Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[KevinB]

People are the LimFac. See my above point.

Notably all the staff weanies and procurement folks. ADMs in Carling are fighting over engineers and procurement folks. Some are working multiple projects. Which is a recipe for burnout long run. But because of the way government works, it's not just DND, every other government departments involved in defence procurement has to staff up too.

As much as I hate to use DoD down here as an example, there are a number of courses available (and some required) for positions to learn the procurement cycle from soup to nuts.

Of course non of that matter if you ignore key aspects of requirements writing (which tends to occur down here).
Cardinal Sin being so not write a requirement for a capability that another service already fields. — but it’s hard to Lead Change if you simply adopt something Bob over there has…

 

[ytz]

As much as I hate to use DoD down here as an example, there are a number of courses available (and some required) for positions to learn the procurement cycle from soup to nuts.

We have those courses too. And most serials are full these days.

We're flat out told that you will accept less these days. You may want a Sergeant with technical experience as the SME on your project staff. Guess what? You will be getting a new MCpl who has finished his type course. Get over it.

Not that this can't work. And honestly, it's pretty inspiring to see so many people stepping up. But there's a sustainability problem. People and organizations can only sprint for so long. Eventually, they have to slow down. And we'll need more people to carry the load then. Or we need to change the burden with substantial regulatory change. And to the government's credit, they are trying to do both. But it's just difficult to pull off quickly. For these reasons, I am somewhat pessimistic.

That said if you aim for 3.5 and hit 3, would it be the worst thing? Probably not.

 

[Kirkhill]

We have those courses too. And most serials are full these days.

We're flat out told that you will accept less these days. You may want a Sergeant with technical experience as the SME on your project staff. Guess what? You will be getting a new MCpl who has finished his type course. Get over it.

Not that this can't work. And honestly, it's pretty inspiring to see so many people stepping up. But there's a sustainability problem. People and organizations can only sprint for so long. Eventually, they have to slow down. And we'll need more people to carry the load then. Or we need to change the burden with substantial regulatory change. And to the government's credit, they are trying to do both. But it's just difficult to pull off quickly. For these reasons, I am somewhat pessimistic.

That said if you aim for 3.5 and hit 3, would it be the worst thing? Probably not.

If you are moving forwards, now is not the time to be losing faith.

Get some rest.

 

[McG]

So we need to free up people to change but we can't free up people until we change?

Not "free up" - DND needs to hire.
Other departments who are responsible for pushing CAF projects will also need to hire.
More people to push more projects.

 

[childs56]

Not "free up" - DND needs to hire.
Other departments who are responsible for pushing CAF projects will also need to hire.
More people to push more projects.

How many people do we have pushing these projects?
How many are in redundant or underutilized jobs/ postions that can be redirected to be more efficient?

 

[ytz]

How many people do we have pushing these projects?
How many are in redundant or underutilized jobs/ postions that can be redirected to be more efficient?

There's always someone who thinks they can run things better.

"If only I were in charge...."

Step up.

 

[dapaterson]

How many people do we have pushing these projects?
How many are in redundant or underutilized jobs/ postions that can be redirected to be more efficient?

Working on an acquisition you'll have a variety of skillsets, including:

Engineers. Working with vendors on the technical aspects, which may or may not include integration challenges - either rolling tech we want into the platform, or integrating the platform into our existing tech framework.

Supply. New equipment means new parts and assemblies that will have to be tracked, stored and reported. Cross referenced against extant holdings. Imagery and descriptions ported from the vendor system into departmental systems.

Infra. Big new things frequently need big new facilities for storage and maintenance. But buildings don't magically appear overnight. There are other initiatives at most bases and wings. And the boring things like water, sewer and electricity are all getting old, and either need midlife refit , replacement, or growth - Petawawa's electric grid is failing because of its age and lack of capacity to support modern, increased demands.

Training. Operators, maintainers, employers need to have their training updated to reflect the new equipment. Not just what the glossy pamphlet promised, but what it actually delivers, and how those effects are integrated with the rest of the system of systems that is the CAF.

Security. Physical security. Personnel security. IM/IT security. The CAF has ignored this for years, and there's a huge deficit that projects are addressing.

Contracting. Lots of contracts supporting all the lines of effort. And increased desire to get smaller vendors a slice of the pie. Meaning more contracts to be coordinated and managed.


And with all those folks running around and doing their things, project managers to keep things on track, to identify interdependencies, to prioritize effort, to keep things moving.

 

[Lumber]

Working on an acquisition you'll have a variety of skillsets, including:

Engineers. Working with vendors on the technical aspects, which may or may not include integration challenges - either rolling tech we want into the platform, or integrating the platform into our existing tech framework.

Supply. New equipment means new parts and assemblies that will have to be tracked, stored and reported. Cross referenced against extant holdings. Imagery and descriptions ported from the vendor system into departmental systems.

Infra. Big new things frequently need big new facilities for storage and maintenance. But buildings don't magically appear overnight. There are other initiatives at most bases and wings. And the boring things like water, sewer and electricity are all getting old, and either need midlife refit , replacement, or growth - Petawawa's electric grid is failing because of its age and lack of capacity to support modern, increased demands.

Training. Operators, maintainers, employers need to have their training updated to reflect the new equipment. Not just what the glossy pamphlet promised, but what it actually delivers, and how those effects are integrated with the rest of the system of systems that is the CAF.

Security. Physical security. Personnel security. IM/IT security. The CAF has ignored this for years, and there's a huge deficit that projects are addressing.

Contracting. Lots of contracts supporting all the lines of effort. And increased desire to get smaller vendors a slice of the pie. Meaning more contracts to be coordinated and managed.


And with all those folks running around and doing their things, project managers to keep things on track, to identify interdependencies, to prioritize effort, to keep things moving.

Don't forget to mention that for the uniformed people involved in these processes, they are also, at the exact same time, completing annual readiness training, writing feedback notes, dealing with personnel administrative issues, writing PARs, participating (at minimum) in PT tests if not daily/weekly fitness training, conducting second language training, being seconded to intermittent taskings, being "involved with the mess" (which is pushed unreasonably hard in Ottawa). The nature of military responsibilities means you need at least 1.5 people to get done what a single civilian can often do.

 

[dapaterson]

Don't forget to mention that for the uniformed people involved in these processes, they are also, at the exact same time, completing annual readiness training, writing feedback notes, dealing with personnel administrative issues, writing PARs, participating (at minimum) in PT tests if not daily/weekly fitness training, conducting second language training, being seconded to intermittent taskings, bring "involved with the mess" (which is pushed unreasonably handled in Ottawa). The nature of military responsibilities means you need at least 1.5 people to get done what a single civilian can often do.

A prior version of A PS 219, on structure planning, included that assumption - that in an office context, military personnel had fewer available hours per year than civilians. Alas, that volume was repealed because we don't need such written direction.

 

[PrairieFella]

A prior version of A PS 219, on structure planning, included that assumption - that in an office context, military personnel had fewer available hours per year than civilians. Alas, that volume was repealed because we don't need such written direction.

Makes sense. Civvies dont have mandatory PT hours, requirements like yearly IBTS, etc.