FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby yoshi » Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:28 pm

Found it (explanation of the new commands. It isn't perfect, but it shows the thought train:

Canc frp: Jun 2018
OPNAVNOTE 5400 Ser DNS-33/17U102237 5 Jun 2017
OPNAV NOTICE 5400

From: Chief of Naval Operations

Subj: RENAME NAVY INFORMATION OPERATIONS COMMAND MARYLAND AND ESTABLISH CRYPTOLOGIC WARFARE MARITIME ACTIVITY SIXTY-ONE, CYBER STRIKE ACTIVITY SIXTY-THREE, CYBER DEFENSE ACTIVITY SIXTY- FOUR, AND CRYPTOLOGIC WARFARE ACTIVTIES SIXTY-FIVE, SIXTY-SIX AND SIXTY-SEVEN

Ref: (a) OPNAVINST 5400.44A (b) OPNAVINST 5400.45

1. Purpose. To approve renaming of Navy Information Operations Command Maryland (NIOC MD) to Cryptologic Warfare Group Six (CWG SIX); and to implement Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) approval of the establishment of Cryptologic Warfare Maritime Activity Sixty-One (CWMA-61), Cyber Strike Activity Sixty-Three (CSA-63), Cyber Defense Activity Sixty-Four (CDA-64), and Cryptologic Warfare Activities (CWA) Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six and Sixty-Seven, per reference (a).

2. Background. The renaming and establishment actions in this organization change are designed to better address the need for specialized cryptologic and defensive cyberspace operations. Establishment of the separate commands provides for a more direct span of control in each specialized cryptologic or cyber area, which provides for more robust execution of fleet and national missions.

3. Organizational Changes. Effective immediately, rename NIOC MD and establish CWMA61, CSA-63, CDA-64, CWA-65, CWA-66, and CWA-67. The following applies:

a. Renaming. Current mission not affected by renaming.

From To

Commanding Officer Commanding Officer Navy Information Operations Command Cryptologic Warfare Group Six Maryland 9800 Savage RD 9800 Savage RD Fort George G Meade, MD 20755 Fort George G Meade, MD 20755
OPNAVNOTE 5400 5 Jun 2017

2
(SNDL: FG2) (UIC: 62936)* (SNDL: FA4) (UIC: 62936) (PLA: NAVIOCOM FT GEORGE G (PLA: CRYPTOWARGRU SIX) MEADE MD) (Activity Code: 2640-100) (Activity Code: 3560-350)

b. Establishment

Commanding Officer Cryptologic Warfare Maritime Activity Sixty-One Cryptologic Warfare Group Six Fort George G Meade, MD 20755

(SNDL: FA4A) (UIC: 50382) (PLA: CRYPTOWARMARACT SIX ONE) (Activity Code: 2645-100)

Mission. To deliver cryptologic and defensive cyberspace operations capabilities to support numbered fleets by performing fleet information operations center functions; and to provide and deploy trained cryptologic warfare officers and cryptologic enlisted personnel, expertise, and equipment to support signals intelligence and cyberspace operations for naval surface, sub-surface, expeditionary, special warfare, joint, and Department of Defense forces.

Commanding Officer Cyber Strike Activity Sixty-Three Cryptologic Warfare Group Six Fort George G Meade, MD 20755

(SNDL: FA4A) (UIC: 37700) (PLA: CYBERSTRKACT SIX THREE) (Activity Code: 2645-200)

Mission. To provide and deploy trained cryptologic warfare officers and enlisted personnel, expertise, and equipment to support offensive cyberspace operations and defensive cyberspace operations for Commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command (COMUSFLTCYBERCOM) and Cyber National Mission Forces (CNMF); and to conduct cyberspace operations in support of assigned Defend the Nation missions as directed by Commander, CNMF.

Commanding Officer Cyber Defense Activity Sixty-Four Cryptologic Warfare Group Six Fort George G Meade, MD 20755


OPNAVNOTE 5400 5 Jun 2017

3
(SNDL: FA4A) (UIC: 37703) (PLA: CYBERDEFACT SIX FOUR) (Activity Code: 2645-300)

Mission. To employ cyber protection team capabilities to conduct tailored defensive cyberspace operations and internal defensive measures to protect Department of Defense information networks, cyber key terrain, and U.S. critical infrastructure and key resources. Commanding Officer Cryptologic Warfare Activity Sixty-Five Cryptologic Warfare Group Six Fort George G Meade, MD 20755

(SNDL: FA4A) (UIC: 50435) (PLA: CRYPTOWARACT SIX FIVE) (Activity Code: 2645-400)

Mission. To provide timely information on matters of national importance as they pertain to foreign policy; leadership intentions; military plans and intentions; indication and warning; threat finance; regional relationships; and internal security.

