CF Using a Business Approach: Pros and Cons

[ACS_Tech]

It seems that more and more, the CF is trying to operate more as a business than what it really is.  I'm not sure if if has something to do with the trend for those with the bars to get MBAs/Commerce degrees, etc. but it definitely is noticeable, at least where I am.  Our unit even has a Mission Statement, a "Corporate" Vision and even went and got ISO 9000 registered!  What do you think the benefits are and do they outweigh the negatives?  From my way of seeing it, operating the CF as a business is a little too convoluted.  There are too many things in military life that don't translate to the business world very well.  What sort of things do you see where you are and do they work?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I know a large number of MBA's, most of whom are CEO's/CFO's/COO's, and in my humble opinion it is my take they are teaching their students the wrong things.  Specifically, they focus on short-term cost-benefit analysis (quarter-to-quarter) versus sustainable development and human resources "techniques"(gimmicks, facades and trickery) in place of "doing the right things for the right reasons every time whether it's convenient or not".  In place of paying for MBA's for a select few, I would instead recommend a Forces-wide reading program focusing on the canon works of business - Mark McCormack, Tom Peters, Dale Carnegie, Stephen Covey, etc. tied-in with job specific reading to include foreign policy analysis, tactics, engineering or whatever else is applicable to that specific soldier, sailor or airman.


Matthew. 

 

[Bert]

Its difficult equating the CF diverse air, land, sea, domestic and international
operations to a business model as it isn't a business.  Applying ISO 9000 to
many areas of the CF involving the quality and processing of materials, resources,
and equipment is a good idea.  http://www.praxiom.com/iso-intro.htm

ISO in simple terms means; what you say you are going to do, you
actually do, thus maintaining quality assurance.  If you do something
else, a workaround or short-cut outside of the process, then quality cannot
be controlled.  Its a frame-work to build a defined process.

 

[pbi]

I would say that as far as the Army is concerned,the bow wave of the "business method" passed a few years ago. I believe it got its start in the NDHQ world, but it certainly did spread its tentacles pretty far. It was quite irritating and sometimes fairly useless while it existed (ie: the mindless belief that any civilian business method had to be automatically superior to any military method), but I think that for the most part the Army has realized that it doesn't generally work all that well. When I was with 38 CBG (my last "Army" job) we changed the name of the anual bde plan from "business plan" to "operating plan", and the units continued to produce "training plans" not "business plans".

Our recent focus on hard ops, and Gen Hillier's refreshing public statements of what the Army is for, will IMHO go even further to get us back on the right track.


I don't know about how our blue friends view it, and I suspect it survives it the "purple" world. Ironically, I think that quite a few of the more long-lasting business ideas ("networking", "empowerment", "the learning organization" etc) have their origins in good military practice (combined arms teams. delegation and being ready t assume command one up, lessons learned/after action review) We certainly have  much fairer and more comprehensive personnel policies (for all our people) than most businesses do: they tend to focus their benefits on a chosen few high-level types, with more basic levels (or nothing) for others.  Probably this is why there has never been a serious unionization movement in the CF, unlike in some other countries.

Where we can actually pick up and use a good practice from business (or from anywhere, for that matter...) then that's OK with me. But, before we adopt it, we need to take a hard look at it and ask ourselves if is any better than what we have, or iif we are just being stupid and trendy. We also need to ask what the bigger impacts of this change will be on our very unique profession: this is where I think we fell down in the first place. We are not a corporation or a govt ministry.

Cheers

 

[a23trucker]

and even went and got ISO 9000 registered! 

...and how much did that cost ???

...is there an FMAS code for that ??? (if there is; then I'm scared).

Being fiscally responsible is one thing, but we are not a commercial business and we don't neatly fit into a template. I find that a lot of people don't understand this fact. I guess that this is the only way some people know how to run their units/commands.

I wish that the b*st*rds who are out there cheating the system would stop so that the financial types could trust the units to spend their funds wisely and relax the amount of planning accounting and reporting that we must produce. I sometimes think we spend more money on this type of administration than training....I find it very disturbing that it is more reprehesible to underspend the budget by more than 2% than it is to produce properly trained soldiers.

IMHO; Without going beyond the moral requirement to be fiscally responsible, I think that some of this corporate thinking gets in the way of us doing our job.....training soldiers!

 

[Gunner]

I know a large number of MBA's, most of whom are CEO's/CFO's/COO's, and in my humble opinion it is my take they are teaching their students the wrong things.  Specifically, they focus on short-term cost-benefit analysis (quarter-to-quarter) versus sustainable development and human resources "techniques"(gimmicks, facades and trickery) in place of "doing the right things for the right reasons every time whether it's convenient or not".

Cdn Blackshirt

I'm currently taking my MBA and I have never been taught to "focus on short-term cost benefit analysis (quarter to quater)".  Secondly, most corporations are much more attuned to sustainable development and HR policies (have you seen the job market?).  Check out the corporate social responsibity charters for such diverse corporations as RBC, Alcan, Encana, Sunlife Financial, and TransAlta.  All are focussed on the long term sustainability of their companies as it is the reality we live in.

I don't view having an MBA as impeding progress within the military and I would suggest that different perspectives in solving problems provide a much stronger institution.  The example of ISO certification is an excellent example of better supply management. Did an MBA think it up?  Don't know.  Does it provide greater flexibility within the CF.  Probably.

Cheers  

 

[cp140tech]

  One of the things that really annoys me at work is the different organizations referring to end users of their "product" as "customers".  You'll see supply, or some of the 2nd and 3rd line repair shops using the term 'customer', I am not a customer....  I can't take my "business" elsewhere if I'm unhappy with the 'service'.  I perform 1st line engine repair and servicing of the CP 140/A, the aircrew doesn't have the option of taking the aircraft to another'garage' if they are unhappy with our work.  I find the posting of mission statements around the hangar ridiculous to the point of being offensive, my job is to produce serviceable aircraft..... simple as that.  If people want to toss mission statements and terminology around during morning briefs and meetings, that's fine, keep them off the hangar floor and tarmac.
 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Cdn Blackshirt

I'm currently taking my MBA and I have never been taught to "focus on short-term cost benefit analysis (quarter to quater)".  Secondly, most corporations are much more attuned to sustainable development and HR policies (have you seen the job market?).  Check out the corporate social responsibity charters for such diverse corporations as RBC, Alcan, Encana, Sunlife Financial, and TransAlta.  All are focussed on the long term sustainability of their companies as it is the reality we live in.

I don't view having an MBA as impeding progress within the military and I would suggest that different perspectives in solving problems provide a much stronger institution.  The example of ISO certification is an excellent example of better supply management. Did an MBA think it up?  Don't know.  Does it provide greater flexibility within the CF.  Probably.

Cheers  

I'm just telling you what I see in the business world from my end, and my comments are based on significant interaction with 12-15 MBA grads most of whom are in senior executive positions with large Canadian corporations.

The best way to describe my issue is by pointing to Stephen Covey.  He wrote the famous "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" which talked about behaviours and patterns necessary to acheive great success.  Ten years later he had to come back and revise his model to reflect "The 8th Habit".  The 8th Habit is all about character and doing the right things.  The one example that leaps to mind from the book is he was brought into a company to do an analysis.  The company did everything following the 7 Habits model and included a lot things like generous health benefits, incentive pay, etc.  However, even with all these check boxes "ticked off", they still had low morale and were losing trained people regularly.  Covey began interviewing and within 2-hours had identified the problem.  The C.E.O./President although following the 7 Habits with all his employees, was having an affair with a subordinate in the office....and everyone knew about it.  This unethical act poisoned the entire workplace because if the leader was seen as untrustworthy within his marriage, how on earth could they trust him for their wellbeing.  The 8th Habit therefore is that you must live a moral and ethical life and not do things as gimmicks, but out of the goodness of your heart, otherwise your "tactic" will be seen as nothing more than a fake gesture.

....and this is where those 12-15 MBA guys I know all fail.  In their business lives, they manage their corporations for their short-term gain (stock options, incentives, off balance sheet retirement bonuses, and expense many things they know they shouldn't).  And in their personal lives, almost all of them have had multiple extra-marital affairs....and their employees know it....and because of it, two things happen: i) The truly moral employees become upset and leave, ii) The immoral or amoral stay and adopt the same outlook and pilfer and take advantage where they can.


Matthew. 

 

[Long in the tooth]

There's nothing wrong with applying good business common sense to the military, and I think we're treating our people a lot better than we did twenty years ago.  I also find mission statements to be an insulting joke.  If anyone is unsure of their duty after recruit and trades training then someone should have their heels together!

ISO 9000 or 9001 doesn't mean a process is well designed or robust, simply a method where someone can be blamed for not following it.  It is the antithesis of 'thinking outside the box'.  'This is the way we've always done it' rankles me to no end.

 

[Gunner]

I'm just telling you what I see in the business world from my end, and my comments are based on significant interaction with 12-15 MBA grads most of whom are in senior executive positions with large Canadian corporations.

Tell us the companies they belong to so I can make sure my investment portfolio does not contain them.

The best way to describe my issue is by pointing to Stephen Covey.  He wrote the famous "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" which talked about behaviours and patterns necessary to acheive great success.  Ten years later he had to come back and revise his model to reflect "The 8th Habit".  The 8th Habit is all about character and doing the right things.  The one example that leaps to mind from the book is he was brought into a company to do an analysis.  The company did everything following the 7 Habits model and included a lot things like generous health benefits, incentive pay, etc.  However, even with all these check boxes "ticked off", they still had low morale and were losing trained people regularly.  Covey began interviewing and within 2-hours had identified the problem.  The C.E.O./President although following the 7 Habits with all his employees, was having an affair with a subordinate in the office....and everyone knew about it.  This unethical act poisoned the entire workplace because if the leader was seen as untrustworthy within his marriage, how on earth could they trust him for their wellbeing.  The 8th Habit therefore is that you must live a moral and ethical life and not do things as gimmicks, but out of the goodness of your heart, otherwise your "tactic" will be seen as nothing more than a fake gesture.

Most successful organization that are able to develop a corporate culture do so using characteristics that have developed within their organization.  You can not take someone else's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" and impose them on an organization.  As far as buddy having an affair - the "Tone from the Top" is ubiquitous no matter what organization your are with.  Take Enron, it had one of the best stated ethical standards of any US corporation....we know how that turned out.

....and this is where those 12-15 MBA guys I know all fail.  In their business lives, they manage their corporations for their short-term gain (stock options, incentives, off balance sheet retirement bonuses, and expense many things they know they shouldn't).  And in their personal lives, almost all of them have had multiple extra-marital affairs....and their employees know it....and because of it, two things happen: i) The truly moral employees become upset and leave, ii) The immoral or amoral stay and adopt the same outlook and pilfer and take advantage where they can

As I mentioned above, let us know the names of the corporations so I can pull any money I have invested with them out. 

I'm not sure why you are trying to stereotype everyone with an MBA and implying they are unethical, immoral and focussed solely on their own personal satisfaction?    So you know 12-15 guys, who may have MBAs, who don't act like you think they should.  Ok, so what?  Does that mean the army/CF should discount anyone with this education?  The CF is a very large institution and the only place it can promote from is within.  The problem in doing so is it perpetuates the maintainence of the staus quo.  We must ensure we have thinking officers and NCMs and we should encourage them to pursue academic achievements in different fields. 

As I said in another thread, MBA's don't make decisions, commanders do.

I also find mission statements to be an insulting joke.

WOG - that's because most of them are very poor.

Cheers, 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm not sure why you are trying to stereotype everyone with an MBA and implying they are unethical, immoral and focussed solely on their own personal satisfaction?    So you know 12-15 guys, who may have MBAs, who don't act like you think they should.

No, I know 12-15 guys how act like I KNOW they shouldn't...their employees know they shouldn't....and because of it they lose the respect and devotion of their supporting casts. 

So the issue then becomes "Were they always self-indulgent, arrogant asshats and the programs omitted correcting that outlook? or "Are MBA programs teaching this outlook as the proper way to do business?"

I know Tom Peters who is a Stanford graduate recently got into a significant ruckuss with the Dean of the Business School of his Alma Mater over this exact issue and if you look at the level of malfeasance in business today, just at publicly-traded companies where they generate headlines, I think it's pretty damned obvious there is a failure in business culture to do the "right things".

Does that mean the army/CF should discount anyone with this education?  The CF is a very large institution and the only place it can promote from is within.  The problem in doing so is it perpetuates the maintainence of the staus quo.  We must ensure we have thinking officers and NCMs and we should encourage them to pursue academic achievements in different fields. 

No, as per my first post on the subject a long term cost-benefit analysis needs to be done to assess the value gained by subsidizing a few very expensive MBA's taught by professors versus providing a much broader educational opportunity to the entire force by providing something like a reading allowance or manditory reading program.  I should add that if there are specific skillsets you want taught such as project management, or contract negotations and clause writing then I would recommend bringing in specialists in their field (not academics but experts who are in business and do this stuff day-in and day-out) to teach all your personnel in a large group setting at NDHQ.  In short, I question the huge investment in a an academic-taught education for a very few at the opportunity cost of a specialist-taught education for the entire organization. 

That's how you create cultural shifts from within....


Matthew. 

 

[Gunner]

I know Tom Peters who is a Stanford graduate recently got into a significant ruckuss with the Dean of the Business School of his Alma Mater over this exact issue and if you look at the level of malfeasance in business today, just at publicly-traded companies where they generate headlines, I think it's pretty damned obvious there is a failure in business culture to do the "right things".

There are ample examples of people failing to do the right thing in all segments of our society, not just in business.  You have generalized your experience in business or with your "friends" and you are condemning the entire business community.  I suppose that is your choice to do so but I don't agree with you. 

No, as per my first post on the subject a long term cost-benefit analysis needs to be done to assess the value gained by subsidizing a few very expensive MBA's taught by professors versus providing a much broader educational opportunity to the entire force by providing something like a reading allowance or manditory reading program.  I should add that if there are specific skillsets you want taught such as project management, or contract negotations and clause writing then I would recommend bringing in specialists in their field (not academics but experts who are in business and do this stuff day-in and day-out) to teach all your personnel in a large group setting at NDHQ.  In short, I question the huge investment in a an academic-taught education for a very few at the opportunity cost of a specialist-taught education for the entire organization. 

I don't think you understand how we train our soldiers nor how the CF approaches education for its officer (and NCM) corps.  I'll leave it at that...

 

[pbi]

I know three people involved in delivering ethics and leadership training to the corporate world: they have commented consistently on two things:

a) most CEOs/senior management types recognize the need for ethical behaviour (or at least the need to deliver training on it...) and are willing to shell out $$$ for it; but

b) at the levels below that, particularly amongst some of the the young, aggressive, male executives making big $$$, ethics is seen as window-dressing or even as an obstacle to thrashing the competition. I am sure that this negative and ultimately destructive attitude is not helped by the "do as I say, not as I do" example set  by some very senior business types we read about from time to time(or by their civil service peers).

There is probably a broader issue with ethical behaviour throughout North America. I recall when, as a student at USMC C&SC in 97/98, we toured all the US service academies and the USMC Recruit Depots. One message that came through loud and clear was the recognition that people coming into the military, including as officer candidates, lacked a basic ethical "compass" and therefore ethical behaviour had to be instilled, since many people could not intrinsically recognize what was right behaviour. Scary. Wonder if it's any better now?

Cheers

 

[geo]

Always found it interesting that Business looked to the military after the war for lessons on how to effectively operate...... and now the shoe is on the other foot.

go figure!

 

[Edward Campbell]

The business of running the military in a businesslike manner has a long and chequered history – going back past Roman times.  It bedevilled the Duke of Wellington’s relations with his political masters and the contractors engaged to support him.

Arguably the rise and success of the British Empire owes much to running the Royal Navy in a very businesslike manner.  The dockyards at Chatham provide an excellent history of managing (and, now and again mismanaging) the nation’s defences.

Good business practices recognize that efficiency ≠ effectiveness.  Nowhere is this more visible than in army combat operations.  Sometimes, but only sometimes, combat effectiveness and efficiency (cost effectiveness) are diametrically opposed.  That does not mean that parts of the combat system cannot be both efficient and effective – we have been trying to get the mix right in our logistics systems for about 2,500 years.  The problems include the fact that what was efficient and effective in 1946 is neither in 2006.

For many years the British Army and Navy ran on a fairly efficient and effective logistics tail provided almost exclusively – up to and including what is now F Echelon – by civilian contractors who, gradually, in the army morphed into the quasi-civil service commissariat and then the various corps which now make up the British Army’s Royal Logistics Corps (the evolution of which, I hear on the rumour net is not yet finished – the REME might be absorbed, too).  The Royal Navy still has the civilian Royal Fleet Auxiliary which has more support ships (like our AORs) than we have warships.

Geo is right to bring up the lessons learned by both the military and civilians from one another.  While we, correctly, recall the huge contributions of the dollar a year men who revolutionized military logistical planning and management in the 1940s we must also recognize that those same men went back to industry and revolutionized it, in the ‘40s and ‘50s by applying the military’s analytical and planning processes which they learned from admirals and generals.  (Essentially all operations research which includes public opinion polling for politics, a subset of market research, is based on the work in the UK ministry of defence in about 1940 – first on naval convoy theory, later on strategic bombing and so on.)

There are many parts of the Department of National Defence (which includes the Canadian Forces) which need the constant and firm application of businesslike discipline to manage their work effectively.  There are other areas which, we – military leaders, bureaucrats and citizens alike – must recognize as not being at all businesslike in their nature and, obviously, unlikely to benefit from the discipline of the marketplace.

Using business school techniques – especially the famous case study model – can, and did (in my personal experience) open eyes to different and better ways to approach some operational problems.  A MBA does not make one a better staff planner, nor does rigid adherence to any particular planning and analysis tool kits – but I caution junior officers to ignore the existing doctrines and techniques at your peril.  They, generally, work well enough – especially if we all use them properly and personal experience takes needs years, even decades before it becomes effective.

 

[ACS_Tech]

I was talking to my professor for Business Management at Queen's about this today.  He has taught quite a few military types in the EMBA program.  I explained to him that while the material he covers in class makes a lot of sense in a business or commercial setting, I was having difficulty understanding how to apply many of the same concepts in a military one.  While it's not really his job for me to make the leap on this subject (This is Queen's, not RMC), he acknowledged that outside of procurement and the logistics side of things, it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply true business models to the military life.  Where some of these models can be applied is in operational efficiency.

As with all governmental departments, there is now more than ever a push on fiscal accountability.  This entails more than just good budgeting.  Ethics comes in here, too.  And while I'm sure we'd all like to think that the average CF member has better moral and ethical standards than, say, certain Liberal party members, this may not necessarily be the case.

One problem I think that the CF has had for a while, at least as long as I have been around, is resistance to change.  That doesn't mean that there haven't been changes.  There have been some massive changes.  But for a vast majority of them, a large proportion of people initially dismiss the changes because it means they have to change the way they go about things.  Maybe it means some type of shift in job duties, maybe it is a policy change, maybe they have to order new stationary because the name of the unit has been changed.  Are all the recent (or previous) changes good?  Most would agree no.  However, I think there is a trend to dismiss changes before accepting them.  Call it this-is-the-way-its-always-been-itis. 

I also think that we'd all agree that the CF is much different than how it was 10 years ago (even more so 20 years ago).  Why would we not expect that it will be just as different 10 years from now.  In a profession such as ours, and in the world that we live in, I think the only certainty that will forever remain constant is change.

One thing that there is definite room for improvement is the bureaucratic way of implementing change.  It takes too long from the time a problem is identified to when it is rectified.  Doubly so when procurement is involved.  When lifecycle limits have been reached, instead of taking the necessary steps beforehand to have a replacement ready, we just put a band-aid over it and magically increase its' expiry date.  Interesting to note that, for example, the average age of aircraft in service in the USAF is 23 years...and this is the highest ever.  It'd be interesting how our Air Force compares, although there have been modest improvements in recent years.

I promise that things will be different (IE. change...*wink*) when I'm CDS  ;D

 

[zanshin]

G'day army.ca world...  Since I've rejoined the forces earlier this year, I've been voraciously chewing my way through the various and sundry boards and posts and I must say, I'm impressed.  Good layout and good troops.  Kudos to all.   

Sewww, this looks like a quiet place for my first post (hopefully I won't get tarred, feathered and run out of town right out of the gate...)

A friend of mine and I were just discussing the other day how strange it is that what I took as a Combat Leadership Course back in the day is now called a very business-like Primary Leader's Course.  IMHO I'd have to list that as a "Con".  Was that done to make it more usable on a civilian resume?

I was in a combat trade so I took a Combat Leadership Course.  My wife was in Finance so she took a Junior Leadership Course.  It all... well... made sense.

Cheers (and, once again, greetin's all),
Mark

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Business models are like any other models, good and useful tools where the assumptions are shared between model and application, and a good way to screw up by the numbers where they are not.  Logistics is a case in point where business practices can be studied to improve the effectiveness of our own supply and support systems.  Fleet management policies to balance procurement and maintainace schedules and budgets to minimize maintenance downtime and increase the available platforms (tracks, planes, trucks, whatever) are something that the DND should take a look at. 
    Cost/benefit analysis of combat systems is a joke.  The cost of insufficient air defence is measured in the loss of your whole combat force and whatever they were defending.  The savings of replacing a main battle tank with a mobile gun system is illusionary, as you must replace the one unit (tank) with the mobile gun system (for infantry fire support), the LAVTUA for anti-tank, with the awareness that along with the need to supply and support two systems to replace the one, you have the likelyhood of losing both should the encounter enemy armour or heavy infantry in a direct fire engagement, as neither has the armour of a tank.  Likewise stating that our CF-18 using onboard systems only, are equivalent to USN F18 operating under AWAC control, with available mid-air refueling, satelite linked JDAW munitions is ignoring the fact that the fighter is a part of a team, not the whole team.
    The Poles saved lots of money using horses instead of the more expensive tanks, half tracks, scout-cars, and mobile field artillery of the Germans in WWII.  The money saved  was later spent to buy beer and bratwurst by the Germans in Warsaw.....