Indeed, the vultures are circling, but I will forego discussion here. Saw this on the O4 board/results:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... map=%5B%5D
-‘all in’ or ‘all out’: It has to be one or the other. Each of our communities will be crushed if we continue to ride the fence. All in means one community/one designator, not a corps. All in means we all compete together. This approach is potentially harmful for technical proficiency (think Army/AF intel - that's what it is), but it’s the only way forward. ‘All out’ means going back to single communities (there is no going back). The biggest barrier to the coming together of the IDC in a functional way is at the Flag officer and CAPT level. Each of the communities work to solidify/build their organizations first (their first responsibility) and follow the IDC plan second. This is probably why we had IDC TYCOM work which (apparently) no one wanted and ultimately resulted in URLs making IDFOR. Community leaders are appropriately focused on operational missions, resources, and standing. It makes sense to do so in the current construct. After all, THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS PRESERVING THE COMMUNITY(!). The IDC pie is so big and contains each of our communities' missions and functions, all of which are critical to the Navy. Our community leaders publicly endorse the IDC approach but often must work against it to enable the billets, resources, and community functions. It is, frankly, pretty demoralizing, and some see this and vote with their feet. There are others who watch, learn, and form an opinion of the IDC based on what they see (such as this course, which probably looks misplaced to most JOs). We have to be better. Ways to do so: 1) Make the four communities one community. 2) Move IDC community management from FCC/NAVMETOCOM/ONI/PACOM/OPNAV to IDFOR. Community management is administrative, not operational. ID FOR seems a natural migration destination, as it’s the only administrative command we have in the IDC (all the others are SUPER-operational, just ask - sorry :-) couldn't resist). 3) Fully integrate ALL skills into IDC commands. I haven't yet seen a job in any of our communities which couldn't be learned and done by an officer from another community (although perhaps not as well). Yes, I know some would suffer, but identify those, mark them, and move on. I don't see a lot of officers pushing buttons, wiring networks, breaking code. Rather, I see them inspiring others, preparing others, and managing the approaches. Besides, we already accepted decreasing technical proficiency of the officer corps when we chose this road several years ago. With this, we would have sufficient collaboration to produce a cohesive, holistic IDC product/value. It is at this point the course makes sense. Right now, we have 4 communities, each with their own subordinate commands dedicated to the work of their singular community function. Inside of these commands, all our officers are groomed for that specific community function, not the IDC. So, we educate our people on the IDC while training/working them in only 1/4 of the IDC (one community). At what point do we expect the education to overcome practice/experience in the formation of our officers? Finally, after 17 years of practice, they are ready to cross detail. Given this approach (which is, to be kind, intellectually confusing), the IDBC and IDMCC are superfluous for the majority of officers, as most won't make it to O5 Command (likely the first chance to cross detail). Still, there are great stories of collaboration and there is a common culture to build. You just can't do it at ONI, FCC, METOCOM, etc with the way they are currently built. You have to desegregate the commands to broaden their IDC horizons. The best examples of collaboration are on staffs (particularly afloat or in one of one jobs), in my opinion, because you HAVE to work together. It isn't about your degree, your billet history, etc. You have to know what you are supposed to and bring it via other people every day. Practiced integration and shared hardship with other IDC one-of-ones breaks ground for the seeds of culture.
-juice being worth the squeeze. It is hard to justify the course against so many more important (from an operational perspective) training priorities. What does the JO see: OPNAV couldn't find a few hundred thousand for training his/her community really needs, but it spent more than that on this course? The JO doesn’t possess the organizational view of OPNAV and doesn’t have that as one of his/her priorities. I get it, you do have to have a balance, and culture is important. In the JO mind, those who decide how money should be spent prioritized this course over other training needs (whether intentionally or on accident). Thus, OPNAV is potentially viewed as obtuse. The decision isn’t wrong, but it shapes the JO’s perception with respect to the IDC, OPNAV, and priorities. OPNAV doesn’t owe anyone an explanation and the decision was/is well within their purview. However, maybe it would be beneficial to consider the JO perspective, given efforts to build the IDC, and communicate. Perhaps providing updates and communiques from the IDC to its JOs in an understandable format (not strategic 5 year plans for Battlespace Awareness/Integrated Fires/Assured C2) could be helpful. The lack of communication is damning, and again, demoralizing. We have to be better. The IDC is not yet sufficiently brought together, structured, or prepared to make good on either the IDBC or IDMCC. The issues (community priorities versus IDC) have to be fixed. The community leaders have to be able to operate in a manner other than zero sum in competition with other communities for dad's/mom's money and power. In my opinion, this course is putting the cart ahead of the horse with respect to where we are with IDC. Adding insult to injury, we used the most wasteful, expensive, and inflexible option for training. I don’t think the course is a bad idea, but the sucking chest wound still needs treated.