Commanding Officer Cryptologic Warfare Activity Sixty-Six Cryptologic Warfare Group Six Fort George G Meade, MD 20755

(SNDL: FA4A) (UIC: 50385) (PLA: CRYPTOWARACT SIX SIX) (Activity Code: 2645-500)

Mission. To provide and deploy trained and ready cryptologic warfare officers and cryptologic technicians to support the collection and exploitation of targets in support of national signals intelligence priorities. Commanding Officer Cryptologic Warfare Activity Sixty-Seven Cryptologic Warfare Group Six Fort George G Meade, MD 20755

(SNDL: FA4A) (UIC: 50436) (PLA: CRYPTOWARACT SIX SEVEN) (Activity Code: 2645-600)
OPNAVNOTE 5400 5 Jun 2017

4
Mission. To provide and deploy Sailors to support the National Security Agency in the development, sustainment, and employment of cyber, information assurance, and signals intelligence collection capabilities while reinforcing information technology infrastructures and providing subject matter expertise in cyberspace operations; electronic warfare; information operations; and special technical operations to inform special operations, kinetic, and non-kinetic operational planning initiatives.

*(SNDL: Standard Navy Distribution List; UIC: unit identification code; PLA: plain language address)

(1) Area Coordination. Commander, Navy Installations Command.

(2) Regional Coordination. Commandant, Naval District Washington.

(3) Budget Submitting Office. Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

(4) OPNAV Resource Sponsor. Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare (CNO (N2N6)). c. Administrative Chain of Command*

(1) Chief of Naval Operations (2) Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (00060) (3) Commander, Naval Information Forces (36001) (4) Commanding Officer, Cryptologic Warfare Group Six (62936) (5) Commanding Officer, Cryptologic Warfare Maritime Activity Sixty-One (50382) (5) Commanding Officer, Cyber Strike Activity Sixty-Three (37700) (5) Commanding Officer, Cyber Defense Activity Sixty-Four (37703) (5) Commanding Officer, Cryptologic Warfare Activity Sixty-Five (50435) (5) Commanding Officer, Cryptologic Warfare Activity Sixty-Six (50385) (5) Commanding Officer, Cryptologic Warfare Activity Sixty-Seven (50436)

*(COMUSFLTCYBERCOM is the operational commander, echelon 2, immediate superior in command, reporting senior and first flag officer for CWG SIX and all the new commands.).

4. Action

a. Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (COMUSFLTFORCOM) will take appropriate action, consistent with reference (a), to rename NIOC MD and establish the new commands and, in coordination with COMUSFLTCYBERCOM, ensure that a new mission, functions, and tasks directive is issued for each command within 90 days. Distribution of those directives will include Director, Navy Staff Organization and Management Branch (DNS-33).

OPNAVNOTE 5400 5 Jun 2017

5
b. Master Update Authority, Honolulu, HI will revise and add the PLAs in the Central Directory Component via messaging systems effective immediately upon COMUSFLTFORCOM request to Commander, Naval Network Warfare Command (COMNAVNETWARCOM) (Network Operations 321), 112 Lake View Pkwy, Suffolk, VA 23435-2696, via email at C2OIX_Reg@navy.mil or by calling (757) 203-0338/0339. Revised and new PLAs will be activated via messaging systems. Additional information on naval messaging can be obtained at https://sailor.nmci.navy.smil.mil or by contacting COMNAVNETWARCOM at numbers in this subparagraph.

c. DNS-33 will revise reference (b) per organization actions directed in this notice.

5. Records Management. Records created as a result of this notice, regardless of media or format, will be managed per SECNAV Manual 5210.1 of January 2012.

6. Cancellation Contingency. This notice will remain in effect for 1 year or until superseded, whichever occurs first. The organization action will remain effective until changed by Director, Navy Staff.
J. A. Sears, III Director of Management

Releasability and distribution: This instruction is cleared for public release and is available electronically only via Department of the Navy Issuances Web site, http://doni.documentservices.dla.mil
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:35 am

yoshi wrote:sum1: saw a friend describe CWA-66 mission as: 'to provide and deploy trained and ready cryptologic warfare officers and cryptologic technicians to support the collection and exploitation of targets in support of national signals intelligence priorities.'


Because: "to create more CDR Command opportunities for the FCC/C10F fiefdom" didn't sound quite right to the SECNAV. :rolleyes:
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Sum1 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:58 am

COMEVIL wrote:
yoshi wrote:sum1: saw a friend describe CWA-66 mission as: 'to provide and deploy trained and ready cryptologic warfare officers and cryptologic technicians to support the collection and exploitation of targets in support of national signals intelligence priorities.'


Because: "to create more CDR Command opportunities for the FCC/C10F fiefdom" didn't sound quite right to the SECNAV. :rolleyes:


There it is!

Honestly, the part that immediately jumped out at me was counting how many title 10 operations related to cryptologic warfare are included in the following mission statement:

(SNDL: FA4A) (UIC: 50435) (PLA: CRYPTOWARACT SIX FIVE) (Activity Code: 2645-400)

Mission. To provide timely information on matters of national importance as they pertain to foreign policy; leadership intentions; military plans and intentions; indication and warning; threat finance; regional relationships; and internal security.


Spoiler alert... not many. Maybe they just provide bodies to ONI/DIA.

Looking forward to getting to the MD area and actually figuring all this out. Haven't seen the inside of a NIOC/cryppie command since 2011.
  • 0

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

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby yoshi » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:45 am

you get it figured out, let me know. probably be able to find me in an FCA, or something joint.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Sum1 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:29 pm

yoshi wrote:you get it figured out, let me know. probably be able to find me in an FCA, or something joint.


Yea, well, if we could have reasonably swung it we would be back somewhere joint again, too. I always said I'd never go to the mothership, but I also said that about a surface ship and that was one of the best (albeit professionally challenging) tours I've done. I'm trying to keep an open mind. It's tough to change things you think are dumb from the outside.
  • 0

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

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Arkad » Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:29 am

I agree that these stats are useless. Apparently, we want them to be useless. They are useless because we continue to get the denominator wrong. When I was the OCM (cue the old guy music), I owned the stats and changed the denominator. The denominator was not the number of selects, but the number of people who shared the experience. X of 12 who were CRCs were picked, etc. Sustained superior performance is a crazy thing to attempt to measure and a false characterization that too many continue to hide behind. What we do most certainly matters and so does how well we do whatever it is. These stats could be meaningful, could incentivize behavior, and could reflect community values, but we are lazy and don't care to make them meaningful. Hate to be critical, but we struggle with an inability to think. Part of the reason I am where I am...Silicon Valley) and why I have largely given up on getting others to think differently. If you'd like to discuss, I am at seanheritage@gmail.com. I remain eager to help for as long as I remain on AD (and longer). Keep pushing for us to become more than we are...please.
  • 0

User avatar
Arkad
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:07 am
Reputation: 21

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Sum1 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:51 am

Arkad wrote:They are useless because we continue to get the denominator wrong. When I was the OCM (cue the old guy music), I owned the stats and changed the denominator. The denominator was not the number of selects, but the number of people who shared the experience. X of 12 who were CRCs were picked, etc. Sustained superior performance is a crazy thing to attempt to measure and a false characterization that too many continue to hide behind.


I think that's the key. The denominator shifts the value of the stats from useless to useful. It's especially useful for a community like ours which I'd argue seems to experience a greater level of turmoil than most others. The amount of change we deal with on a year over year basis is just nuts, and I think it frustrates the workforce to a certain degree.
  • 0

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

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby COMEVIL » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:41 pm

Sum1 wrote:
Arkad wrote:They are useless because we continue to get the denominator wrong. When I was the OCM (cue the old guy music), I owned the stats and changed the denominator. The denominator was not the number of selects, but the number of people who shared the experience. X of 12 who were CRCs were picked, etc. Sustained superior performance is a crazy thing to attempt to measure and a false characterization that too many continue to hide behind.


I think that's the key. The denominator shifts the value of the stats from useless to useful. It's especially useful for a community like ours which I'd argue seems to experience a greater level of turmoil than most others. The amount of change we deal with on a year over year basis is just nuts, and I think it frustrates the workforce to a certain degree.


So if we all agree the denominator needs to change, what data/categories would you like to see?
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby Sum1 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:24 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:
Arkad wrote:They are useless because we continue to get the denominator wrong. When I was the OCM (cue the old guy music), I owned the stats and changed the denominator. The denominator was not the number of selects, but the number of people who shared the experience. X of 12 who were CRCs were picked, etc. Sustained superior performance is a crazy thing to attempt to measure and a false characterization that too many continue to hide behind.


I think that's the key. The denominator shifts the value of the stats from useless to useful. It's especially useful for a community like ours which I'd argue seems to experience a greater level of turmoil than most others. The amount of change we deal with on a year over year basis is just nuts, and I think it frustrates the workforce to a certain degree.


So if we all agree the denominator needs to change, what data/categories would you like to see?


I think, for a start, rather than the number of selects with a particular kind of specialty or experience, we need to see that number compared to the total number of people with that particular experience or specialty. Is the distribution similar? For example, if 90% of selectees had joint experience, and only 10% of the total records reviewed by the board had joint experience, you can surmise that joint experience was valued. If 90% of selectees had completed their IWC qual, and 90% of the total records reviewed by the board had finished their IWC qual, you know it was looked at, but wouldn't represent an opportunity to set yourself apart. Whereas if 90% of selectees had XO/OIC, but only 5% in total had it, you KNOW you absolutely NEED to get that experience (if we're thinking of promotion as a min-max proposition).

The one thing I'd REALLY like to see, however, is the relative hard and soft breakout numbers for a selectee group. And a relative distribution above/below reporting senior average for selectees vs non-selects. I think that would start to build a more accurate picture of who we're selecting and why. If you're #10 out of 100 and someone else is #2 out of 3 ... it matters, but realistically how MUCH does it matter? How high do you need to be over reporting senior average for it to actually resonate with the board? 0.1? 0.3? 0.5 or more?

This is just a spitball off the top of my head while I should be writing an ethics paper... so feel free to crush me or add your own inputs. Cheers!
  • 0

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

Re: FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

Postby strima » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:09 pm

yoshi wrote:you get it figured out, let me know. probably be able to find me in an FCA, or something joint.


The core logic of it is quite simple... NIOC MD got too large. Something something fiefdom...
  • 0

strima
Registered Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:42 pm
Reputation: 0

Previous

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron