Reconstitution

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

Generally even the Public Service fails at automating and hiring. Hiring a person into the PS is about 6 months when I retired, I don't think it's much better now. We ran SYEP courses through the summer at the units in the Lower mainland with about 40 recruits in each. Gave them a basic intro to the Army. Quite a few stayed on and became great soldiers and that was back in the days when pay sucked and you signed pink paysheets in the hopes that you get paid if there was any money left in the budget.

 

[MJP]

Generally even the Public Service fails at automating and hiring. Hiring a person into the PS is about 6 months when I retired, I don't think it's much better now. We ran SYEP courses through the summer at the units in the Lower mainland with about 40 recruits in each. Gave them a basic intro to the Army. Quite a few stayed on and became great soldiers and that was back in the days when pay sucked and you signed pink paysheets in the hopes that you get paid if there was any money left in the budget.

No it is still slow. But I wasn't saying we should be using RPA for hiring, although there are likely some use cases that it could work for

I was saying that RPA and other automation would be able to do some things that we currently have umpteen people doing (and failing at), reinforcing @GR66's and @rmc_wannabe's points on tech.

The downfall is new tech is hard and we don't have the skill sets to exploit or the the mechanisms to bring it in in a timely fashion.

 

[dimsum]

the concept that we can automate processes scares most people above the rank of Major/MWO.

Is that a service culture thing, or a generational culture thing?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Is that a service culture thing, or a generational culture thing?

It's both, to be frank.

Digital native - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whereas industry will specifically seek out digital natives for innovation programs and policy, the CAF doesn't really.

A lot of our policies, doctrine, and procurement is based around "this is proven and it works." With limited funds for development and innovation, we don't have the ability to really get ahead of the curve on most things like industry. In civilian companies, you spend the money to innovate faster and better than your competitors; otherwise you become irrelevant and are on the back foot when the next big thing takes over.

Where I see the fix happening in the CAF is getting our collective heads out of our asses and becoming more open to change. Everyone at all levels is guilty of developing TTPs, SOPs, Doctrine, and Policies based on proven experience, but not bending when the next logical advancement moves forward.

Finally, we need look at Tech aversion as Risk averison with strategic consequences. It's all well and good that you trust your map and compass more than the GPS, but all those GBAD, UAS, HIMARS, etc. need a robust GPS/Data backbone to integrate with one another. Same thing with stuff like LCSS and other sensors. We can play broken telephone for 15 minutes with the hope that we retain the initiative; or we can automate to the point that we aren't having that kind of lag happen when it counts.

If the Russo-Ukrainian War has cemented anything, it's that having the edge in 21st century warfare is being able to out think rather than out maneuver your enemy. That is allowing machines, computers, sensors, and other forms of IO to streamline the OODA loop.

If Col Bloggins doesn't like the look and feel of it as opposed to what he trained on in 1995 on Phase 3 Inf training, adapt or become irrelevant

 

[Fabius]

I think it’s primarily a service culture thing reinforced by some generational culture but truly reinforced by an institutional inability to modernize effectively our information systems.

Key examples are:

Email vs Memos and electronic leave passes vs paper butting up against units having almost no computers below Sect Comd and no computer labs or allocation for computers to fill said Lab. Note this is maybe changing with items like PACE but that it still not supported by actual computers and PKI cards are an issue for some items.

SharePoint vs Unit M Drives and a deep resistance and concern over adopting a open to all information environment vs a closed highly restrictive information environment. We have been unable to effectively move to a SharePoint system despite almost a decade of trying. Information Mangement is generally regarded as an afterthought and given either as a secondary job or too a brand new 2Lt.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think it’s primarily a service culture thing reinforced by some generational culture but truly reinforced by an institutional inability to modernize effectively our information systems.

Key examples are:

Email vs Memos and electronic leave passes vs paper butting up against units having almost no computers below Sect Comd and no computer labs or allocation for computers to fill said Lab. Note this is maybe changing with items like PACE but that it still not supported by actual computers and PKI cards are an issue for some items.

SharePoint vs Unit M Drives and a deep resistance and concern over adopting a open to all information environment vs a closed highly restrictive information environment. We have been unable to effectively move to a SharePoint system despite almost a decade of trying. Information Mangement is generally regarded as an afterthought and given either as a secondary job or too a brand new 2Lt.

Paysheets enter the chat and go...

 

[Fabius]

If the Russo-Ukrainian War has cemented anything, it's that having the edge in 21st century warfare is being able to out think rather than out maneuver your enemy. That is allowing machines, computers, sensors, and other forms of IO to streamline the OODA loop.

This seems to be almost the opposite of what the Cdn Army is taking from it though or at least from 2014 onwards. Concern over Russia EW has seen the US double down on their C4ISR and hardening the systems while we at a Bn level have reintroduced dispatch riders and flags to communicate while becoming more skeptics of the electronic footprint of modern battle management systems.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

This seems to be almost the opposite of what the Cdn Army is taking from it though or at least from 2014 onwards. Concern over Russia EW has seen the US double down on their C4ISR and hardening the systems while we at a Bn level have reintroduced dispatch riders and flags to communicate while becoming more skeptics of the electronic footprint of modern battle management systems.

