Approval to merge all IDC communities

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:50 pm

Wolfpack wrote:Yoshi,
Some interesting point, but one thing that jumps out is that if anyone is looking at the IDC and OPNAV to fix any issues within the IW community or any of the other communities, it is a recipe for disaster. The IW senior officers need to be the ones to adjust within the IW community, not some staff in DC or a conglomeration of officers from across the IDC.


I would take this one step further and say the junior officers need to push that change. There is a lot that is right about the IW community. But the things that are wrong need to be changed. And the push for that change needs to come from us.

v/r

COMEVIL
  • 0

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

Postby 1610MATROS » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:06 pm

From my blog...says a lot about YOUR opportunity to change things. Some people are doing it successfully.

Much of the Navy's time is spent on Risk Management of all types (i.e., Liberty Risk, Operational Risk Management, Health Risk, Safety Risk, and the list goes on nearly without end.)

As Seth Godin has stated: "The purpose of the modern organization is to make it easy and natural and expected for people to take risks. To lean out of the boat. To be human."

In many Navy commands, the opposite is happening. Risk is avoided at all costs. Much time is spent avoiding that "one mistake" that takes you out of the promotion cycle. Godin calls this "institutionalized cowardice" Too many Sailors have the opportunity to say "that’s not my job.” Don't be one of them.

What we are seeing more and more of in the IDC is that senior leadership is providing a platform for bravery instead. It's been awhile since the messenger has been shot. Even VADM Card has taken the message to the CNO personally for the community. The IDC is embracing new ideas every day and the best chance you have of getting your idea adopted is to share it. Put it down on paper and send it up the chain - VFR direct, if you have that much courage. I check with N2N6 and FCC/C10F regularly and I can tell you - the messengers are ALIVE and WELL and so are the thinkers and doers.

Go ahead, your leadership has made it natural and easy - BE BRAVE - share those ideas. Lean out of the boat.
  • 0

1610MATROS
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:21 pm
Reputation: 0

Postby Schlag » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:19 am

Maybe it's because I'm new to the community. But I don't see this as a sky is falling situation. I see this as a very good thing for the IDC and I see this as a very good thing for IW.

While there will be some greying of the lines, I am confident that it will not erode our community or our pillars of knowledge. Billets can be broken out in very specific designators requiring a specific skillset (AQD and/or subspecialty code). Or they can be broken out as anyone in a particular community (1100/1000 for any line, 1300 for any aviator, 1850 for any IDC). The challenge will be on billet planners to be specific in their requirements. If the requirement isn't being shown correctly, then it is upon the command to get it changed.

I also don't see our promotions getting lopsided now that we will be evaluated and promoted as a whole instead of discrete designators. Great care is given towards ensuring that URL communities do not get ridiculous one way or the other and I am sure that the same care will be given to the IDC. In fact, you can see the breakout of the URL designators and platforms (for aviators) on the NPC website. It mirrors what the Fleet needs in terms of Officer manning.

Now, combining the IDC into one group for FITREPs poses an interesting situation for cross-detailing. How will cross-detailed individuals fair when it comes to ranking? Who knows... it will be interesting if people stray away from these for fear of running into a vindictive CO that will rank someone foreign to their designator at the bottom.

If we do become URL, I think the benefits are worth it. It will probably be easier to pursue graduate education because then the prospect of being a ROTC or USNA Instructor opens up. Joint tours will be more plentiful. And as a community, I see us having more "street credit". Sure there will be growing pains, but in the long run it should be a positive for our community as a whole.

I think the URL debate comes down to what is the end goal. Do we want IW's to fill IWC billets under their own right? Or do we want to be recognized as another warfare dimension? If we want IW's to be IWC's, then we should just recode the billet. I haven't seen anything in Title 10 that would prohibit it. If anything, we just need to make an Admin change to how Officers are detailed to the position. But if we want to go further and recognize that the information dimension is and will be a facet of warfare for the rest of our lives, then we should become URLs.

Standing by for counterfire
  • 0

User avatar
Schlag
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: The path of the righteous man...
Reputation: 18

Postby Wolfpack » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:47 am

Schlag wrote:
Now, combining the IDC into one group for FITREPs poses an interesting situation for cross-detailing. How will cross-detailed individuals fair when it comes to ranking? Who knows... it will be interesting if people stray away from these for fear of running into a vindictive CO that will rank someone foreign to their designator at the bottom.


