Reconstitution

[kev994]

Which para?

Under Mission/Execution Para 14

FAs are to review and validate all currently mandated training, including periodicity, in consultation with CMP, ADM(HR-Civ), and the Defence Team People Management Committee (DT-PMC)as appropriate, and submit a detailed business case to CDS/DM for approval with respect to any new mandated training for DND employees and/or CAF members that affects other or all L1s. Unrestricted growth of online training results in a large aggregate drain on workforce to accomplish priority efforts. Risk must be appropriately weighed to ensure that Defence Team members’ time is not treated as an unconstrained resource;

Assuming I’m reading the right document

CDS/DM Directive for CAF Reconstitution - Canada.ca

This directive will set in motion a significant body of work that will provide direction on the course corrections that are required to overcome deficiencies that are hampering the composition and readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

www.canada.ca

 

[daftandbarmy]

Under Mission/Execution Para 14

FAs are to review and validate all currently mandated training, including periodicity, in consultation with CMP, ADM(HR-Civ), and the Defence Team People Management Committee (DT-PMC)as appropriate, and submit a detailed business case to CDS/DM for approval with respect to any new mandated training for DND employees and/or CAF members that affects other or all L1s. Unrestricted growth of online training results in a large aggregate drain on workforce to accomplish priority efforts. Risk must be appropriately weighed to ensure that Defence Team members’ time is not treated as an unconstrained resource;

Assuming I’m reading the right document

CDS/DM Directive for CAF Reconstitution - Canada.ca

This directive will set in motion a significant body of work that will provide direction on the course corrections that are required to overcome deficiencies that are hampering the composition and readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

www.canada.ca

That's going to take alot of time, ironically.

Just sayin'

 

[SupersonicMax]

That's going to take alot of time, ironically.

Just sayin'

I have already semi-given up on the 50 some odd « mandatory » courses we all need to do. I told my folks to do them if they have time at work. Otherwise, not a big deal and I’ll let them know which ones are more important.

Some folks were doing them on weekends. Not worth spending their personal time doing courses with extremely (if of any) limited value to their day-to-day jobs and development.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have already semi-given up on the 50 some odd « mandatory » courses we all need to do. I told my folks to do them if they have time at work. Otherwise, not a big deal and I’ll let them know which ones are more important.

Some folks were doing them on weekends. Not worth spending their personal time doing courses with extremely (if of any) limited value to their day-to-day jobs and development.

 

[Fabius]

Reading the entire “order” I can’t help but feel this is more of a Commanders Planning Guidance document than an order. Semantics perhaps I know but through it seems like most items are short details or ideas and heavy on buzz words.
Ie. “Rapidly Grow”, “Implement a pers management system that attracts and retains” “broaden diversity” “ensure we are a employer of choice” “deliver operations within resources”

Again perhaps I am being critical but all the actual tasks can be boiled down to saying figure it out and let us know. I don’t see that achieving much especially when CAF modernization seems to be specially excluded as outside the scope of reconstitution.

Overall I think I am perhaps too critical of this document but it seems rather open ended and unspecific right now until all the L1s do something.

If history is an indication the L1s will be busy building power point decks outlining how current processes and programs are achieving these items and how they have already taken steps to meet the words contained in the document.

 

[kev994]

That's going to take alot of time, ironically.

Just sayin'

It will take a lot of time for a handful of people, but the opposite is much worse, eg a 3 day course mandatory for 100,000 people uses an absurd amount of person-hours.

 

[dapaterson]

Working in the Army HQ, I once pointed out to my boss that a "single simple question that will take an hour to answer by reserve units" sent to the four divisions, to the ten brigades, to ~150 units, back to 10 bdes, back to 4 divs, back to the Army HQ just took close to 180 hours of work - or more than a full month for one person full time. Me spending 2-3 days data mining to get the same answer was much more efficient.

(And also avoided letting each of those points through the chain add their own spin / change to the question, and thus ensured a common standard for the data).

 

[kev994]

Working in the Army HQ, I once pointed out to my boss that a "single simple question that will take an hour to answer by reserve units" sent to the four divisions, to the ten brigades, to ~150 units, back to 10 bdes, back to 4 divs, back to the Army HQ just took close to 180 hours of work - or more than a full month for one person full time. Me spending 2-3 days data mining to get the same answer was much more efficient.

(And also avoided letting each of those points through the chain add their own spin / change to the question, and thus ensured a common standard for the data).

I wish everyone knew that, usually on the way down it sits in someone’s inbox for a week, then someone else needs an answer before they go on leave so they can pass it on, by the time it gets to the unit there’s a couple hours left to answer it when the big head gave ~3 months at the start of the email chain. You can get a quick answer, or a well researched answer, but not both.

 

[FJAG]

A new CDS will be along in 24 to 30 months. Possibly a new government, too, which will have even less interest in defence, particularly if it interferes with their woke green agenda.

Is Chretien coming back?

 

[Haggis]

Is Chretien coming back?

No, but Trudeau's not leaving.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

No, but Trudeau's not leaving.

Not of his own volition at least.

The NDP are getting antsy at Trudeau crossing the line and they can easily trigger an election

The LPC big heads might have a different timeline than Le Dauphin and may desire new blood is best before the next election.

The voting public always have their say too. A snap election was Trudeau's hope to regain majority status, but he read the tea leaves wrong and here we are.

Events are funny like that....

 

[dapaterson]

A snap election was Trudeau's hope to regain majority status, but he read the tea leaves wrong and here we are.

Or read the leaves right to maintain a minority government; another 9 months or so and we might have had an O'Toole minority government.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or read the leaves right to maintain a minority government; another 9 months or so and we might have had an O'Toole minority government.

 

[ueo]

I'm not so sure. Our UK friends had - maybe (likely) still have - a bunch of positions marked RO - Retired Officer.

I was a director in a job that could, perhaps should have been a civil service job ... except that it required a fair bit of military judgment and, in our system in the 1980s, we found it very, very difficult to hire a civil servant when there was a hard requirement for military skills and knowledge. The problem was (still is?) a mix of civil service and military reluctance. I eventually, 1990s, converted my deputy director from a LCol to and ENG05; it was a looooong (3 years) uphill battle against both uniformed and civilian opposition. The military (my branch) didn't want to lose a LCol's position and the civil service didn't want to approve a position the required relevant and recent military training and experience.

The UK had no such problem. My counterpart in their MOD was a Group Captain [Col] (RO). The RO designation meant he was a civil servant and could expect to be in that job for five to 15 years (two or three 'normal' military tour lengths). The selected officer could be a recently retired suitable Cdr/LCol/WgCdr, a Capt(N)/Col/GpCapt or a Cmdre/Brig/AC. The MOD, NOT the civl service, did the selection BUT the officer had to retire (if not already retired) and be accepted into the civil service (a formality, I think) before taking up her or his post.

There were quite a few of them in the MOD - radio spectrum, for sure, ComSec, too, I'm about 99.9% sure and several others in tech fields. It seemed to work for them.

Back then recruiting was run by a civilian. Things ran relatively smoothly. Applicants were processed in 3-5 days, problems/hickups dealt withh by phone direct to him. Slick as snot on a hens upper lip, then came the everongoing QLM/ QLC/??? parade. All went to rat sh^t almost over night. Initial perp- an Adml who drank the american cool aid.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Reading the entire “order” I can’t help but feel this is more of a Commanders Planning Guidance document than an order. Semantics perhaps I know but through it seems like most items are short details or ideas and heavy on buzz words.
Ie. “Rapidly Grow”, “Implement a pers management system that attracts and retains” “broaden diversity” “ensure we are a employer of choice” “deliver operations within resources”

Again perhaps I am being critical but all the actual tasks can be boiled down to saying figure it out and let us know. I don’t see that achieving much especially when CAF modernization seems to be specially excluded as outside the scope of reconstitution.

Overall I think I am perhaps too critical of this document but it seems rather open ended and unspecific right now until all the L1s do something.

If history is an indication the L1s will be busy building power point decks outlining how current processes and programs are achieving these items and how they have already taken steps to meet the words contained in the document.

I felt a strong tinge of cynicism reading that preamble as well. The CAF has been trying to increase recruiting and failing for years (decades?) so what will change now?

Also if they do succeed, we don't have infrastructure, qualified, competent instructors or even courses set up to do that in the short term.

Weirdly it takes time to train people to be competent instructors, and they need things like class rooms, training materials etc. The schools are running at capacity. so even if we somehow get a bunch of recruits a whack of post BMQ PATs isn't in anyone's interest. The only way to relatively quickly increase throughput is to go back to having college programs with a small delta training at the end, but we've killed all those. Those will take years to set up again.

 

[GR66]

The training system clearly needs some serious fixing (and there have been good suggestions about leveraging civilian schools for the non-military specific portions of the training) but we also have to recognize that personnel costs are a major portion of the Defence budget. At the same time as we are improving the training system (and better promoting the CAF to attract more applicants) we should also be looking at how we can use technology to reduce the number of full-time pers we need to operate (both peacetime and wartime functions) and also fix the Reserves so that we can have effective part-timers as part of the system.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The training system clearly needs some serious fixing (and there have been good suggestions about leveraging civilian schools for the non-military specific portions of the training) but we also have to recognize that personnel costs are a major portion of the Defence budget. At the same time as we are improving the training system (and better promoting the CAF to attract more applicants) we should also be looking at how we can use technology to reduce the number of full-time pers we need to operate (both peacetime and wartime functions) and also fix the Reserves so that we can have effective part-timers as part of the system.

Having been involved in one of the most "technologically forward" Corps within the CA, the concept that we can automate processes scares most people above the rank of Major/MWO. This isn't even just combat arms or combat support types; this is CSS and HQ support folks.

We have a long way to go to get that level of buy in to see the "more teeth, less tail" benefits you speak of.

 

[dapaterson]

If God meant for me to trust reports on a computer, he never would have invented paper, a clipboard and a pencil.

 

[MJP]

Having been involved in one of the most "technologically forward" Corps within the CA, the concept that we can automate processes scares most people above the rank of Major/MWO. This isn't even just combat arms or combat support types; this is CSS and HQ support folks.

We have a long way to go to get that level of buy in to see the "more teeth, less tail" benefits you speak of.

I hear ya, work in an area that is rife for exploitations (in a good way) for robotic process automation. We are moving forward with doing some test cases but across the CAF there is a lack of knowledge and perhaps misunderstanding what RPA is and what it can do. Add in a bureaucracy where getting the software approved and linked in to our system takes eons plus we generally have to contract out the initial RPA programming makes it a slow slog.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The training system clearly needs some serious fixing (and there have been good suggestions about leveraging civilian schools for the non-military specific portions of the training) but we also have to recognize that personnel costs are a major portion of the Defence budget. At the same time as we are improving the training system (and better promoting the CAF to attract more applicants) we should also be looking at how we can use technology to reduce the number of full-time pers we need to operate (both peacetime and wartime functions) and also fix the Reserves so that we can have effective part-timers as part of the system.

I've always thought, for my trade, we really don't need beginner trades training.

I truly think we would be better off giving our new MMTs an OJT package and send them on their way for their superiors and units to process.

For my trade our school is habitually behind the ball when it comes to current training. And much of what they teach and preach really isn't the way our business is conducted in the real world. Minus if course the field filling use of DRIMS, which in itself is just an exercise in repetition.

We should have specialized courses, for building a planning warehousing and environmental specific specialties and procurement, for some example.

And I don't not believe we need the school to facilitate this. Much of this could be pushed out to 2nd and 3rd line entities with central oversight and QA coming from the school.