I have had to reel in some folks IRT using SDS/SDR in their PACE planning because they don't seem to realize that although you gain security from an EW standpoint, you're opening yourself up much more to traditional data loss: enemy capture, human loss, drain on personnel and vehicle resources, and a lot of other things going dark (ISTAR, C4ISR, etc.)

Going EMCON 1 is not a solution in a modern battle space. The enemy has had eyes on you since before you arrived in theatre. It's better to harden your systems, act faster than your adversary, and deny him the same freedom of movement in the Information Domain than pretend shrinking your Electromagnetic Spectrum footprint will somehow make you less noticeable.

It's the same thing as Wile E. Coyote putting up a parasol when the Boulder is about to drop on his head.

 

[dimsum]

Maybe it's the CA being able to use dispatch riders, etc as backup - it's not a good thing, but it's a thing.

Whereas in the RCAF, I've seen an understanding that the service (and CAF as a whole) need to modernize. Maybe it's because the RCAF has generally the most tech-heavy and tech-advanced assets.

But I've heard the issue with CA's unwillingness to modernize before. A friend went from a technical project in the RCAF to being a DND civ in a similar technical project in the CA. He said that the biggest difference (aside from the systems themselves, obviously) is that the RCAF folks listen and acknowledge the requirement and implications if it's not done, whereas the CA folks ignore it.

 

[GR66]

We are an expeditionary military. How much of the actual force can expect to be realistically deployed? What units? A great deal of organization (and PYs) are spent just running the CAF as an organization in peacetime. What efficiencies can be found there? Do all of those people really require the wage premium of serving with unlimited liability?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Maybe it's the CA being able to use dispatch riders, etc as backup - it's not a good thing, but it's a thing.

Whereas in the RCAF, I've seen an understanding that the service (and CAF as a whole) need to modernize. Maybe it's because the RCAF has generally the most tech-heavy and tech-advanced assets.

But I've heard the issue with CA's unwillingness to modernize before. A friend went from a technical project in the RCAF to being a DND civ in a similar technical project in the CA. He said that the biggest difference (aside from the systems themselves, obviously) is that the RCAF folks listen and acknowledge the requirement and implications if it's not done, whereas the CA folks ignore it.

I think it's definitely a cultural thing within the CA.

The RCAF and RCN never really deviated from their core mandates over the past 20 years and have adopted new technologies to maintain that logical flow.

The CA got distracted in the 90s with the "Peacekeeping forever" missions and then the "COIN is the new Peacemaking" craze in Afghanistan. Now that we are at the point where things are a lot more conventional/peer-to-peer than they have been, we're seeing a lot of "back to our roots" thinking within our tactics and doctrine.

The huge problem is that its no longer 1986, we're no longer chasing the Soviets out of the Fulda Gap, and even if we hadn't divested the vast majority of our conventional capabilities in the past 35 years; they'd all be obsolete in the face of modern advancements.

So until we get folks on AOC redoing the Red Team book to make it relevant to real world experiences i the past 8 years, we're going to have a rough go of it modernizing our way of thinking.

 

[dimsum]

We are an expeditionary military. How much of the actual force can expect to be realistically deployed? What units?

I think it would be easier to figure out what units/trades are not meant to be deployed.

A great deal of organization (and PYs) are spent just running the CAF as an organization in peacetime. What efficiencies can be found there? Do all of those people really require the wage premium of serving with unlimited liability?

The PRes is now 92% (I think) salary of the Reg F.

Cynical me would say to return to 85% for PRes, and take the money you would have saved from the drop from 92% as an "incentive" for folks to be in the Reg F and be post-able.

You want to settle somewhere and not be posted? Ok - as long as you're making 85% of the folks who are willing to be posted. Also, if you joined in your home town and are on this no-posting scheme, you don't get PLD (or whatever the newest iteration will be) because you never had to buy/sell a home due to the CAF, and you don't get to use CAF medical/dental services.

For the folks who will inevitablly whinge about them getting paid less and lose those benefits/services - they will never be posted, their spouses will continue to accrue seniority, and they don't lose money buying/selling/renting on postings.

No, I have no idea how that would work, or if it's even legal. I wonder if I should post that on CAF Reddit and watch the fireworks.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think it would be easier to figure out what units/trades are not meant to be deployed.


The PRes is now 92% (I think) salary of the Reg F.

Cynical me would say to return to 85% for PRes, and take the money you would have saved from the drop from 92% as an "incentive" for folks to be in the Reg F and be post-able.

You want to settle somewhere and not be posted? Ok - as long as you're making 85% of the folks who are willing to be posted. Also, if you joined in your home town and are on this no-posting scheme, you don't get PLD (or whatever the newest iteration will be) because you never had to buy/sell a home due to the CAF, and you don't get to use CAF medical/dental services.

For the folks who will inevitablly whinge about them getting paid less and lose those benefits/services - they will never be posted, their spouses will continue to accrue seniority, and they don't lose money buying/selling/renting on postings.

No, I have no idea how that would work, or if it's even legal. I wonder if I should post that on CAF Reddit and watch the fireworks.

There are parts of that the Journey program are/were supposed to address.

One suggestion and one question.

Suggestions:
Along with lower pay there should be no rank advancement if one is not willing to fully embrace the CAF lifestyle/career and accept geographic posting.

Question:
What do you do when everyone/vast majority opts for geographic stability?

 

[dapaterson]

Question:
What do you do when everyone/vast majority opts for geographic stability?

Assess why that is. Find incentives and/or change systems.

Or stay in a 1950s manpower model. How's that working out?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Assess why that is. Find incentives and/or change systems.

Or stay in a 1950s manpower model. How's that working out?

I get it and I'm onside. I'm not trying to be obstrepirous.

Right now most trades depend on the posting cycle, and retirements, to facilitate space and availability for promotions. The largest branch in the CAF with the widest variations of posting possibilities, Log NCM, depends on all this to create renewal, generate new leaders and make promotions possible.

Saying we will cross that bridge when we get to it isn't good enough in this case. We need to have a COA in place and maybe various depending on % volume who opt for geographic stability.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Or stay in a 1950s manpower model. How's that working out?

"You mean women have opinions? And careers?! Who let that happen?!"

 

[FJAG]

I think it would be easier to figure out what units/trades are not meant to be deployed.

If universality of service is to mean anything then every trade, every person is meant to be deployed be they RegF or ResF for as long as ss. 31 and 33 of the NDA stays worded the way they are.

The PRes is now 92% (I think) salary of the Reg F.

Cynical me would say to return to 85% for PRes, and take the money you would have saved from the drop from 92% as an "incentive" for folks to be in the Reg F and be post-able.

You want to settle somewhere and not be posted? Ok - as long as you're making 85% of the folks who are willing to be posted. Also, if you joined in your home town and are on this no-posting scheme, you don't get PLD (or whatever the newest iteration will be) because you never had to buy/sell a home due to the CAF, and you don't get to use CAF medical/dental services.

Even when I was in on the RegF side I could never understand this fetish about tying pay to the notion of postings. I presume it arose out of the fact that the CAF unnecessarily shuffles people around from pillar to post into places inhabited only by deer and bears. Honestly guys, it not a d*ck measuring contest.

People get paid for the level of skill they've developed and the time they spend working at it. Reservists already earn a small fraction of what the Regs do due to the number of days a year they work. On top of that RegF get sports days, short leave, and sweeping the gun park floor days etc etc.

There used to be sayings about a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

For the folks who will inevitablly whinge about them getting paid less and lose those benefits/services - they will never be posted, their spouses will continue to accrue seniority, and they don't lose money buying/selling/renting on postings.

How does that matter vis a vis military pay. Wouldn't it be an advantage to RegF retention if the leadership used a few of their brain cells to figure out a career profile that would make that possible for the average RegF soldier rather than try to figure out a way to create a disincentive to people who are prepared to work as a civilian and use a large portion off their spare time to to serve their country? To give up vacation times with the family to go on exercises in some mosquito hell hole?

No, I have no idea how that would work, or if it's even legal. I wonder if I should post that on CAF Reddit and watch the fireworks.

You don't need to go to Reddit for it.

Get back to the basic issue which is to fill the military with valuable soldiers. Wouldn't it benefit the force tremendously if you converted a large part of it to working part-time so that the costs in personnel savings could be converted to finally be used to buy equipment. And if they stayed in the CAF for quite a while because they were able to live a balanced life with their family?

Last thought ... one which will spark fireworks here ... a military that does not have the equipment nor the capability to fight a serious war to defend its country's sovereignty is at best a high priced make-work project and at worst a uniformed bureaucratic welfare system.

Let the begin!

 

[dimsum]

Get back to the basic issue which is to fill the military with valuable soldiers. Wouldn't it benefit the force tremendously if you converted a large part of it to working part-time so that the costs in personnel savings could be converted to finally be used to buy equipment. And if they stayed in the CAF for quite a while because they were able to live a balanced life with their family?

Or, another option - let people live wherever, but they do month-long (or whatever) stints, like Fort Mac.

How they get there is up to them. You're "posted" to Shilo but want to live in Halifax? Sure - just make sure you're in Shilo during your allotted days.

The RCAF is in the process of doing this, but the ADF has different rates of pay depending on trade - so, a Cook is paid differently than an HRA, for example. That, plus "incentive" money for postings like Cold Lake, may help.

The issue is that this current model is not working. I'm not saying because it's what the people are saying on CAF Reddit. I know many people between the 6 and 20 year mark that are seriously looking at pulling pin. It's one thing if someone does one IE and decides it's not for them, but it's something else for someone with 20 years in to not do the extra 5 for pension.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I’d take these folks for fed govt over what we have now…

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.

The can re-inflate the PRETC carnival bouncy house…

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I’d take these folks for fed govt over what we have now…


The can re-inflate the PRETC carnival bouncy house…

I hear Dundurn is under utilized…shacks…classrooms…training area…just sayin…