Training/Course Information

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:40 am

12345qwert wrote:I didn't even realize this was in the works and am ignorant to what's been done to develop it (or what (specifically) will be covered), but just a quick thought about timing.

Why not make this like SWOS? In the SWO community (at least when I was on a ship as an IWO a few years ago), to go to SWOS you had to qual OOD and complete your SWO PQS, then after SWOS you took your SWO board to earn your qual. You could easily apply the same tenants to our communities, where you have to qualify in your specific designator (18XX) and finish your IDWO PQS first, THEN go through the short course before returning back to your command to conduct your qualification board and ultimately earn your IDWO pin. To me at least, it makes a lot of sense to go through a program after you've done your PQS and had some real-world experiences that you can use (from your own community within the IDC) and share with your IDC classmates from other communities. Students are also motivated to pay attention and retain the knowledge with a qual board waiting for them when they return to their command AND meet all of the requirements in school (tests/exercises/etc).

I understand that the SWOs recently added a "front end" classroom training before JOs get on their first ship, but the intent with that was to replace SWOS-in-a-box. IWBC is our front-end classroom training, and perhaps this could be the more advanced training that gets integrated into the qualification process.

Yes, there are additional costs with a TAD after you've PCS'd to your new command, but it is well worth the payoff of having IDC JOs that retain more of the knowledge from their formal educational experiences - and have a better understanding of how and why we all work together.

I have a strong feeling that we're too far along in the process to make these types of changes - but if not, might be worth engaging the POCs. Anyone reached out to LT Spates or CDR Vegeler? If not, I am happy to send a note/call.


But SWOs hate that process and have done anything they can to change it. I don't think the training should be board prep -- which is what SWOS equated to when I went (as an 1810). This intro needs to happen first so they understand all aspects of the IDC prior to their first assignment, IMHO.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby Sum1 » Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:30 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
12345qwert wrote:I didn't even realize this was in the works and am ignorant to what's been done to develop it (or what (specifically) will be covered), but just a quick thought about timing.

Why not make this like SWOS? In the SWO community (at least when I was on a ship as an IWO a few years ago), to go to SWOS you had to qual OOD and complete your SWO PQS, then after SWOS you took your SWO board to earn your qual. You could easily apply the same tenants to our communities, where you have to qualify in your specific designator (18XX) and finish your IDWO PQS first, THEN go through the short course before returning back to your command to conduct your qualification board and ultimately earn your IDWO pin. To me at least, it makes a lot of sense to go through a program after you've done your PQS and had some real-world experiences that you can use (from your own community within the IDC) and share with your IDC classmates from other communities. Students are also motivated to pay attention and retain the knowledge with a qual board waiting for them when they return to their command AND meet all of the requirements in school (tests/exercises/etc).

I understand that the SWOs recently added a "front end" classroom training before JOs get on their first ship, but the intent with that was to replace SWOS-in-a-box. IWBC is our front-end classroom training, and perhaps this could be the more advanced training that gets integrated into the qualification process.

Yes, there are additional costs with a TAD after you've PCS'd to your new command, but it is well worth the payoff of having IDC JOs that retain more of the knowledge from their formal educational experiences - and have a better understanding of how and why we all work together.

I have a strong feeling that we're too far along in the process to make these types of changes - but if not, might be worth engaging the POCs. Anyone reached out to LT Spates or CDR Vegeler? If not, I am happy to send a note/call.


But SWOs hate that process and have done anything they can to change it. I don't think the training should be board prep -- which is what SWOS equated to when I went (as an 1810). This intro needs to happen first so they understand all aspects of the IDC prior to their first assignment, IMHO.


I don't think we need to worry about this turning into board prep. SWOS is longer and more in-depth than I expect this training will be. Additionally, while SWOS is relevant because a JO coming from a DDG might actually go to a big deck amphib next (or vice versa) there's a greater mandate to have a greater depth of knowledge about those platforms. An IWO isn't going to go do a Metoc or Intel or IP job - at least not until he or she is an O-5 - which means this training should never evolve into something like what we see with SWOS.

I do like the idea of forcing the JO to show up to their first command, do their 1810 PQS, and then go to this course sometime during their post-1810 PQS/pre-IDWO board time. I think it has the most utility delivered in that way. Now, with that said, I don't know if there's much utility to be had, even in ideal circumstances.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby Wolfpack » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:30 pm

The intent was to bring all the IDC officers together before they go into their core Designator to learn about the IDC and what the different communities bring to the IDC. Having it together is also an effort to start developing the IDC culture at the outset.

Anyone who has been an 18xx from the outset has their own community culture and bias. The IDC remains an external "thing" in which we have all bought into at differing degrees. This allows the IDC to start with the future leaders at the outset. This is not about the IDWO insignia, but about developing a rock solid foundation to the Corps.
  • 0

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

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:25 pm

Wolfpack wrote:The intent was to bring all the IDC officers together before they go into their core Designator to learn about the IDC and what the different communities bring to the IDC. Having it together is also an effort to start developing the IDC culture at the outset.

Anyone who has been an 18xx from the outset has their own community culture and bias. The IDC remains an external "thing" in which we have all bought into at differing degrees. This allows the IDC to start with the future leaders at the outset. This is not about the IDWO insignia, but about developing a rock solid foundation to the Corps.


^^^^^ +1
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby 12345qwert » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:08 am

GREAT discussion! Like all of you, I appreciate that we all have our own unique perspectives on this training - and are passionate about our positions - as I will get to at the bottom, the key here is understanding senior leadership's intent with this course - and whether this is the BEST option to make a more cohesive and capable IDC team.

While I understand "wolfpack's" point about the desire to create an "IDC culture at the outset," I would offer that we have limited "mandatory formal training" opportunities as IWOs (my only mando IW training to date was IWBC 8 years ago as a new accession) - so every opportunity is even more valuable - and the timing within the pipeline becomes absolutely critical. If, as "comevil" suggested, the intent is to put this as the FIRST stop on the accession pipeline, in my opinion, it is a wasted opportunity as IWOs won't even know what their community is - let alone how their community fits into the IDC. My fear is that this course will become a series of power points and "you'll understand once you get to the fleet" statements from instructors - never allowing for the student driven conversation that is so critical to understanding the other communities. But, again, that could absolutely be a false assumption.

I would offer that we develop our sense of identity as IWOs in IWBC and at our first commands - our first priority is to understand the specifics of our role as IWOs and to begin to develop technical expertise. That is and should be the focus of accession training. If you added this two weeks before the 8 week (or somewhat shortened) IWBC - how much knowledge would be retained? Additionally, if this is your very first training - are you able to develop the same type of peer relationships with your IDC classmates that you would if it was later?

Like many of you, I went through SWOS as an IWO - and while I understand that this course should not be purely about about the qual - I do think the diversity of knowledge you could take advantage of if you attended the course AFTER you've studied and completed your IDWO JQR would be incredibly useful. At SWOS, having the baseline SWO knowledge coming in the door allowed for better conversations in the classrooms that won't be possible for new accessions. Also, when completing your IDWO or SWO JQR, you are entirely reliant on the expertise of personnel at your command. That puts a lot of faith in the few METOC/IP/INTEL officers at our NIOCs (or the areas close to them) to be able to decide "what's important for IWOs to know." Most of those IDCOs will focus on the things they've experienced in their first few years - and leave out things they haven't (again, this is broad generalization - there are some IDCOs that take the qual interactions very seriously). Even for us, the amount of specificity each of us (as IWOs) put into "teaching" our IDC counterparts (as we are signing off on their IDWO JQRs) about what they need to know about the IW community varies GREATLY. Wouldn't it be nice that our leaders know that at varying levels throughout our career (IDWO qual and mid-career), all IDC officers had a "baseline" level of knowledge they were given in a classroom?

The IDC community is in the unique position of being able to ADD training/systems/personnel in a fiscally austere period for our Navy - so we have to show that every investment is well thought out and maximizes the output for our team. I absolutely recognize that I am being overly idealistic - this will not solve all of our issues - but as "pwlk" said, it's an important first step in creating the culture we want within the IDC.

All of this is a nice conversation - but the data we are lacking is the IDC Leadership's "vision" for this course. I don't want to be overly simplistic, but is this course meant to be a "welcome to the community" overview or are we expecting 18XX officers to be on a IDC pipeline at the accession/mid-career stages that will allow us to have enough knowledge to better perform when we cross-detail later in our careers? Long term, what do we want the IDC Officers of the future to "look like" and how are we building the training now to ensure they have the skills to meet our expectations?

Thanks again for the conversation!
  • 2

12345qwert
Registered Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:34 pm
Reputation: 9

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby yoshi » Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:48 pm

I'm not sure there is a "vision" for this course, per se. I think the emphasis was to get a course started, as soon as possible (as with IDMCC). This course and IDMCC are the only two courses I have seen which OPNAV directly commissioned (no Fleet requirement, no TYCOM mechanics, etc). Although I have no problem with either, I do think their primary utility and purpose is to generate a commonality and inform on IDC matters (ie - Battlespace Awareness, Integrated Fires, Assured C2). Unfortunately, I don't think we know what that commonality is, yet. Curiously, I don't remember an OPNAV/IDC effort involved with asking the people who do the IDC communities' work where the common areas might lie, what areas are definitely exclusive, and where potential changes could be made to be efficient. This would be recommendation #1: list the common core and functions of all IDC communities, identify/circle the same functions performed in each community, and start building there. Example - every one of our IDC communities collects, analyzes, and provides analyzed information to Commanders. In fact, there are AGs, ISs, ITs, and CTs who today do the EXACT same job, just in different portions of the EMS; the only difference is the required outputs of that job. But I digress... ...Anyway, commonalities identify what it means for the officer communities shepherding that work. The point is, shared content makes commonality, not shared mantra. All aviators fly - it's the tie that binds for the aviation community. We have to identify and understand the tie binding all of us. 'Information' and other nebulous and imprecise nouns-as-adjectives fail to generate sufficient and discrete (from other communities) commonality necessary for buy-in, for investment, for things moving forward. While 'Information' might work as a descriptor for our Corps, it falls apart as an adhesive used to hold us together.

The largest issue with this course is the priority this course holds relative to other needed courses and, most importantly, the process used. This course should not have been developed and run through the CID/NETC process. That is way too expensive. This type of course, which seems to me to be a seminar style offering, doesn't offer enough rigor/technical to warrant the millions of dollars which will be spent over time. I know what it costs for curriculum development, HPPR workshops, JDTA refinement, KSAs, etc. This course could have been developed far cheaper by avoiding CID/NETC. We can and do develop courses outside of CID/NETC domain (SEWCAC, SEWTAC, CNTT, etc). In fact, course content outside of the CID/NETC domain can be adjusted from class to class, whereas the CID courses require two+ years (this leads to a high level of atrophy where course value/ROI is concerned). It could also likely be developed much more quickly outside of CID/NETC. For this type of course (and IDMCC), OPNAV should have gone with a (smaller) bag of money through the TYCOM to NIOC San Diego, NIOC Norfolk, ONI, or COMNAVMETOCOM (would have been my choice - they do training better than anyone else in the IDC). So - recommendation #2A: Let the TYCOM do its job. IDMCC, IDBC, and all course development should be handled by the TYCOM (now NAVIDFOR). OPNAV states a requirements, provides the money. The TYCOM field of regard is larger than the one course OPNAV wants done now and thus the TYCOM better understands what best supports long term course value. Recommendation #2B: Identify training which should be subject to a lengthy, rigorous, and repetitive academic review process and that training which should not. Training which provides critical skills necessary for ratings, for example, should be subject to such a process (A-schools, IWBC). Training which covers an ever evolving specific function performed or a specific role filled should NOT be subject to this type of process. For example, SIWC and CRC, in my opinion, should not be subject to a process in which course changes require years to accomplish. They could be taught in the fleet concentration areas by NIOCs Norfolk and San Diego (going there anyway) and it would dramatically enhance the value (field trip to ships, perhaps a block taught by a Commodore/recently deployed CRC, field trip to USFFC MOC, NAVIDFOR, NCDOC, putting faces with the names on paper). Pulling those courses out of the CID/NETC process provides dramatically improved flexibility to make the courses absolutely useful. IDMCC and IDBC - courses with very generic learning objectives - are best facilitated by an other than NETC process.
  • 1

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

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:12 pm

Let's not over think this. This was a course, directed by VADM Branch (URL), to help make us more like a URL community. That trend has been ongoing now since URL's served as the N2/N6. This is just an introduction to the IDC --- consider it an orientation.

Instructor: "IP Officers raise your hands. OK, here is what your role is in the IDC."

Instructor: "IW Officers raise your hands. This is how the IP community supports you and where you best interact."

Call me cynical, but this isn't rocket surgery. And, most importantly, these new Officers will learn more about the IDC and how to interact/play nice/leverage others in the Corps by getting out there and doing it than by any amount of formal instruction. Sort of like when a Cryppie realizes it might be a good idea to talk to METOC about his collection plan.

The IDC isn't new. The construct simply codified what has been an ongoing relationship for a long time. This course will introduce new accessions to that concept before they go learn their craft. Purpose served.

Standing by for incoming fires.

v/r

Comevil
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby yoshi » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:45 pm

do you think the juice is worth the squeeze?
  • 0

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

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:45 am

yoshi wrote:do you think the juice is worth the squeeze?


I understand the intent and I think there is value in the effort.

In the end it will all come down to content and quality of the instructor.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: Training/Course Information

Postby Wolfpack » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:41 pm

yoshi wrote:Point 1: I'm not sure there is a "vision" for this course, per se. I think the emphasis was to get a course started, as soon as possible (as with IDMCC). This course and IDMCC are the only two courses I have seen which OPNAV directly commissioned (no Fleet requirement, no TYCOM mechanics, etc). Although I have no problem with either, I do think their primary utility and purpose is to generate a commonality and inform on IDC matters (ie - Battlespace Awareness, Integrated Fires, Assured C2). Unfortunately, I don't think we know what that commonality is, yet. Curiously, I don't remember an OPNAV/IDC effort involved with asking the people who do the IDC communities' work where the common areas might lie, what areas are definitely exclusive, and where potential changes could be made to be efficient. This would be recommendation #1: list the common core and functions of all IDC communities, identify/circle the same functions performed in each community, and start building there.
Point 2: The largest issue with this course is the priority this course holds relative to other needed courses and, most importantly, the process used. This course should not have been developed and run through the CID/NETC process. That is way too expensive. This type of course, which seems to me to be a seminar style offering, doesn't offer enough rigor/technical to warrant the millions of dollars which will be spent over time. I know what it costs for curriculum development, HPPR workshops, JDTA refinement, KSAs, etc. This course could have been developed far cheaper by avoiding CID/NETC.
Point 3: recommendation #2A: Let the TYCOM do its job. IDMCC, IDBC, and all course development should be handled by the TYCOM (now NAVIDFOR). OPNAV states a requirements, provides the money.


Having been at N2N6 when this came about and gotten the task from VADM Card to start the process, I think I am qualified to answer some of this.

Point 1. No vision. Actually, there is a vision, which part of it I explained before. Consistent feedback from meeting IDC officer and enlisted all over the globe was that there was no "Us" in IDC. Everyone was their own community. The desire, which I still feel is right, was to create a culture. Aviators are still aviators, regardless of type/model/series. Same with SWOs, be it CruDes or Amphib, and Submariner - Fast attack or Boomers. There is NOTHING like that in the IDC. And part of the intent was to work with new accessions (officers and enlisted) to start fostering this culture with them. It is too late with you or anyone else on this board. It is too ingrained. Part of the process to validate the need or requirement was that it would be based on the commonalities of the IDC communities. Interesting discussion with people when they have to develop the commonalities. How much you buy into the similarities has indicated how much people buy into the idea of the IDC. there was and remains vision in this. I am no longer involved in where the course goes, but have zero doubt it is the right thing to do for the future of the IDC.

Point 2: CID and NMITC are part of the NETC process, pure and simple. There was no way that there could be an initial accessions course without them being part of the process. After being involved in trig to get this off the ground, I never want to deal with the HPRR, etc process again. A waste of money and time, but we don't get to make all the rules. Everything you said was spot on.

Point 3: TYCOM. You are right, this did not belong up at OPNAV. And I hope that NAVIDFOR has the authorities Navcyber never had and that it has the leadership and desire to be a TYCOM that NavCyber never had. There was no way this would have ever occurred at NAVCYBER at the time. Feel free to tell me off, that that is a fact.

Working in N2N6C at the time was painful. I do not envy the folks at NAVIDFOR for the task they have in front of them. I took the N2N6 job knowing full well what I was getting into. At the time, my options were to complain or be part of the solution. Not sure I would have done it, knowing what I know, but I have no retrets. Other questions about what came out of there over the last few years, let me know. I would be glad to provide the insight.
  • 0

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

PreviousNext

Return to Information Dominance Corps

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron