FY19 board Statistics (CAPT & CDR) - 1810

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

Postby COMEVIL » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:41 am

Schlag wrote:Maybe I'm dated, but how many hands would you need to count up the milestone jobs at our "TYCOM"?


Honestly, I don't think we should have any milestone billets (LCDR or CDR) at the TYCOM. They shouldn't be at FCC/C10F or a NIOC/NCDOC either.

Milestones should be jobs outslde the community where you are the representative of our community. There are plenty of places to do this --- CSG, ESG, Fleet Staffs, CCMDs, without creating a two page milestone listing.

These should also be arduous jobs --- sea going, NSW, etc.

If you must do a milestone for command, we should ensure those jobs are truly challenging AND beneficial to the Navy (vice the community).

Putting one/multiple milestone jobs at each NIOC has cheapened the meaning/value of milestone duty.
  • 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 yoshi » Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:11 pm

The location of milestones depends on what the community wants the officer to obtain from the experience, I guess. Should it be operational prowess as cryptologic Superman? Should it be nerd-like scholarly experience of PPBE, MTE, acquisition, etc? I don't think it really matters whether either is a milestone. The larger point is that an officer who is going to be a CO requires BOTH. You have to possess operational prowess and you have to possess an in depth understanding of how things work in order to be able to engineer and appropriately scale value. They need to grasp how operations are conducted, but they also need to understand they are, primarily, the MTE for the operations conducted at their command. Generally, our COs do not understand both sides, primarily suffering from a lack of knowledge/experience on the MTE side. We've got major command COs who don't know who to call when their facility has problems, COs who don't know the POM process. Many of our COs can articulate a DTE, complete with F2T2EA processes, but are incapable of improving their command. This is why most are care takers rather than builders - they don't have the knowledge/experience/background to build. Our previous Flags made decisions which essentially removed that knowledge from our COs' career track when they wrote precepts, screened COs, built career path (milestones and community briefs) which do not include it. Our officers think Commanders are supposed to find opportunities to get operationally involved everywhere and do new/different/more than the last guy in a more efficient manner. We believe we prove our worth by demonstrating how much we can do, how fast. Although important for the ambitious, that's a (very) JO view - amateurish. It's a Commander's job to make things make sense, make the sustainable, executable, cogent. COs understand the difference between creating operational output and solving problems.

As for where MTE and other ADCON business is done - we tried like hell to keep it in MD, and still are trying, commensurate with saving jobs and job locations. Those functions are gradually going to head south, one by one, until we reach a point where the MTE/ADCON business for CW is done at a place that doesn't have a lot of CW representation, and most of that is ROAD. I've said it before - FCC/C10F isn't the CW community. We just have a lot of people who like to think it is. I can't speak for how much CW value FCC/C10F generates specifically for the deployed Strike Group Commander on a daily basis. But I do know FCC/C10F has thousands of Sailors dedicated to the task. From the Strike Group commander's perspective - does the overall CW support received justify that number of P2 Sailors being outside of from FCAs and the sea going Navy? I think IWCs easily could do a much better job of taking the P2 CW missions and generating a much better level of support for the sea going Navy than FCC/C10F does. To resurrect something I mentioned several years ago on this forum - why not have the P2 elements at the big four aligned to the IWCs afloat or the #'d Fleet CRC? If the #'d Fleet CRC or IWC wrote paper on P2 elements at the NIOCs (isn't this who they really work for operationally, anyway?)... ...if that were the arrangement, FIOC jobs might be milestone worthy after all ;-)

And to answer a couple questions regarding who drives the ship:
Officially (by title), NAVIFOR is MTE for all ashore IW commands. This said, NAVIFOR is occupied with the work of other TYCOMs and of USFFC. DGSIT, AISIT, TAVs are all examples. There is an old MOA which has CyberForces doing this stuff for CPF and USFFC (as a global C5I entity). But, it's an arrangement which suits everyone - the grey beard ITs who've made a career of this, the TYCOMs and USFFC who have someone else doing their work, and IFOR who is happy to be looked upon favorably by his/her boss, the 4 star at USFFC. If IFOR is a TYCOM - where is the READYMAN/TRAMAN/the performance standards? Where are the evaluations, the certification events, etc? Ironically, IWTG (direct subordinate to COMNAVIFOR)evaluates SUFOR (and other TYCOM) subordinates using SURFOR standards in an effort to certify them for SURFOR. Meanwhile, no IW shore commands are evaluated/certified - not even a SUSTEX. There aren't even standards to do so. Behold, the meaning of "all in" next time an executive uses it. Interestingly, no one bats an eye. Unofficially, FCC/C10F, ONI, and the rest all still control some aspect of MTE, mostly DIRSUP. This isn't a problem for intel or METOC folks, as they have solvent models. We do not (mission creep, P2/P3 impurity from expedient decision, FCC/C10F unwillingness to set aside personnel dedicated to deploying units for the duration of the OFRP).

Platform TYCOMs are MTE for all IW personnel, billets, and POR equipment afloat/air/undersea. Unofficially, they don't really care (which explains why they used OS rating to evaluate SSES ships in the basic phase). Even if you fail - you guessed it - you're deploying. Naturally, if we had one more than one O4 at the platform TYCOMs, perhaps they would care more. But, that community executive level decision (to only have one at each platform TYCOM and to fill CPF/USFFC with most junior CAPTs) is a topic for a different day. In the end, most IFOR effort is directed at filling these gaps for platform TYCOMs and USFFC.

N2/N6 doesn't MTE, but does decide what money will be spent on what (programs/acquisitions). This sets limitations on MTE.

The corporate IW perspective does not yet exist, although I have heard recent talk they want to establish an Enterprise to get their arms around all of this - establish collective priorities, decisions, resourcing, etc. Not sure of CW Flags in the discussions, but the Flags are. Hopefully they'll make some progress.
  • 0

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

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

Postby navyguy2 » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:39 am

Why should Milestone's be arduous, outside the Community, Flag FITREP signed jobs? Why can't Community jobs leading 300+ personnel plus mission support be milestone's? If NIOCs aren't providing operational impact then why do they exist? Of course, NCDOC is the only Command within the Community that actually owns an operational mission and supports the entire Navy....How is that not worthy of a milestaone. There's also plenty of people in the Community that think the DIWC position is overrated and not worthy of milestone so there's different views throughout.

Many people view milestone positions from their specific position without any experience in others...Who am I to judge the impact of the O-5 milestone at CPF N39 vs. CMT Lead vs. NIOC-G OPSO? It's a slap in the face to all who serve in those positions to assume that they're less worthy because they don't directly "support" Navy mission. If you pull this thread then how impactful are our Command tours...They're all force providers to another mission (except for NCDOC) so should they not be considered true Command tours?
  • 0

navyguy2
Registered Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:37 am
Reputation: 0

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

Postby Sum1 » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:11 am

navyguy2 wrote:There's also plenty of people in the Community that think the DIWC position is overrated and not worthy of milestone so there's different views throughout.


I haven't met a single person who shares this view. Now, there is a discussion about why we get sent somewhere to be the DIWC when in actuality some staffs will make the next more senior IWC person the IWC's deputy (which may or may not be the CWO). In that case, your FITREP won't say DIWC, even though you supposedly were sent there for that job.

And your comment about command seems like a reach. 90% of commands are support in some way, shape, or form. Logistics/supply immediately comes to mind... without which zero operational mission happens. Same with communications support. Tell me how many operations would occur if NCTMS went down and stayed down.
  • 0

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

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

Postby navyguy2 » Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:09 am

While you may not have met anyone with that viewpoint they're definitely out there. And as for the "support" Command statement, I'm not saying those Commands are irrelevant at all, I was using those as an example to the previous "Milestones must be arduous..." statement. - Direct support to the Fleet whether through the NIOCs, as CO of a NIOC, or elsewhere is still critical so why shouldn't they be milestone.

I also concur with your statement about NCTS; they're a critical piece of any war fighting domain, which also supports the view that NCDOC is also critical as well.
  • 0

navyguy2
Registered Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:37 am
Reputation: 0

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

Postby COMEVIL » Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:13 am

navyguy2 wrote:Why should Milestone's be arduous, outside the Community, Flag FITREP signed jobs? Why can't Community jobs leading 300+ personnel plus mission support be milestone's? If NIOCs aren't providing operational impact then why do they exist? Of course, NCDOC is the only Command within the Community that actually owns an operational mission and supports the entire Navy....How is that not worthy of a milestaone. There's also plenty of people in the Community that think the DIWC position is overrated and not worthy of milestone so there's different views throughout.

Many people view milestone positions from their specific position without any experience in others...Who am I to judge the impact of the O-5 milestone at CPF N39 vs. CMT Lead vs. NIOC-G OPSO? It's a slap in the face to all who serve in those positions to assume that they're less worthy because they don't directly "support" Navy mission. If you pull this thread then how impactful are our Command tours...They're all force providers to another mission (except for NCDOC) so should they not be considered true Command tours?


You may not be the one to "judge" the impact of each milestone, but someone has to. The simple point is that we have way too many CDR milestones on the books these days. The result is a very, very high milestone selection rate (>%85) and difficulty getting all of the milestones (especially those at sea) filled. Add the fact that you can simply decline milestone assignment and we find ourselves in a position where we are allowing officers to opt out of sea duty.

Regarding supporting a Navy mission, if majority of the community one day (maybe we are there) finds itself supporting missions outside of the Navy, then we as a community are broken. Hey, but as you say we are just "force providers" anyway :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 navyguy2 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:00 am

Saying we have too many milestones is different than saying only Flag signed FITREP positions should be milestone. I get it, milestone requirements should be documented for public consumption. I assume the number of milestones is determined by number of number of overall O5 billets, flow rate, selection percentage, etc.
  • 0

navyguy2
Registered Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:37 am
Reputation: 0

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

Postby COMEVIL » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:10 am

navyguy2 wrote:Saying we have too many milestones is different than saying only Flag signed FITREP positions should be milestone.


Who said they should be Flag signed FITREP positions?
  • 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 07, 2018 12:39 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
navyguy2 wrote:Saying we have too many milestones is different than saying only Flag signed FITREP positions should be milestone.


Who said they should be Flag signed FITREP positions?


yoshi wrote:No brainer - milestones should be signed by flags. Personally believe we should have fewer milestones, screening should be a screening. Anyone taken a look at the O5 milestone screen rate?! Problem is current location of about 80% of our billet inventory (one of the big four). Rather than asking "how much value are we providing the sea going service, what should the community do to improve?" (which infers large changes), it's far easier to maintain presence in place. Also, I do not believe we still have the self determination we enjoyed previously. FCC/C10F and subordinate commanders wouldn't be willing to give up that much to repatriate Sailors. Even if VADM White agreed with this line of reasoning - he'd be in a pickle - pick one to support: command or community? This is why the URLs have their TYCOM as the community lead - no conflict between operational and administrative matters. That wouldn't work for us of course, because it would require 4 TYCOMs - which is exactly what we had before the Navy rolled out the IDC. So - those Flags who were "all-in" with the IDC since 2009? Yeah, right. They sure didn't do anything to make the IDC (IWC) functional - and it wasn't due to a lack of presented ideas. I wonder how long we'll continue to embrace conflict between 3 Operational Commanders who all struggle to run their communities in support of their kingdom and the 4th Commander at IFOR (which really represents the IP kingdom).


Yoshi mentioned it, but you can see it was part of a much larger post.
  • 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 07, 2018 4:47 pm

I said it, but i didn't use the word "only". It's my opinion. There may be a few exceptions, but an O5 milestone with an O6 reporting senior at an IW command?! There probably are a few exceptions, but I don't see seen the same rigor, pressure, and community standard bearing (at IW commands, which are primarily O6 commands) required of those who are at Flag commands, particularly those which are sea-going. It's about value impact. Value for FCC/C10F does not yet equal value for the sea going Navy commensurate with the talent and treasure spent (again, my opinion). Milestones should be fewer and selection to the same should convey a better idea of the officer's perceived ability to take on more responsibility. But, i think the community has incentive to keep most O5 milestone screened, as it encourages many to stay on to the final CO screening or even O6 look. Seems fewer milestones would produce quicker O5 retirements.
  • 0

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

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron