# MOZART: MOC to MOSID (Merged Topics)



## McInnes (4 Sep 2003)

> 2. MOC numbers are being phased out in favour of MOS ID and MOS ID subdivisions.


  
Directorate of Pay Policy 



> 031 00010   Infantryman INFMN Standard


So instead of Infantry being 031, its now going to be 00010.


----------



## Armymedic (4 Sep 2003)

By 2008 it will all be changed...
I am not sure when they are actually changing the MOC number to the ID, but medical is one of the first they streamline, because of all the sub specalties we have. There was an insert ref this in the Maple leaf. Currently they are looking at the information services ie LCIS trades for restucturing.
One benifit of the change is spec pay is given to trades upon restructuring.


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

Need someone in the know to explain this one to me, because from the bottom this looks like an expensive project that achieves nothing yet is make-work for senior officers & beurocrats.

The MOC codes that have been used to define our occupations are being done away with.  Now we will have what is to be called MOSID (mil occupation specification id?).  These new numbers look to be 6 or 7 digets long and nobody will ever remember them.

So my question is, why?  Why have we invested in a project that seems to have done nothing but change one type of occupation ID code for another?  Is this projet doing anything else for us?


----------



## Zoomie (22 Aug 2004)

The little that I have heard about this project is that these new MOSIDs will be more representative of the specific job that a certain sailor/soldier/airman does.  Instead of 011 = armoured crewman, a new MOSID = Coyote Driver or Coyote Gunner (or even Honey Wagen driver - but I digress).
This would also translate into the other branches of the CF.  AVS/AVN techs in the Airforce will have more specific codes to express what exactly they do in the AF (ie what aircraft and what they work on).


----------



## Spr.Earl (22 Aug 2004)

I'd hate to see what series #'s we Hengineers will end up with! 
Every few years some one has to justify their job in Ottawa eh?
Lord love a duck can't they leave well enough alone.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Aug 2004)

Zoomie hit it on the head...As far as I know they are not "doing away" with MOC numbering but added MOSID to be more specific with the actual role you are filling...Some places like you MPRR and career manager shop, things like that would be benefical.


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

Why?  Jobs are already reflected on the MPRR, and usually not any job that I've ever held (because it just show the slot the career manager used to put you in the unit & not the job you actually filled).  The MPRR already reflects qualifications.

Are we going to a system that has a number to represent every possible permutation of qualification combinations in every MOC?

The old MOCs always had additional numbers tagged to the end (but seperated by a ".") that would indicate QL level achieved (you could be MOC 031.6a).

I'm sure this new system will work, but I cannot figure why it was worth starting.


----------



## LCISTech227 (24 Aug 2004)

Hey just thought I'd post a bit of info that I have on this MOSID thing... It is coming into effect because of MOSART.   Now if you don't know what this is, it's a project for a restructuring of the MOC's and if you are on the DWAN here is the link to their site:

http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/mosart/engraph/home_e.asp

Anyways,   earlier this year I filled out (and so did all Sig's types in my det) a questionnaire on what my job actually entailed.     This questionnaire was used by MOSART to figure out this whole MOSID thing for my trade and other Sig trades.   The way it was explained to me is that instead of choosing LCIS Tech, you would just choose Sig's then depending on your path would determine whether or not you were a tech (e.g. like if you should an aptitude for troubleshooting and maintenance you would be selected for tech training, etc.).   So basically this means that all Sig's NCM's will start out as Operators and then move on if selected.   Now, all this could be pure tripe but, that's how it was explained to me.

Cheers,


----------



## combat_medic (24 Aug 2004)

I see this as another useless make-work project teamed by a staff of hundreds at NDHQ, so they can justify the existance of so many senior officer positions in Ottawa. Who wants to bet there's a team of Colonels and Generals up there right now who are trying to justify their positions in the creation of CADPAT boot polish?

In the past 10 years or so, they've completely renamed the basic training courses, what, 3 times? GMT or QL2 or BMQ or whatever they choose to call it, it costs millions and gives some desk jockey another reason to be earning his paycheque.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Aug 2004)

I'm not concerned about not being able to remember the new MOSIC because I lost track of my MOC about two remusters ago anyhow.  I think I'm an Eight Thirty Something but really, who checks that stuff when you put it on your PEN?  

I'm reasonably sure I'll be able to stop myself from applying for any courses that have certain MOCs as prerequisites....beyond that, does the number really matter to an individual troopie?


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2004)

> I'm reasonably sure I'll be able to stop myself from applying for any courses that have certain MOCs as prerequisites....beyond that, does the number really matter to an individual troopie?



I think it does matter when you consider that the energy to constantly ram through these frivolous changes and the bureaucracy that supports it is the "sucking chest wound" of the Canadian Military.

Look at the numbers below; you got to have all these guys doing something, since only a handful are actually in command or essential staff positions.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Aug 2004)

Don't be frivolous, infanteer, if we ever went to war you know damn well we would be putting at least 939 infantry battalions, armoured regiments, artillery regiments, medical battalions, service battalions and engineer regiments in the field.

Ummm....or not.  What would the total number of Lieutenant Colonels overseas in WW II command positions be?

3 infantry divisions  (10 infantry battalions (1 MG and 9 rifle), 1 recce regiment, 5 artillery regiments (3 field, one AA, one AT) - not sure if the other supporting arms had LCols or not - assuming not, that is 48 Lieutenant Colonels)
2 armoured divisions (1 armoured recce regiment, 3 armoured regiments, 4 infantry battalions, 4 (?) artillery regiments) = 24 LCols
2 independent armoured brigades (3 armoured regiments) - 6 LCols

Grand Total - 78 LCols.  Counting all the active battalions in Canada, the reserve battalions, and the staff positions - would this come anywhere close to 900?

God help us all, I am now assisting Infanteer in banging his drum...


----------



## CdnGalaGal (24 Aug 2004)

LCISTech227 has a pretty good explanation of what that MOSART questionnaire was for and how the big guys in Ottawa are planning to revamp our system. At the place I was working at, all the Comms guys (reg force and reserve) had to fill out the questionnaire as well (officers and NCMs filled out different versions of the survey). 3 hours of hell. But it was very thorough when asking about one's level of experience with all types of equipment and qualifications I felt I had come away with through my experiences and courses.

While this project IS costing a bundle, I do see a reason for conducting it. From an administrative point of view, it'd be a bit easier to determine who is most suited for what job (it's not just about the courses you take or the military "tests" that you pass, it's about the job experience you ACTUALLY have). So, if a position for a Sig Op, say, comes up for a tour and the person who decides who goes has two choices - Two Sigs, both 5's qualified, same time in... But one has only been doing admin work in the OR for like 5 years and nothing else and the other has been working nonstop with various comms equipment nonstop and maybe dabbled in the lineman's trade as well... The job is going to go to the guy most suited (the one working with comms). The decision time needed has now been cut down by a LOT because the ops guy has only to flip through a list of potential candidates and check out some numbers or letters by a person's name to determine the best choice rather than peruse through piles of MPRRs. If the decision is made more quickly, it gets the ball rolling a lot faster than it would right now.

The MPRR shows what courses and positions these candidates have filled, but (as Yard Ape mentioned) the position descriptions don't necessarily reflect the job that this person was ACTUALLY doing. And passing a course nowadays doesn't mean you are a SME or can even DO what you were taught to do on that course (either from pure stupidity or just not enough OJT with the equipment or material covered on that course).

As with all projects undertaken by our military, it is slow and costly. And while its goal seems trivial, it just makes life for those organizing everything that little bit easier. 

I agree that they should be getting more bang for their buck, but that's the cost of being thorough.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2004)

CJ:

Good post.   I think what you have explained represents a fundamental way in which a highly centralized bureaucracy that is the military thinks.   It prefers to look at soldiers quantitatively as opposed to qualitativley.   Rather then see solders as a living, unique person with his own strengths and weaknesses, it trys to ram everyone into "MOSID codes", "MOSART surveys", and "CF 743a's".   Doing so ultimately leads to a "check in the box" mentality, which is characterized by such concepts as "ticket punching".   I would venture that the solution can be found in trust of subordinates, decentralization, and objective yet qualitative control measures.


Michael, remember that these figures are for total CF Officer positions, so it includes Air Force and Naval Officers.   As well, these facts are for regular force Officer's only, so I think they do not include any Reserve Officers, at least the ones below the rank of Lt Col, anyways.   

Since the Army is the biggest force (20,000), you can get a good idea of Army figures by simply dividing the number by three.   However, even forces wide, the number still seems absurdly high.   I am still wondering what 18 Major Generals/Rear Admirals actually do.   As well, assuming the ninth in the figure is the CDS, we have 8 Lt Generals/Vice Admirals.   One to command the Army, one to command the Navy, and one to command the Air Force leaves still leaves us with five extra guys with "three leafs" on their shoulders.  I remember a DND page that had the actual positions held by all the General and Flag Officers in Canada, I'd be interested in seeing it again.    I am not argueing that cutting their salary is going buy us an armoured brigade complete with strategic airlift, but you got to wonder about the staff and departments created for these high ranking officers and what happens when this mentality filters down to the Colonel/Brigader rank; obviously, the answer is that in an Army of three Brigades, we have roughly 100 colonels and Brigadier Generals.

I've become convinced that the bureaucratic mentality of self-expansion for its own worth, the civilianization of our Forces command with its incorporation into NDHQ, and the notion of equality and careerism (well, its "time" for him to become a major/we have x amount of officer cadets coming into the system, so we have to promote x amount of officers to make the space) are all behind this inflation of higher level ranks.   It's unfortunate, because I am sure that most of them are hard working and dedicated to the Forces; they've only seen their oppurtunites to command diminshed due to being relegated to unneccesary positions (such as renaming the NCM training system 3 times in a decade).

Here is another one that got my spider senses tingling.   Does it appear that these figures may be abit high considering the amount of units, staff and training positions we have in our military?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2004)

This nonsense is really getting me peeved.   I know that many unemployable officers, of all ranks, are being given jobs in NDHQ, but do they have to be given these "Reinvent the Wheel" type of jobs?   I no longer know what I am qualified 'cause some weenie has decided to change all the qualification codes, again.   I no longer know what I can drive 'cause another weenie has changed all the codes on the 404's and 416's yet again.   (Now you need a "T" behind a vehicle or you can't haul a trailer.)  For instance; what does A2. B3. C1. 2. 4. 21. 23. 24. 25. 60. G10. 11 with Specialties A E F really allow me to drive, and are they the latest codes?

Please let these incompetent boobs be relegated to getting coffee and only coffee.   Don't let them near anything else until their contract is completed.

GW


----------



## CdnGalaGal (24 Aug 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think what you have explained represents a fundamental way in which a highly centralized bureaucracy that is the military thinks.   It prefers to look at soldiers quantitatively as opposed to qualitativley.   Rather then see solders as a living, unique person with his own strengths and weaknesses, it trys to ram everyone into "MOSID codes", "MOSART surveys", and "CF 743a's".   Doing so ultimately leads to a "check in the box" mentality, which is characterized by such concepts as "ticket punching".   I would venture that the solution can be found in trust of subordinates, decentralization, and objective yet qualitative control measures.



Maybe another way to solve the problem is to look at other militaries (perhaps the American military?) for ideas on how to identify the qualities of our soldiers.

I don't mean to devalue anyone's views, but the opinions of Cdn soldiers in leadership positions regarding their troops are fairly subjective. Of course their opinions should be considered, as well as a soldier's ability to learn a new skill, but the purpose of these new codes as I see it is to give one a better understanding at a glance. Using letters and numbers seems quantitative... But I think it is needed to accommodate for the sheer number of soldiers that we have. After all, what is more time consuming? Searching through stacks of papers for the information you need or determining what you need from an updated list that summarizes qualifications, experiences, trade information, courses in one string of letters and numbers (assuming this person knows what they mean)? MOSID, from my understanding, incorporates qualitative data with quantitative information on a soldier. Any other pertinent information (such as the MPRR) will likely also be available. When I filled out the MOSART survey, I was surprised to find that it contained many questions about many topics that required subjective answers from the individual on how (s)he FELT his training and experiences prepared him to work with specific equipment, systems, etc or in different fields...

MOSID is to be implemented as a supplement to the current system, not a be-all end-all.


----------



## CdnGalaGal (24 Aug 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> what does A2. B3. C1. 2. 4. 21. 23. 24. 25. 60. G10. 11 with Specialties A E F really allow me to drive, and are they the latest codes?



Well, we've gotta deal, so look 'em up. The codes on your driver's licence are on the back, and if they aren't, go see your friendly neighbourhood MSE Op and they'll know. 

One of the biggest problems with change is that we all have to keep up...


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2004)

CJ said:
			
		

> I don't mean to devalue anyone's views, but the opinions of Cdn soldiers in leadership positions regarding their troops are fairly subjective. Of course their opinions should be considered, as well as a soldier's ability to learn a new skill, but the purpose of these new codes as I see it is to give one a better understanding at a glance.



My last gunner would get one of these new codes, although all she did was sit in the seat and keep it warm, as she was UNQUALIFIED to fill that position, but qualified to be an number on a manning slate.



> Using letters and numbers seems quantitative... But I think it is needed to accommodate for the sheer number of soldiers that we have. After all, what is more time consuming? Searching through stacks of papers for the information you need or determining what you need from an updated list that summarizes qualifications, experiences, trade information, courses in one string of letters and numbers (assuming this person knows what they mean)? MOSID, from my understanding, incorporates qualitative data with quantitative information on a soldier. Any other pertinent information (such as the MPRR) will likely also be available.



All fine and good if one has conciencious officers keeping their personnel's records up to date.   I along with many of my peers had to send several of our subordinates home to research what they had done for, up to the last four years, because their previous superiors had failed to make entries into their UERs at the appropriate times.



> When I filled out the MOSART survey, I was surprised to find that it contained many questions about many topics that required subjective answers from the individual on how (s)he FELT his training and experiences prepared him to work with specific equipment, systems, etc or in different fields...
> 
> MOSID is to be implemented as a supplement to the current system, not a be-all end-all.



It really is a waste of resources and time.   If personnel records can not be kept up to date as is, it will be completely useless to revamp the system just for the sake of change.

A Crewman 011 may have driven a tank last year, and drive a Coyote this year, and then be a Bison Amb driver next year, and perhaps be a gunner the year after that.   It is a waste to create codes for this as there are codes on their 404's and 416's already and those are in PeopleSoft.   A new MOC for every job you do is ridiculous.   "Last year I was 17956, but this year I was 19973." will mean nothing.

GW


----------



## CdnGalaGal (24 Aug 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My last gunner would get one of these new codes, although all she did was sit in the seat and keep it warm, as she was UNQUALIFIED to fill that position, but qualified to be an number on a manning slate.


There are still a lot of things to be worked out with this MOSID project. Keep in mind that it is still a work in progress. Specifics, like exactly what would qualify one to receive a certain code and periods of time that keep codes current have to be worked out. And again, PERs, course reports (though not so much nowadays) report on the degree of skill a person has attained and should also be available. If you have some good ideas, why not staff them up? I can only hope that someone up there will listen.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> All fine and good if one has conciencious officers keeping their personnel's records up to date.   I along with many of my peers had to send several of our subordinates home to research what they had done for, up to the last four years, because their previous superiors had failed to make entries into their UERs at the appropriate times.


Then that is the failing of the previous supervisor or admin personnel and not the officer looking to fill a spot with a qualified soldier. Other problems will arise with MOSID, such as that which you have identified, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you identify problems, then you know what to fix, right?

When the MPRRs were being redone, I looked over mine and found that only my driver wheeled course and PLQ were recorded... Glitch in the system? Laziness? Who knows. Mistakes happen. The system isn't perfect, but we can sure as heck try to make it as close to perfect as possible.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> It really is a waste of resources and time.   If personnel records can not be kept up to date as is, it will be completely useless to revamp the system just for the sake of change.
> 
> A Crewman 011 may have driven a tank last year, and drive a Coyote this year, and then be a Bison Amb driver next year, and perhaps be a gunner the year after that.   It is a waste to create codes for this as there are codes on their 404's and 416's already and those are in PeopleSoft.   A new MOC for every job you do is ridiculous.   "Last year I was 17956, but this year I was 19973." will mean nothing.


Over the long term, I think this project has its benefits, including valuable time being spent on something other than shuffling through unneccessary paperwork to find the information needed. Managers have to think about time value of a recurring event over the long run. The lengthy process needed to accomplish the aim might seem draining and pointless, but if there is a good plan in place (and I've got to trust that there is), then it will all come clear in the end.

Since we can't change it at our level, our only options are to get into a position to influence the changes, to go with the changes, or to get out (not deal with it).

Maybe reading up on the goals of these proposed changes will aid in our understanding about WHY these changes are occurring and HOW they will affect us.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Aug 2004)

George, UERs are a joke.  Mine hasn't been updated in 8 years.  I couldn't even begin to research what I've done, I simply have no way of knowing which exercises I went on, etc.

They went to all that trouble, for the Reserves, to install RPSR but didn't come up with a way to automatically update UERs or anything?  I understand we are going to Peoplesoft now, but still - - it is the same at my civvie job; we have a computer for just about every person in an administrative role, but no one's computers talk to each other or do any actual thinking.

If EXERCISE RAGING BEAVER is scheduled for September 8, 9, 10, and Private Bloggins signs in for Sep 8,9,10 on the EXERCISE RAGING BEAVER  paysheet, wouldn't it make sense to have a computer system that would not only submit his pay for those days, but also update a UER at the same time?  You wouldn't think this was rocket science....


----------



## Jungle (24 Aug 2004)

It's all because of the PER form. One of the evaluation criteria is "promote change" or "manage change" or something like that... Everybody wants to change something every year so they can get the points on their PER. The problem is, the boxes are too small on the form, so they could not add the rest of the text: "... when necessary and in an intelligent way".  >
The MOSID appeared when the trg system course loading migrated to "MITE". With the new software, they use MOSID (Don't know why) and now they are making everybody else adapt...


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2004)

This really is getting ridiculous.

Just like RCEME.  They were RCEME, then they became LORE, then they became LEME, or was it the other way around, and then EME........but all along we just kept calling them R(C)EME.  

I still call a newbie a TQ3, even after it became QL3 and whatever after that.  Now I am asked if I am PQ qual and DP6A qual and I don't know what the heck I am (on Paper).  BQ, SQ, and all that crap is just to confuse us and entrench the Officers in the new "Officers Army" >

Confused in.......where was I again?

Change for the sake of change is retarded and wasteful.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  The cliches that could be said.


GW


----------



## CdnGalaGal (25 Aug 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I still call a newbie a TQ3, even after it became QL3 and whatever after that.   Now I am asked if I am PQ qual and DP6A qual and I don't know what the heck I am (on Paper).   BQ, SQ, and all that crap is just to confuse us and entrench the Officers in the new "Officers Army" >



I don't see MOSID to be merely a change in acronyms. For sure, TQ = GMT = QL2 = BRT = BMQ (I think that is how it goes), is lengthy and dumb because all that changes is the NAME. The course itself remains the same (yes that opens up a whole other topic, but let's pretend it's the "same" course for the sake of arguement). Changing acronyms does not enhance any understanding about what is taken from the course. The difference between changing acronyms and changing from MOCs to MOSID codes is that the codes actually express MORE than simply what courses have been taken. They express what knowledge and experience the SOLDIER has taken from the courses that they feel they can actually USE.


----------



## Yard Ape (26 Aug 2004)

So MOSID will have a code to represent every possible combination to training & experience that a soldier might have at any given point in his career? And which ever code he fits on any given day is his current MOSID?


----------



## Jungle (26 Aug 2004)

No. For example, Infantry MOSID is 000010. This number simply replaced 031. There is no other MOSID for Infantry.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Aug 2004)

For some reason saying "I'm 000010" doesn't have the same sound as saying "I'm 031".  Bastards are trying to deflate everything I've got left....


----------



## Jungle (26 Aug 2004)

My mystake: the MOSID is only 5 digits. So Infantry is 00010. In a few years, it will be very cool to say : "I"m zero-ten" !!!   ('cause of course, we only use the last three digits...) 
Remember, you should not resist change...  :


----------



## Yard Ape (26 Aug 2004)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> So MOSID will have a code to represent every possible combination to training & experience that a soldier might have at any given point in his career? And which ever code he fits on any given day is his current MOSID?





			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> No. For example, Infantry MOSID is 000010. This number simply replaced 031. There is no other MOSID for Infantry.


Right, so now I'm back to the origional question: what is MOSID if not just a name-change program?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2004)

"Right, so now I'm back to the origional question: what is MOSID if not just a name-change program?"

Yardape....It isn't a name-change program--It is a Digit-Change Program!!!   (Don't be showing me your Digit!   ;D)

GW


----------



## Infanteer (26 Aug 2004)

I think I'm with Yard Ape _et al_; I've yet to see a credible rationale for the reason behind what is undoubtably a costly shift in Pers Management.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Aug 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think I'm with Yard Ape _et al_; I've yet to see a credible rationale for the reason behind what is undoubtably a costly shift in Pers Management.



Is IS rather depressing that they don't run these things past all the corporals in the Army to get their approval first.... ;D


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2004)

Well Michael,

There are 10 types of people in the world;

Those who understand binary,

and those who don't ;D

GW


----------



## AmmoTech90 (26 Aug 2004)

George Wallace,

Should the Infantry be 2 then?  Preceded by a bunch of unneeded place holders?


----------



## Spr.Earl (26 Aug 2004)

So what happens with Ammo Techs?
0000? 00 Projo?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2004)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> George Wallace,
> 
> Should the Infantry be 2 then? Preceded by a bunch of unneeded place holders?



Ah!  But there are no 2's.  Only Ones and Zeros.

Gw


----------



## combat_medic (27 Aug 2004)

What is this, Binary Code?

_There are 10 types of people; those who understand binary, and those who don't._


----------



## AmmoTech90 (27 Aug 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> So what happens with Ammo Techs?
> 0000? 00 Projo?



We'd probably be one of the place holders... :

combat_medic: 10 in binary is 2


----------



## ackland (27 Aug 2004)

CJ,
    While I see your point for the tech trades i fail to see the relevence for the combat arms trades. To waste all this time and money coming up with new identifiers for peoples qualifications lets spend the money to train the soldiers. Also you speak about the two similar qualified people but one works in the office. Well what happens if that office person is in the reserve world and pushes paper from monday to friday but on the weekend exersise is a crew commander. well the new code will not reflect the accuracy of his experience. The code lables him/her as a paper pusher but in reality that persoon is just as qualified to command a vehicle as any other commander in that regiment. :sniper:


----------



## combat_medic (27 Aug 2004)

AmmoTech90: Yeah, I know. It's a joke. You just gave away the punchline.


----------



## rdschultz (27 Aug 2004)

Can anybody factor a fairly reasonable guess as to what a program like this would cost?


----------



## Freight_Train (27 Aug 2004)

If I may, I would like to put my .02 in on this topic.  I thought one of the strengths of the Canadian Forces was the ability of its personnel to do many different things?  IMO, over specialization will result in less people being able to do a particular job.  For example, in the civvy world, unions have taken this specialization to the extreme.  â Å“I'm sorry Bloggins you can't do that job there because it's not in your job description, we need to fill out a requisition and have an electrician change that light bulb, I know we can't see to fill out the form but I am sure everything will work out in the end.â ?  How in the hell, does someone gain the experience if they are precluded from gaining said experience.


----------



## CdnGalaGal (27 Aug 2004)

TR said:
			
		

> Well what happens if that office person is in the reserve world and pushes paper from monday to friday but on the weekend exersise is a crew commander. well the new code will not reflect the accuracy of his experience. The code lables him/her as a paper pusher but in reality that persoon is just as qualified to command a vehicle as any other commander in that regiment. :sniper:



Sniper?   

Hmm... Anyway, in answer to your question, if this project is done correctly, there should be some leeway for that. By now we all know that one soldier typically has more than one job, especially class B junkies like myself (and you too TR, don't kid yourself)  This code is to reflect current experience that can be used advantageously. So, if said paper pusher has other jobs and uses other skills than just pen to paper or paper to shredder... it would be noted...



			
				Freight_Train said:
			
		

> I thought one of the strengths of the Canadian Forces was the ability of its personnel to do many different things? IMO, over specialization will result in less people being able to do a particular job ... How in the hell, does someone gain the experience if they are precluded from gaining said experience.



You're right about the diversification of the CF. It IS a good thing. I mean look at the US army. One Rad Op for one type of radio and only that type... If he gets blown up, who the hells gonna man the radio ??? I don't think this project is meant to box anyone into a corner (or screw ppl out of jobs), although that isn't something I had thought about... In the end, I think it is just to find the right person for the right job.



			
				hoser said:
			
		

> Can anybody factor a fairly reasonable guess as to what a program like this would cost?



C'mon. Nothing the CF spends money on is reasonably priced...   :-\


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Aug 2004)

Freight_Train said:
			
		

> If I may, I would like to put my .02 in on this topic.   I thought one of the strengths of the Canadian Forces was the ability of its personnel to do many different things?   IMO, over specialization will result in less people being able to do a particular job.   For example, in the civvy world, unions have taken this specialization to the extreme.   â Å“I'm sorry Bloggins you can't do that job there because it's not in your job description, we need to fill out a requisition and have an electrician change that light bulb, I know we can't see to fill out the form but I am sure everything will work out in the end.â ?   How in the hell, does someone gain the experience if they are precluded from gaining said experience.



It's a good two cents.   I've heard similar criticisms of the US Army, where drivers don't learn basic vehicle maintenance.   It's always been one of our strengths, so I've been led to believe, that we do have soldiers cross-disciplined.   It's why you learn comms, dvr, MG, mortar etc. as a corporal instead of just one particular speciality, no?


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Aug 2004)

MOSART FAQ from the DIN:


> *Q. What is the MOSART project?*
> 
> MOSART stands for Military Occupational Structure Analysis, Redesign and Tailoring. In essence, we are looking at the entire Military Occupational Structure (MOS) and then redesigning and tailoring it to meet two key objectives:
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Aug 2004)

One of the underlying principles behind the shift from MOC to MOSID is the data management requirement. MOC numbers are inconsistent, 2 digits for officer classifications, three digits for NCM trades, and each may or may not have letters appended. With movement to consolidated pers databases, it was identified that the rest of the Department's personnel don't have an equivalent numbering system and it would require the maintenence of what will become a superfluous extra occupation code (the current MOC) just because that's what service members are used to. 

After all, the MOC is just a designation for a trade, it's not a symbol for the trade and it has no inherent value for retention just because we're used to it.



> Tradition, where it turns its eyes resolutely towards the past with too much insistence on the old and too rigid a dislike of the new, can have a strong effect by discouraging progressive thought and change. - Lieut.-Colonel R.J.A. Kaulback, D.S.O., p.s.c., "The Regiment", Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Vol. XCI, February to November 1946


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Aug 2004)

If someone were to enter a sub-occupation & not like what it has to offer, would he be stuck there or would it be easy to get back into the "main-stream" occupation?


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Aug 2004)

That should be no different that someone moving between sub-occupations now. The MOC/MOSID is just a piece of data, it can be changed to match personnel managment processes.


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Aug 2004)

I could see it being used to trap people with skill sets that the army does not have enough depth in.  An infantry man in recce Pl could be sifted to a recce sub-occupation & be denied return to a rifle Coy.  This may not seem bad to some, but if career progression is slow in the recce sub-occupation then this guy may suffer from it.  LAV crew could be an unhappy sub-occupation for others.


----------



## Jungle (29 Aug 2004)

They could start with separating "mounted" Infantry from Light. There is no need for people in LIBs to qualify on LAV, just like there is no need for LAV Batt people to go on Basic Para. It should be possible to change from one to the other, but it should be considered a remuster (especially after the development of the "Light Force" and the trg needed to become Spec ops-capable)


----------



## Big Foot (13 Dec 2004)

Ok, I just have to know, what is the deal with MOC codes? I mean, I myself am 22U but have seen many officer MOCs ending in A, not U. Can anyone explain this to me? The only thing I can think of is U stands for "untrained" or something like that.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (13 Dec 2004)

You got it.  "U" means Untrained.  Just about every officer's an "A" after being MOC trained, but some MOCs have sub-specialities and you will see other letters of the alphabet.


----------



## Big Foot (13 Dec 2004)

Thanks a lot, Horse_soldier. Was just something i was curious about


----------



## Cliff (14 Dec 2004)

So my question is, why?   Why have we invested in a project that seems to have done nothing but change one type of occupation ID code for another?   Is this projet doing anything else for us?   


Seems to me that they could just as easily add job descriptions to the existing MOC system, since it has worked well for decades.. Did the puzzle palace come up with the MOSID term?


----------



## Marauder (14 Dec 2004)

Just a few observations.

One, you have to wonder how much time some coffee boys at One-Oh-Fun Col. By wasted coming up with all that warmed over bullshit to stuff into the FAQ. Makes on scratch the head.

Two, why not go with the system the American Army uses? You have your MOC (say 11B for light infantryman) and then a series of ASQ(I think that;s the acronym) These are a combo of letters and number denoting additional skill sets within the overall MOC. I think P= parachustist qualified, V= Parachutist & Ranger School qualified, and then there is something for Pathfinder qual'd, Dragon qual'd, etc. This sort of ties in with what Jungle was saying. First you are Infantry qualified (11 series MOC). Then you can be a lightfighter (11B), a mortarman (11C), or mech infantry (11M). After that, depending on the needs of your "sub-MOC" you can be trained in additional sub-sub qualifications and be identified as such. The Americans ever throw in a number to denote your level of expertise/rnk/leadership training. So an 11B2V would be a BPara, RS grad, light Infantry SGT. It makes sense to just adopt that to our current MOC codes instead of reinventing the wheel and making everyone a twenty-digit code. We're already just cogs in the machine, I don't necessarily want to be reminded of it everytime I have to fill out paperwork requesting a simple job description.

Third, God love the REMFs for initiating some horseshit makework project that layers on the beauracracy and may help the admin drones in some small obscure part of the paperwork machine, while being able to smuggly tell the front line troops to go swallow a dick everytime we ask for something that makes life under a hooch in 5 below weather at O'dark-you're-shitting-me just a touch bit easier. That's what I love about MY Strong and Proud Canadian Forces. <gag>


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Dec 2004)

Great... now I'll have one more thing to mess up when identifying myself to superiors.


----------



## Steel Badger (20 Dec 2004)

Steel Badger to all Callsigns:

A SOCORDIA MAGISTRATUS LIBERA NOS, DOMINE!


I say again,


A SOCORDIA MAGISTRATUS LIBERA NOS, DOMINE!


Steel Badger....... Out.


----------



## Radop (30 Jan 2005)

I have mixed views with this subj.  I think it is a good method to get latteral movement between the trades but could cause some problems as I see.  What does everyone else think?


----------



## DaveK (5 Feb 2005)

I thought he was an excellent composer and particularly liked the Magic Flute.  If you mean the Military Occupational Structure Analysis, Redesign and Tailoring (MOSART) Project, there are mixed views.


----------



## NCRCrow (5 Feb 2005)

Mozart, MORPS, Power Rangers its a just a cycle. Everything comes full circle look at the Sonar Trade in the Navy. 

Sonarman --  NACOP (1986-MORPS) -- TAS OP(1995) (to intergrate the defunct Ocean OP trade)-- back to Sonar OP (present)

With not enough specialty and focus in an area of warfare by a specific trade. The discipline suffers.

CROW (lets stay the same and concentrate at being good at own trade)


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2005)

What is with the military and stupid acronyms?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Feb 2005)

One word......government!


----------



## Navalsnpr (5 Feb 2005)

Don't know how well it will work. I guess that it may work well with respects to some trades and be catastrophic for others.

If the want to combine similar trades, with similar training standards so that they don't loose the integrity of the trade, then it would work even though the people in the trades will need some time to get used to things and get crossed trained.

As for the original question "will it work".......do we have a choice!!


----------



## NCRCrow (5 Feb 2005)

MORPS -1986-------------------------time travel--------------------------------2006-MOZART.

What a coincidence!! The re-alignment of trades every 20 years.

I think we can focus our limited monetary and personnel resources elsewere.

I spent weeks writing MOZART trade papers....yawn!


----------



## buzgo (6 Feb 2005)

I think that there is a possibility that MOSART will work. At least with certain trades.

For example: in the sigop trade you can be employed as an IT specialist. So you spend a few years doing training and gaining experience and then you get posted OUT of that type of job, usually into something totally different. So now the system has to train someone new to do your old job, and you have to try and learn your new job, which may be just as complex as the one you just left, say for instance, sat comms or something. 

Mosart will allow people in the "signaller" (for lack of a better name) trade group to specialize and STAY specialized. So if the soldier is well suited to working in the IT end of the trade, then they can stay in that type of job, or if a soldier wants to be a technician, they can do that. 

I don't know how it will work for combat arms trades, maybe all the combat arms trades will combine into one?


----------



## luck881 (6 Feb 2005)

CFPAS tells me now that I'm a 00329-001 Sig Op.  Anyone else have their new MOSID yet?


----------



## Radop (6 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I'm reasonably sure I'll be able to stop myself from applying for any courses that have certain MOCs as prerequisites....beyond that, does the number really matter to an individual troopie?



Maybe it is a branch thing but the signals trades all identify themselves by moc.  As you can see on other topics names like 291er, etc are all trade names.  Even within the Sig Op trade (215), the older guys still identify themselves as old 211s (radop) or 212s (puffies oops I mean tel ops).  We became one trade in 2000 (hang our heads for a moment of silence).    The young guys bug us that we must be old 'cause they never heard of a "rad op" but they may have seen one in the museum. lol.


----------



## Radop (6 Feb 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> For example: in the sigop trade you can be employed as an IT specialist. So you spend a few years doing training and gaining experience and then you get posted OUT of that type of job, usually into something totally different. So now the system has to train someone new to do your old job, and you have to try and learn your new job, which may be just as complex as the one you just left, say for instance, sat comms or something.


signalsguy, you know my opinion on specialising within our trade but the more I see of CFJSR, the less conviced I am of my opinion.  My background includes all aspects of our trade except MACS yet I don't want to be employed in the IT field not because I don't have the abilities but because the Pte and Cpls have way more knowledge of the new systems and I would have to start again at the beginning (even though I have networking experience, I don't have resent experience).  Maybe we do need to break our trade into specializations with alpha indicators that are already in use with the PDRs in Pet.



			
				signalsguy said:
			
		

> Mosart will allow people in the "signaller" (for lack of a better name) trade group to specialize and STAY specialized. So if the soldier is well suited to working in the IT end of the trade, then they can stay in that type of job, or if a soldier wants to be a technician, they can do that.
> 
> I don't know how it will work for combat arms trades, maybe all the combat arms trades will combine into one?


The only thing I have seen is the military will have the choice of the trade you will specialize in based on need (first), aptitude (through testing), and then by assessments in the different work environments.  The members opinion was nowhere in the process.  I think that we would loose a lot more soldiers if we force them into a trade they don't want.  Conversely, it is suppose to make it easier to move left or right rather than upwards.  If you are no longer interested in being an operator and you have the aptitude to be LCIS, then you could fill that positon.


----------



## Navalsnpr (6 Feb 2005)

Luck881 said:
			
		

> CFPAS tells me now that I'm a 00329-001 Sig Op.   Anyone else have their new MOSID yet?



As of Janurary 1st of this year, all trades are to be refering to the new MOSID vice the MOC #


----------



## Navalsnpr (7 Feb 2005)

Here is some information as contained within the latest Maple Leaf:

Maple Leaf, 2 February 2005, Vol. 8 No. 5

For those with DIN access, Check out the MOSART website


----------



## EODSpr (9 Feb 2005)

I was an 041 then 2 years ago of so became an 043 and now i'm a 00339. A couple more numbers to remember, thats all it is to me. I don't get it but hopefully it will make someones life easier.  ;D


----------



## Grimey (11 Feb 2005)

I'm a 314, now under MOZART a 00123

Cue Elmo (or was it the Jackson 5?)

"123, easy as.......'


----------



## gun plumber (14 Feb 2005)

From 421 to 00130.
Although I will always be 421 in my heart.......


----------



## Big Foot (16 Feb 2005)

I am now 00179-01 ARTY. Gotta love how much more simple that is than 22U.


----------



## alexpb (13 Nov 2005)

earlier then 2008  

When i was sworn in the other day 031 was no where to be found, it was just 00010.

(And yes i realize that this thread is very old, i apologise).


----------



## 241 (15 Dec 2006)

Anyone know if there is a working list of the new MOSID's (Or whatever it is they are being called) online? (Preferably on the internet as apposed to DIN as I am not able to get on to the din for a few weeks)


----------



## bms (23 Aug 2008)

http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/Officer_payo2tg_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28

 Just in case someone is looking for a list of MOS IDs for officers.


----------

