very little enlisted time. Such is not really the case in the IW community.

Considering the large number of prior enlisted that make up the wardroom, it would be pretty risky from a long-term manning perspective to NOT rely on lateral transfers and plan for them accordingly. Many prior enlisted officers, quite understandably, retire after 20 years in order to move on to other things (and arguably better paying pastures), thus leaving gaps at the senior LT and junior LCDR level. Considering that the military is an up-or-out organization, the cascade effect of this is a higher risk of manning gaps and shortfalls at the senior officer ranks. One need only look to the current LT and LCDR inventory as has been put out on this year's community brief and compare to that from last year to see the current concerns relating to LT manning.

I would estimate that for the time being, the community will have little choice but to continue to rely on lateral transfers in order to populate. It is a distinct possibility that if the community desires to have more "pure" IWO's, the community accession vision will need to adopt recruiting schemes that more closely resemble that of the URL.
  • 0

User avatar
TarHeel98
Moderator
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 1:17 pm
Reputation: 26

Postby Sum1 » Thu May 21, 2009 5:15 pm

I postulate part of the reason the community accesses so many prior enlisted (and therefore has to rely on lat transfers) is partially due to the relative unknown nature of the work we do and the relative over-reliance on OCS to bring in new officers. I say "relative" in terms of the USNA and NROTC accessions. Those two factors combine to result in many priors applying for a community they either were in as an enlisted CT or know enough about to put together a strong package. If the IWO community didn't rely on OCS as their primary (well, except for attrites) commissioning source we would be bringing in fewer Sailors with significant prior enlisted time. USNA is a great example... the age restrictions are severe enough that if a Sailor does have prior enlisted time it's not usually more than 4 years, and often much less.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby HH-60H » Thu May 21, 2009 8:06 pm

I know this is "thinking outside of the box," but.....

Rather than fighting the RL/URL fight, why not just try to get IW as a selection out of USNA and NROTC? I don't think the requirement is statutory, and if IW manning issues are as bad as they appear it would seem like you have strong arguement to open up USNA and NROTC.

As far as getting your recruiting "hooks" into them, I'm sure the Service Academy NetD competition (whatever it's called) held every year would be a good place to start, as well as opening up a couple internships at the local NIOCs/NSA, which is what Navy intel does. Since these guys are active duty, I think internships would be no cost to IW, although I am not sure about the clearance part. I guess you would have to check with the Navy intel guys to see who funds that them or USNA/NROTC.
  • 0

User avatar
HH-60H
Administrator
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:37 am
Location: Maryland
Reputation: 51

Postby IW OCM » Fri May 22, 2009 1:01 am

HH-60H wrote:why not just try to get IW as a selection out of USNA and NROTC? I don't think the requirement is statutory, and if IW manning issues are as bad as they appear it would seem like you have strong arguement to open up USNA and NROTC.

...I'm sure the Service Academy NetD competition (whatever it's called) held every year would be a good place to start, as well as opening up a couple internships at the local NIOCs/NSA, which is what Navy intel does...



Both great points and we are on it. Making the pitch to CNP to change accession policy/practice next month.

Sent out a LCDR to brief all of the participants in the competition and we have partnered with NSA to leverage the existing NSA internship with the CS department.

Brian Stites is point on USNA engagement. May eventually grow into a full time presence on The Yard.
  • 0

User avatar
IW OCM
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Arlington, TN
Reputation: 1

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron