Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion

[McG]

How about hiring civilian PMs that have had some time in uniform and do have a sense of the operating environment?

That woul fit with the notion of rapid turnover in the ranks ... a desirable characteristic for a larger, lower cost force.

The problem with PM staff who are former military is that they forget they are no longer military and they start telling the military what it needs.

 

[ytz]

How about hiring civilian PMs that have had some time in uniform and do have a sense of the operating environment?

Most project managers are civilian at DND.

 

[ytz]

The problem with PM staff who are former military is that they forget they are no longer military and they start telling the military what it needs.

You just need strong PDs to counter this. After all they represent the sponsor.

Can't say I have has PMs think they know more than the PD. I have seen pushback on what the PM thinks is feasible or contractable. And I think that's fair.

 

[Kirkhill]

You just need strong PDs to counter this. After all they represent the sponsor.

Can't say I have has PMs think they know more than the PD. I have seen pushback on what the PM thinks is feasible or contractable. And I think that's fair.

A bit of tension is productive. If you have to argue your case everyday then you are less likely to be surprised when you do your final presentations.

 

[McG]

You just need strong PDs to counter this. After all they represent the sponsor.

That's easy to say but, outside of fighters and warships, most PDs are junior to their supporting PM and many are on on their first posting in the NCR.

Can't say I have has PMs think they know more than the PD.

I've seen every level from PM to ADM(Mat) at different times tell the CA what its needs are. When it happens at the top level, it leads to things like TAPV. At the lower levels, it can hold a project back by a year as the PD now needs to escalate the problem through their section.

 

[dapaterson]

The CFO telling the Army commander how many recovery vehicles he needs at Programme Management Board was not the flex he thought it was.

 

[KevinB]

You just need strong PDs to counter this. After all they represent the sponsor.

Can't say I have has PMs think they know more than the PD. I have seen pushback on what the PM thinks is feasible or contractable. And I think that's fair.

Interesting.

We have PM’s (Program) and PEO’s as Uniforms and Deputy’s as GS civilians.
The theory is that the Green suiters are in Command of acquisition efforts - with a civilian support staff. (albeit they all fall under an Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, but Direct Report to the CG of T2COM - the combo of AFC and TRADOC )
Some civilians are Project Managers that fall (theoretically) under a PM (LTC or COL) under a 1* PEO, but at least in the Army and USASOC most Project Managers for equipment side stuff are a Maj, or for high profile things a LTC with a COL PM.
I don’t have a clue how Facilities etc stuff works.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Here we go...

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[ytz]

That's easy to say but, outside of fighters and warships, most PDs are junior to their supporting PM and many are on on their first posting in the NCR.

PM's will only outrank PDs (both functionally and on PS pay grade) at Definition.

Either way though, PM is not your CoC. When I don't like what my PMO is doing I threaten (and have) sent notes up the chain.

I've seen every level from PM to ADM(Mat) at different times tell the CA what its needs are. When it happens at the top level, it leads to things like TAPV. At the lower levels, it can hold a project back by a year as the PD now needs to escalate the problem through their section.

This sounds like an Army thing. Honestly. Can't say I've seen PMOs tell the Air Staff what they think the RCAF should buy.

 

[Furniture]

This sounds like an Army thing. Honestly. Can't say I've seen PMOs tell the Air Staff what they think the RCAF should buy.

It's almost as if despite 58 years of pretending we are one CAF, there are still distinct differences between the elements...

Smarter people than me, have said for years that the CAF isn't one experience or culture. Even within Ottawa, there are vast differences in culture between commands, even when they share buildings/floors.

 

[OldSolduer]

It's almost as if despite 58 years of pretending we are one CAF, there are still distinct differences between the elements...

Smarter people than me, have said for years that the CAF isn't one experience or culture. Even within Ottawa, there are vast differences in culture between commands, even when they share buildings/floors.

The CAF is not a monolith but an entity made up of several different “tribes”all with different cultures.
Even within a unit there are different cultures at play with distinct differences.

 

[McG]

PM's will only outrank PDs (both functionally and on PS pay grade) at Definition.

No. If you look outside aircraft & warships, the seniority difference between PD & PM is typically a constant through a project … right until close-out when everyone wants to abandon the file before finishing the work.

This sounds like an Army thing.

So you’ve never worked on an RCAF project for operations support equipment then?

 

[ytz]

It's almost as if despite 58 years of pretending we are one CAF, there are still distinct differences between the elements...

Smarter people than me, have said for years that the CAF isn't one experience or culture. Even within Ottawa, there are vast differences in culture between commands, even when they share buildings/floors.

Agreed. It's been eye opening for me to see the cultural differences at Carling.

That said, the PAD governs us all. And more should be common than not, for procurement.

So you’ve never worked on an RCAF project for operations support equipment then?

Haven't had that pleasure....

 

[daftandbarmy]

The CAF is not a monolith but an entity made up of several different “tribes”all with different cultures.
Even within a unit there are different cultures at play with distinct differences.

Like most other large organizations...

 

[FJAG]

No. If you look outside aircraft & warships, the seniority difference between PD & PM is typically a constant through a project … right until close-out when everyone wants to abandon the file before finishing the work.

I've been following this discussion with interest. My experiences with projects is limited to the one I did for three years as the JAG's PD on a project to build a records, knowledge and case management system on its own architecture with JAG/ADM(IM). The PD - my predecessor, me and my replacement [when I timed out at 60] - were all legal officers from JAG. The PM and Fin guy were civilians from ADM(IM) and the project engineer was a CELE officer from the Sigs branch. We had a number of military and civilian staff on both sides.

In effect, I developed the system requirements with my business analyst and a number of military and civilian staff - effectively defining the SOR - while the PM and engineer with lots of fin input worked out the practical solutions to the end state that the office of the JAG was looking for.

There was no seniority. It was a collaborative process (one of the reasons why I was brought in was that my predecessor - a JAG major - wasn't good at collaborating (after about two years on the project there was still no SOR and the project was still conceptual in his head). We met weekly to discuss progress and then went off to work on our respective responsibilities. Once we got the SOR out, my role was to monitor the PM and her team's progress on engineering and acquisition while I moved on to developing the business transformation plan and its various components for the office of the JAG.

I find the idea of who is senior a bit strange because neither the PM nor the PD side have all the answers by which to make and push a unilateral decision. It's collaboration and give and take where requirements become technically or financially impractical or impossible and in trusting each side of the team and giving them the space to work out the best practical solutions. In our case there were five principle folks, the PM, PD, Fin guy, business analyst and engineer. When they don't work well together one needs to take action so that they do. The JAG put me in to replace my predecessor when things weren't working out and about 8 months in I fired the business analyst and lucked in by finding a Cracher Jack replacement. That, IMHO is what matters. Creating and maintaining a team that can work together and having a PD and PM that each knows their side of the job well.

$0.02

 

[daftandbarmy]

I've been following this discussion with interest. My experiences with projects is limited to the one I did for three years as the JAG's PD on a project to build a records, knowledge and case management system on its own architecture with JAG/ADM(IM). The PD - my predecessor, me and my replacement [when I timed out at 60] - were all legal officers from JAG. The PM and Fin guy were civilians from ADM(IM) and the project engineer was a CELE officer from the Sigs branch. We had a number of military and civilian staff on both sides.

In effect, I developed the system requirements with my business analyst and a number of military and civilian staff - effectively defining the SOR - while the PM and engineer with lots of fin input worked out the practical solutions to the end state that the office of the JAG was looking for.

There was no seniority. It was a collaborative process (one of the reasons why I was brought in was that my predecessor - a JAG major - wasn't good at collaborating (after about two years on the project there was still no SOR and the project was still conceptual in his head). We met weekly to discuss progress and then went off to work on our respective responsibilities. Once we got the SOR out, my role was to monitor the PM and her team's progress on engineering and acquisition while I moved on to developing the business transformation plan and its various components for the office of the JAG.