I think cross detailing is the wrong way to go. We do not need an Intel guy or an IP to come over and do IW work, what we need is for an IP to go do IP work within an Intel or IW organization. The four communities are still too stove-piped in their organization (again, because there has not been any significant change to the billet base since the IDC stood up). By assigning IPs, and IW, etc, to do the jobs within their skill sets within the other IDC communities, it will create 1) an understanding of what the other communities do and 2) a basis for an IDC culture. Putting an Intel Officer in an IW job (cross detailing) does not do that, it just teaches that officer how to be something he/she is not. We have IWs to fill that job, let them do it.
  • 0

Wolfpack
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:14 am
Location: Wash DC
Reputation: 6

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:06 pm

Like Schlag points out, I think there will be some amount of equity given to selections across the IDC. Each individual community will have its own unique requirements for specific billets (DH, XO, CO, etc) regardless of cross-detailing initiatives, so I doubt any one community will dominate selections year after year. The leadership of the IDC, however, may in fact be dominated by certain communities more often than others. I see nothing wrong with that, especially if the leadership is selected from within the IDC. As for IW, I seriously doubt we will become the P-3 pilots of the IDC community anytime soon given the current drive for all things Cyber.

As for cross-detailing, as billets at the O-6 level and above begin to be filled by any IDC Officer, cross-detailing is the only way to ensure exposure to the other communities, and success in the job assigned. I seriously doubt cross-detailing will creep beyond general leadership jobs and generic joint fills. Assigning an IP Officer to be a CRC, for example, would be disastrous. I am pretty confident the leadership understands this, along with the other limitations of cross-detailing.

It is also worth pointing out that, as far as I can tell, the URL effort was made for very specific reasons, although I think the IDC leadership did a poor job of communicating this with the community in general. I had the opportunity to ask this very question to one of our Flag Officers a few months ago. His response was that certain billets, currently filled by URLs, would benefit the Navy by being filled by an IDC Officer. Examples included IW Officers serving as EWO's, IP Officer's serving as CISO's (DDG, CG specific), and METOC Officers serving as ASW Officers. Becoming URL would be a part of this process. Not sure if putting off the URL change also puts this initiative on hold. Only the IDC leadership knows the answer, as far as I can tell, and they don't seem to be sharing much right now.

v/r

COMEVIL
  • 0

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

Postby yoshi » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:36 pm

Ok, so I went ahead and reread the brief again, and I think we have a different understanding of what is happening. The title of the brief is: "Migration of the Information Dominance Corps to a Single Community". I take this to meane we will all be members of one community. Therefore, there wil be no IW/IP/Intel METOC billets. Rather they will all be ID billets, and JDTA will be the same for everyone. Sure, there will be AQDs and P-codes for some, but all folks will be able to fill most all billets. "Cross-detailing" is irrelevant, as it will no longer exist. If someone has better gouge than what is written on the brief given to the CNO, please let me know.

Breaking out billets by AQD/P-code does nothing to ensure the appropriate skills are possessed by the individual serving in that billet. AQD and Pcodes are currently only useful in that they tell us what school someone went to; it doesn't tell us level of experience or quality. And - quality is the bottom line. Competence should be our watchword, and I wish we would/could detail accordingly. But, we can't/don't.

As for URL discussion:
It would be more helpful for me to understand how the Navy would benefit from certain EW/CISO/ASW billets, currently filled by URLs, being filled by ID officers. What says they can't be filled by RL ID officers now? They could be. Also, what is the value added versus the value lost? Sure, maybe we can be more specific to a/the capability area, but what is the tradeoff. I, for one, don't have the confidence in the fleet experience of our wardroom to be able to say we would be successful in most cases. I base this on the level of fleet experience of those around me (all officer grades), most of whom possess 2 or maybe 3 deployments. I think we provide one hell of an effective informational force, complete with non-kinetic options. But, I don't believe we have the breadth of understanding and experience necessary to command/control a deployed capability in support of COCOM, Fleet requirements. Sure, we provide the capability, but understanding where and how it should be used, how it fits at all levels, and how it affects the rest is a whole different dimension.

The fact is we don't know enough about how the Navy operates (let alone a joint construct) to ensure success relative to an alternative URL choice. Before I get hammered for this statement, look at how many billets we have invested at our fleet TYCOMs, UFF, and CPF and then compare them to how many are at Ft/ Meade/C10F. Looking at that will tell you exactly what we feel is important. We are shore-centric, and becoming more-so every day, and it seems to me we are somewhat confused in our understanding of what uniform we wear. This shore-centricity widens the gap in understanding and commonality between our community efforts and fleet efforts. I'm not sure I would embrace ID as URL if I were the CNO, at least not until the ID community could find a way to resolve the long standing problems the post deployment reports continue to repeat.

Finally, there are indeed solutions to be had, and many are underway. I will say, however, that the level of acceptance is inherently dependent upon one's organization. While thinking outside the box may be encouraged at OPNAV or elsewhere, it isn't necessarily the case in other locations. There are far more aspects for the O6s at CPF/FFC to consider, and consequently far more constraints under which the JOs (far fewer in number than the JOs at the mothership) must work. These organizations and their personalities are not modern. Additionally, the efforts at CPF/FFC and other fleet staffs have far greater implications for the Navy's opinion, credibility, and use of IO/CYBER than does the best idea cooked up in MD or elsewhere. While we will always believe in and continue to produce ideas for possible solutions, we are realists and understand what is possible and what is intractable. We will continue to bide our time and wait for the correct set of cross-organizational personalities and opportunity to present solutions to the problems we continue to experience. It isn't risk aversion or institutional cowardice which prevents solutions from being advanced, its the desire/necessity to save time and streamline efforts in support of what must be done. If you are one person in 3 or 4 billets, this only makes sense (meanwhile, we're double stuffing billets at other other locations). So, the likelihood of seeing ROI on time spent in support of an idea for solution depends on the idea's quality and feasability (as determined by the chain). Hence, personalities have to marry up across a number of organizations - they all have to agree, get along, and be inclusive. Presently, that ain't happening. Organizational priorities are different and their conflict leads to a situation in which solutions will best (most likely) be produced by those organizations with adequate resources and control. Those elsewhere have to figure out who to convince, when, and how to pacify the interests of all necessary players (staff work).
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:46 pm

yoshi wrote:Ok, so I went ahead and reread the brief again, and I think we have a different understanding of what is happening. The title of the brief is: "Migration of the Information Dominance Corps to a Single Community". I take this to meane we will all be members of one community. Therefore, there wil be no IW/IP/Intel METOC billets.


We already are one community, under the 18xx construct. Hence the action "Single Designator Series (18xx)" is listed under the completed section. 1800's, 1810's, 1820's, etc will still exist, similar to how URL's delineate their Officers.
  • 0

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

Postby yoshi » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:10 pm

If we are already one community, I guess I'm not sure how the single 18XX designator series will "complete the transition of four communities into a more effective warfighting community" (as reads step 1 of the brief)? Guess I'm looking for the difference between what we have now and what we are going to, as well as the goodness it provides.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Postby Wolfpack » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:11 pm

yoshi wrote:If we are already one community, I guess I'm not sure how the single 18XX designator series will "complete the transition of four communities into a more effective warfighting community" (as reads step 1 of the brief)? Guess I'm looking for the difference between what we have now and what we are going to, as well as the goodness it provides.


In Oct 2009, four separate communities were joined under the IDC moniker. It was a step to show that the communities had similarities (I am taking that as fact for the sake of discussion). The idea was to manage them as a Corps, separate communities with a s single overarching guidance from above (OPNAV). One of the observations from doing that was that there is even more in common with the communities, and that there are more efficient ways to manage the communities and provide information effects to the warfighter. Some of that comes through alignment. Changing all to 18XX did not get rid of any communities; it provided structure to how the Navy looks at and manages officers communities. You have probably see it before, but the aviation community is 13XX. Within the 13XX community are 1310 (pilots) and 1320 (NFOs).

The closer the communities come together, the better that they can be aligned, and when appropriate, cross-pollinated, the better the Navy is. If an intel organization has an Intel person working comms and systems, would it be better to have an IP doing it – yes. Better for the IP community, and better for the Intel Community. IW and Intel have worked very closely for decades, and there is great value from that, similar collaboration across the information centric IDC communities can yield similar results. And Intel and IW can do more together to create Navy operational effects.
  • 0

Wolfpack
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:14 am
Location: Wash DC
Reputation: 6

Postby Wolfpack » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:20 pm

yoshi wrote:
As for URL discussion:
It would be more helpful for me to understand how the Navy would benefit from certain EW/CISO/ASW billets, currently filled by URLs, being filled by ID officers. What says they can't be filled by RL ID officers now? They could be. Also, what is the value added versus the value lost? Sure, maybe we can be more specific to a/the capability area, but what is the tradeoff. I, for one, don't have the confidence in the fleet experience of our wardroom to be able to say we would be successful in most cases. I base this on the level of fleet experience of those around me (all officer grades), most of whom possess 2 or maybe 3 deployments. I think we provide one hell of an effective informational force, complete with non-kinetic options. But, I don't believe we have the breadth of understanding and experience necessary to command/control a deployed capability in support of COCOM, Fleet requirements. Sure, we provide the capability, but understanding where and how it should be used, how it fits at all levels, and how it affects the rest is a whole different dimension.


The IDC going to the URL was not about filling some position on ships (an IP being a commo on a DDG just makes sense, and has nothing to do with being URL). It was about Information dominance being a warfare area on par with aviation, surface, etc. The Navy breaks out URL as the warfighters and RL/Staff as support. The CNO asked that the DCNO look to see what it would take to be URL.
I would opine that the URL/RL structure is an anachronism whose time has passed. It is reflective of a platform approach to defining who is a warfighter (big, grey and it floats away from home for 6-8 months) and who is not (you work in a building and go home every night, so it cannot be warfare). I think URL is more a state of mind than a valid method to define capability. But, those in charge are URL, so I do not see much changing.

This is why VADM Card made the brief about effects, not about URL. Look, step one is all about warfighting effectiveness, not at all about URL.
How hard it is to be URL ? maybe as easy as changing a SECNAV instruction, not even law.
  • 0

Wolfpack
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:14 am
Location: Wash DC
Reputation: 6

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest