# GCConnex and GCPedia



## ARMY_101 (3 Oct 2013)

How many people are using the recently-released:

GCConnex: http://gcconnex.gc.ca/groups/profile/1354669/defence-connex-connex-defense

and

GCPedia: http://www.gcpedia.gc.ca/wiki/?setlang=en ?

For those unaware, both are tools launched earlier this week to attempt to break down hierarchies and allow CAF members and DND employees of all ranks and positions the opportunities to provide feedback on the department's progress and initiatives.

Do you see this as a worth while initiative? Do you think it will help foster good quality ideas and changes?


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Oct 2013)

Out of curiousity, I took a look at it on Monday.  It's a good idea in theory, but so far there are about two people using it actively.

Might be good if it starts some general discussions at working levels, but guessing it won't get used, based on other similar initiatives not going anywhere (see the DMTE wiki).


----------



## ARMY_101 (9 Oct 2013)

Why do you think that is Pete?

Part of military culture is "shut up and take what your superiors tell you." It will take a long time for this to be effectively used as the effective, thought-provoking resource it can be.

Other departments seem to be having good success with using it as an online collaboration tool.


----------



## stokerwes (9 Oct 2013)

It could work but I agree that it probably won't. CAF pers are very gunshy when it comes to expressing opinions to senior people as the repercussions can be very swift and severe.


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Oct 2013)

Don't get me wrong, I hope it works.  I am planning on keeping an eye on it and contributing if possible.

It's not that I think it's a bad idea, I'm just not sure if it'll reach the target audience.   Just generally found that some of these initiatives don't get met with much other then cynicism or otherwise ignored, as this is probably the third or fourth iteration of something similar that a lot of the more experienced folks have seen. 

Definitely worth a try though, what we're doing now isn't working, so makes sense to try it out.  I guess the big risk there is that most of the feedback would most likely be from relatively new folks like myself who are still trying to figure out how all the pieces (don't?) work together, and haven't gotten beaten down by the institution yet.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2013)

I take it this is a DWAN only link?

Its an interesting concept, but I think someone already mentioned that dissenting opinions against senior leadership tend to be looked on in an unfavourable light to put it mildly. You're not going to get Cpl Bloggins telling Col Soandso what he thinks of the Col's pet project for fear of a posting to Suffield or Club Ed.


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Oct 2013)

I browsed through it a bit more today and it seems to be getting a few other posters on their.  I'm not really personally worried about having a dissenting opinion (already done it a few times to sufficiently senior ranks that the damage may already be done) , but I can see it being an issue, particularly as the site assigns your name as your default user name.  Easy to change, but did give me a bit of a pause to at least be aware I may be held accountable for anything I post there.

One way to get around that would be to maybe use it as a vehicle to find a random selection of DND personnel to do more focused discussions on particular topics in a less permanent forum (VTC, teleconf, etc) with no ranks involved (ie everyone is in civvies).  I did a few of the courses offered here in the NCR, and because it was done in civvies and rank didn't factor in there was a lot of good discussions from a lot of people from all three elements, each with their own unique perspective and viewpoint.  Not really sure how to coordinate that in any sort of effective way, but just a thought.  At least by joining the GCConnex they've demonstrated an interest in providing input, so it's a start.  Maybe even a number of different surveys or something in different subject areas that people could fill in as well.  If that was matched up with a basic profile of experience in different areas you could remove all the identifying data and still have meaningful input with context going forward up to the Big Giant Heads.


----------



## ARMY_101 (29 Oct 2013)

You can also provide feedback directly to the Defence Renewal Team:

Internal: +Internal Communications internes@ADM(PA)@Ottawa-Hull
External: Internal_Communications_internes@forces.gc.ca

Subject line for both: "DRT/ERD"

This, I assume, is for anyone interested in going directly to the ears of the decision makers and/or those who may be more comfortable under anonymity.


----------



## TCM621 (30 Oct 2013)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> It could work but I agree that it probably won't. CAF pers are very gunshy when it comes to expressing opinions to senior people as the repercussions can be very swift and severe.



I have had posts on this site come back to bite me and this is an unofficial site. I can only imagine what the result would be on an official DND system.


----------