I find the idea of who is senior a bit strange because neither the PM nor the PD side have all the answers by which to make and push a unilateral decision. It's collaboration and give and take where requirements become technically or financially impractical or impossible and in trusting each side of the team and giving them the space to work out the best practical solutions. In our case there were five principle folks, the PM, PD, Fin guy, business analyst and engineer. When they don't work well together one needs to take action so that they do. The JAG put me in to replace my predecessor when things weren't working out and about 8 months in I fired the business analyst and lucked in by finding a Cracher Jack replacement. That, IMHO is what matters. Creating and maintaining a team that can work together and having a PD and PM that each knows their side of the job well.

$0.02

YMMV, but there are very few senior leaders that can demonstrate the same, effective, leadership style as yours in these types of digital transformation scenarios.

This is largely why the big consulting companies continue to make bank.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Regardless, as was traditional, by March there was usually a panic to spend the budget before April 1st

Except for the year one unit blew past its ceiling so badly that everyone else had to cancel activities with weeks remaining in the year. And mentioning the circumstances, even something so minor as the name of the unit, was frowned upon.

Break them all.

 

[FJAG]

Except for the year one unit blew past its ceiling so badly that everyone else had to cancel activities with weeks remaining in the year. And mentioning the circumstances, even something so minor as the name of the unit, was frowned upon.

Yeah. You have to plan that carefully. That's why in the two years that I was RSSO, I always planned two exercises in March when no one else was going into the field. They could have been easily cancelled, but effectively there was always lots of spare change and 105mm ammo laying around in Manitoba District and Prairie Area that other units hadn't spent. Both times it had doubled our annual ammo allocation. And in the belief that "if you don't use it all this year you'll lose it next year," District and Area loved us for doing so.

 

[McG]

I've been following this discussion with interest. My experiences with projects is limited to the one I did for three years as the JAG's PD on a project to build a records, knowledge and case management system on its own architecture with JAG/ADM(IM). The PD - my predecessor, me and my replacement [when I timed out at 60] - were all legal officers from JAG. The PM and Fin guy were civilians from ADM(IM) and the project engineer was a CELE officer from the Sigs branch. We had a number of military and civilian staff on both sides.

In effect, I developed the system requirements with my business analyst and a number of military and civilian staff - effectively defining the SOR - while the PM and engineer with lots of fin input worked out the practical solutions to the end state that the office of the JAG was looking for.

There was no seniority. It was a collaborative process (one of the reasons why I was brought in was that my predecessor - a JAG major - wasn't good at collaborating (after about two years on the project there was still no SOR and the project was still conceptual in his head). We met weekly to discuss progress and then went off to work on our respective responsibilities. Once we got the SOR out, my role was to monitor the PM and her team's progress on engineering and acquisition while I moved on to developing the business transformation plan and its various components for the office of the JAG.

I find the idea of who is senior a bit strange because neither the PM nor the PD side have all the answers by which to make and push a unilateral decision. It's collaboration and give and take where requirements become technically or financially impractical or impossible and in trusting each side of the team and giving them the space to work out the best practical solutions. In our case there were five principle folks, the PM, PD, Fin guy, business analyst and engineer. When they don't work well together one needs to take action so that they do. The JAG put me in to replace my predecessor when things weren't working out and about 8 months in I fired the business analyst and lucked in by finding a Cracher Jack replacement. That, IMHO is what matters. Creating and maintaining a team that can work together and having a PD and PM that each knows their side of the job well.

$0.02

This is all ideal, and it can work. But if we go back in the conversation to the proposal that we fill the PM positions with current or retired LCols, that idea creates problems for the junior & mid-range majors who we assign to PD jobs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yeah. You have to plan that carefully. That's why in the two years that I was RSSO, I always planned two exercises in March when no one else was going into the field. They could have been easily cancelled, but effectively there was always lots of spare change and 105mm ammo laying around in Manitoba District and Prairie Area that other units hadn't spent. Both times it had doubled our annual ammo allocation. And in the belief that "if you don't use it all this year you'll lose it next year," District and Area loved us for doing so.

Everyone talks about planning contingency activities; few seemed to do it.

Leaving my cynicism aside, the one year I was "budget guy", things went well and it was a tight ship. Not because of me, but because the (civilian, full-time) formation compt kept an eye on everyone. That right there I believe is the secret to at least preventing fiscal screw-ups. Compt can't stop units from spending money stupidly and haphazardly, of course.